scholarly journals Phase 1 Trial of Cladribine, High-Dose Cytarabine, G-CSF, and Dose-Escalated Mitoxantrone (CLAG-M) Plus Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in Adults with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or Other High-Grade Myeloid Neoplasm

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3892-3892
Author(s):  
Colin D. Godwin ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Mary-Elizabeth M. Percival ◽  
Bart L. Scott ◽  
Pamela S. Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Background: We recently found that CLAG-M was safe and produced higher rates of CR/CRi and higher measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative CR (measured by multiparameter flow cytometry [MFC]) than standard "7+3" therapy in fit patients with newly-diagnosed AML or other high-grade myeloid neoplasm with ≥10% blasts (HG-MN). Since addition of the CD33 antibody-drug conjugate gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to chemotherapy reduces relapse risk and improves survival in some AML patients, we conducted a phase 1 study (NCT03531918) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of GO with CLAG-M in fit adults with newly-diagnosed AML (APL excluded) or HG-MN. Patients and Methods: Adults ≥18 years were eligible if they were fit (treatment-related mortality [TRM] score ≤13.1, corresponding to < 13.1% risk of TRM within 1 month) and had LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, and bilirubin ≤2.5-times upper limit of normal. Patients with concomitant illness with expected survival <1 year, with uncontrolled infection, or in myeloid blast phase of chronic myeloid leukemia were excluded. Doses were escalated in cohorts of 6 patients over 2 dose levels of GO ("GO1": 3 mg/m2 on day 1; "GO3": 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, and 7 [doses capped 4.5 mg]); the highest dose level achieved could then enroll an additional 6 patients (12 total) if ≤2 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. CLAG-M consisted of cladribine 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), cytarabine 2 g/m2/day (days 1-5), G-CSF 300 or 480 μg/day (for weight <76 kg vs. ≥76 kg; days 0-5), and mitoxantrone (18 mg/m2/day; days 1-3). A second course of CLAG-M (without GO) was given if MRD-negative CR/CRi was not achieved. DLT was defined as: 1) any grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity lasting >48 hours that resulted in >7 day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle, with the exception of febrile neutropenia/infection; 2) any grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity, with the exception of febrile neutropenia/infection or constitutional symptoms, if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days. The protocol was approved by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Institutional Review Board. Results: We enrolled 18 patients, median age 66 (range: 28-77) years, median TRM score 3.92 (range: 0.14-10.3) with newly-diagnosed AML (n=14) or HG-MN (n=4); 7 were "favorable", 4 "intermediate and 7 "adverse" by 2017 European LeukemiaNet criteria. The first 6 patients were treated at GO1, with 1 DLT (grade 3 left ventricular systolic dysfunction). Two subsequent cohorts of 6 were treated at GO3. Three DLTs occurred at this second dose level (grade 4 aminotransferase level increase, grade 3 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, grade 3 intracranial hemorrhage). As prespecified in the protocol, with ≤4/12 DLTs the MTD was formally not reached and GO3 was declared the recommended phase 2 dose. Among 18 evaluable patients, 13 achieved CR and 2 CRi for a CR/CRi rate of 83% (95% confidence interval: 59-96%). 13/15 CR/CRi patients were negative for MRD by MFC and cytogenetics for an MRDneg CR/CRi rate of 72% (49-88%). The 3 patients without CR/CRi had marrow aplasia without MFC evidence of AML at time of study removal. Two underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in aplasia; the other achieved later neutrophil recovery prior to AML recurrence 2.5 months following induction without interval therapy. 5/18 did not have platelet recovery to 100,000/µL prior to the next therapy/removal from study. Median time to absolute neutrophil count of 1000/µL (achieved in 16/18 patients) and platelet count of 100,000/µL (achieved in 13/18 patients) was 35 (range: 24-48) days and 31 (range: 26-48) days, respectively. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, hypertension and left ventricular systolic dysfunction were the most common adverse events. One patient had severe, self-limited liver toxicity characterized by weight gain and elevated aminotransferases without hyperbilirubinemia and did not meet typical clinical criteria for sinusoidal obstructive syndrome. There were no deaths within 56 days of starting induction in this study cohort. Conclusions: CLAG-M with fractionated-dose GO is feasible in patients with newly-diagnosed AML/HG-MN and appears to have high anti-tumor efficacy. CR/CRi and MRDneg CR rates were similar to what we observed with CLAG-M alone (86% and 71%, respectively). A phase 2 study based on these findings has been initiated, using event-free survival as primary efficacy endpoint. Disclosures Othus: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Percival:Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scott:Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Becker:The France Foundation: Honoraria; Accordant Health Services/Caremark: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glycomimetics, Invivoscribe, JW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Trovagene: Research Funding. Gardner:Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Oehler:Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; NCCN: Consultancy. Halpern:Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Walter:Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Cladribine is not approved for AML, only Hairy Cell Leukemia, however it is widely used for AML with literature supporting it.

A Phase 1/2 Study of G-CSF, Cladribine, Cytarabine, and Dose-Escalated Mitoxantrone (G-CLAM) in Adults with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1068-1068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna B. Halpern ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Emily M Huebner ◽  
Kaysey F. Orlowski ◽  
Bart L. Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels

Abstract Introduction:"7+3" with standard doses of cytarabine and an anthracycline has remained the mainstay of induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Since some studies have shown improved outcomes with high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, or escalated doses of anthracyclines, we conducted a phase 1/2 study (NCT02044796) of G-CLAM using escalated doses of mitoxantrone for newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS (>10% blasts). Methods: Patients≥18 years were eligible if they had treatment-related mortality (TRM) scores of ≤6.9 (corresponding to a predicted risk of early death with standard induction chemotherapy of ≤6.9%) and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, bilirubin ≤2.5 times upper limit of normal). Excluded were patients with uncontrolled infection or concomitant illness with expected survival <1 year. In phase 1, cohorts of 6-12 patients were assigned to 1 of 4 total dose levels of mitoxantrone (12, 14, 16, or 18 mg/m2/day, days 1-3, compared to 10 mg/m2/day used in standard dose G-CLAM previously established in relapsed/refractory AML). Other drug doses were G-CSF 300 or 480 μg/day (for weight </≥76 kg; days 0-5), cladribine 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), and cytarabine 2 g/m2/day (days 1-5). In phase 2, patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of mitoxantrone. A second identical course of G-CLAM was given if complete remission (CR) was not achieved with cycle 1. Up to 4 cycles of consolidation with G-CLA (mitoxantrone omitted) were allowed if CR or CR with incomplete platelet or blood count recovery (CRp/i) was achieved with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were: 1) grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity lasting >48 hours that resulted in >7-day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle; 2) grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days, both excluding febrile neutropenia, infection or constitutional symptoms. Results: Among 33 patients (median age of 57.3 [range: 26-77], median TRM score 2.31 [0.16-5.90]) treated in phase 1, one DLT occurred at dose levels 3 and 4 (respiratory failure in both cases), establishing G-CLAM with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2/day as the MTD. Sixty-two patients, including 6 treated in phase 1, received G-CLAM at MTD. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age 58 (21-81) years, median TRM score 2.85 (0.06-6.73), with AML (n=52) or high-risk MDS (n=10). Cytogenetics were favorable in 6, intermediate in 44, and adverse in 12 (MRC criteria); 11 patients had NPM1 and 6 had FLT3 mutations. Fifty-two patients (83.9%, 95% confidence interval: 72.3-92.0%) achieved a CR (n=48 [77.4%: 65.0-87.1%]), or CRp/i (n=4 [6.5%: 1.8-15.7%]) with 1-2 cycles of therapy. Only 3 patients required 2 cycles to best response. Among the 48 CR patients, 43 (89.6%) were negative for measurable residual disease (MRDneg) by flow cytometry. Four patients had morphologic leukemia free state, 1 patient with myeloid sarcoma had a partial remission, 4 had resistant disease, and 1 died from indeterminate cause. One patient died within 28 days of treatment initiation (septic shock). Median times to an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/μL and a platelet count of ≥50,000/μL were 26 and 23 days. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, maculopapular rash, and hypoxia (fluid overload/infection-related) were the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. In addition to the phase 1/2 MTD cohort, there were 15 patients treated in an expansion cohort and 3 eligible patients treated off protocol with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2. For these 80 patients combined treated at MTD, the CR and CR/CRp/i rates were 76.3% and 81.2%. After multivariable adjustment, compared to 300 patients treated with 7+3 on the SWOG S0106 trial, G-CLAM with mitoxantrone 18mg/ m2 was associated with an increased probability of CR (odds ratio [OR]= 3.08, p=.02), CR/CRp/i (OR=2.96, p=.03), a trend towards improved MRDnegCR (OR= 3.70, p=.06), and a trend towards improved overall survival ([OS]; hazard ratio=0.34, p=.07). For the entire study cohort, the 6 and 12-month relapse-free survival were 73% (64-83%) and 62% (42-74%) and the 6 and 12-month OS were 89% (82- 96%) and 77% (67-88%). Conclusions: G-CLAM with mitoxantrone up to 18 mg/m2/day is well tolerated and has potent anti-leukemia activity. This regimen may warrant further randomized comparison with 7+3. We also plan to examine the addition of sorafenib to G-CLAM in newly diagnosed AML patients regardless of FLT3 status. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) In Combination with Vorinostat as Front-Line Therapy for Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): Initial Results of a Phase 1 Study

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3034-3034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽  
Jatin J Shah ◽  
Jacob P. Laubach ◽  
Leonard Heffner ◽  
Dixil Francis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Upfront Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3034 Background: The combination of lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), and dexamethasone (D) (RVD) in newly diagnosed MM patients is well tolerated and associated with a very high overall response rate. The goal of the current trial is to improve on the CR rate compared with RVD by adding a novel targeted agent. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that vorinostat (Vor), an HDAC inhibitor, is synergistic with bortezomib, immunomodulatory (IMiD®) compounds and dexamethasone. Clinical studies in the relapsed setting using either bortezomib or lenalidomide with vorinostat have yielded promising results with manageable toxicity. The aim of this study is to determine the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of the combination of RVD with vorinostat in newly diagnosed patients with symptomatic MM. Methods: Patients (Pts) received the current standard RVD regimen (lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–14, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, 11 and dexamethasone 20/10 mg PO [cycles 1–4/5-8] days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 for up to 8 21 day cycles) combined with oral vorinostat (Vor), provided by Merck and Co. Inc., at 100, 200, 300 or 400 mg daily days 1 – 14 of each cycle. Pts were assigned to one of the four dosing cohorts according to the Bayesian Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) algorithm. DLT (≥ G3 non hematologic toxicity, G4 hematologic toxicities defined as G4 thrombocytopenia of any duration; failure of recovery of ANC to ≥1,000/μL or platelets to ≥50,000/μL within 14 days of the last treatment; or inability to receive Day 1 dose for Cycle 2 due to continued drug-related toxicity from cycle 1) was determined in the first cycle of therapy. Toxicities were assessed and graded for all cycles using the NCI CTCAE v 3.0. Responses were assessed by modified EBMT and Uniform criteria. Pts with PR or better could proceed to autologous transplant after ≥ 4 cycles. Results: Eleven pts (median age 54, 82% men, 54.5% ISS Stage II/III) have been enrolled to date with n=4 pts each in cohorts 1 (Vor 100mg) and 2 (Vor 200mg), and 3 pts in cohort 3 (Vor 300 mg). One patient has completed 8 cycles, 1 pt completed 4 cycles and proceeded to transplant, 6 pts remain on study treatment and 3 pts have discontinued therapy (1 for significant peripheral neuropathy {grade 3}, 1 for patient choice unrelated to toxicity and 1 for non adherence). Two DLTs have occurred: syncope (cohort 1) and asymptomatic grade 3 elevation of ALT (cohort 2) with none in cohort 3.The episode of syncope was not related to cardiac arrhythmia. One study related SAE has occurred (syncope). One other episode of grade 3 elevation of ALT occurred in a pt in cycle 3 in cohort 1. Both episodes of increased ALT resolved and patients remained on study with dose modification. One patient developed grade 3 diarrhea in cohort 1. No patients have developed a grade 4 toxicity. Treatment emergent peripheral neuropathy occurred in 6 patients (4 grade 1, 1 grade 2 and 1 grade 3). No episodes of study related grade 3 fatigue, nausea, or vomiting have occurred. The MTD has not been reached. Eight patients are evaluable for response. All have responded to study therapy with 3 CRs, 1 VGPR and 4 PRs. Three patients went on to stem cell collection after 4 cycles and all collected an adequate dose for transplant of >5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg. Conclusion: The combination of RVD with vorinostat has been generally well tolerated to date. No unexpected toxicity has been noted with side effects commensurate with prior experience with each of the drugs and no additive toxicity seen to date. While asymptomatic elevation of ALT has been seen and will require ongoing monitoring, grade 3 ALT elevation was a DLT in the original RVD study and related to dexamethasone, so may not be related to the addition of vorinostat. Early efficacy data is promising with 50% of patients achieving a VGPR or higher. Accrual is ongoing to determine the MTD. Disclosures: Kaufman: Celgene, Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene, Merck: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Use of lenalidomide as upfront therapy. Use of vorinostat as upfront therapy. Shah:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Heffner:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orlowski:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Venetoclax Combined with Rituximab, Ifosfamide, Carboplatin and Etoposide Chemoimmunotherapy (VICER) for Treatment of Relapsed Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: Results from the Phase 1 Study

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 397-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Caimi ◽  
Deepa Jagadeesh ◽  
Kirsten Marie Boughan ◽  
Robert M. Dean ◽  
Brenda Cooper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease after front line chemoimmunotherapy have poor survival. Standard second line therapy for r/r DLBCL consists of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Approximately 50% of pts do not respond to second line therapy, highlighting the need for increased efficacy of these regimens. The antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 is overexpressed in approximately 30% of DLBCL cases. Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that addition of venetoclax (VEN), a potent selective Bcl-2 inhibitor, to chemoimmunotherapy augments response rates and durability in lymphoma. We conducted a phase 1 dose escalation and dose expansion study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VEN in combination with R-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide) (VICER) r/r DLBCL pts. Here we present the results after completion of VEN dose escalation. Methods: Patients (≥18 years of age) with r/r DLBCL who failed one or two lines of therapy were enrolled. The primary objective was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VEN when combined with R-ICE. VEN was given orally on days 1 - 10 of each 21 - day cycle x 3 cycles. Dose escalation was conducted according to a 3+3 design, with 3 dose levels (400, 600 and 800mg). R-ICE was given at standard dose and schedule on days 1 - 3 of each cycle for 3 cycles. No intra-patient dose escalation was allowed. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) mitigation included inpatient administration, hydration, allopurinol and frequent laboratory evaluation during cycle 1. All patients received pegfilgrastim; use of prophylactic antibiotics during neutropenia was left at the discretion of the treating physician. Results: As of July 20, 2018, 18 pts with DLBCL (14 male, 4 female) were enrolled (VEN 400mg, n = 3; 600 mg, n = 3; 800 mg, n = 12). Median age of pts was 55.5 years [range 27-78]. All pts received rituximab and anthracycline containing first - line therapy, 4 patients had failed a second line of therapy. One patient experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) at 800 mg VEN, with acute renal failure, febrile neutropenia, sepsis and rapid tumor progression and died after cycle 1. No other DLTs were observed. Hematologic toxicity was common, with grade ≥3 anemia in 6 (33%) pts; grade ≥3 neutropenia in 14 (78%) pts and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia in 10 (55%) pts. Five (28%) pts experienced febrile neutropenia. The most common non-hematologic all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (7 [38%] pts), nausea (6 [33%] pts); diarrhea (6 [33%] pts), anorexia (5 [27%] pts], infection (5 [27%] pts) and sensory neuropathy (5 [27%] pts). Grade ≥3 TEAEs included infection (4 [22%] pts), cholecystitis (2 [11%]) and one case each (5.5%) of peripheral edema, acute renal failure, acute coronary syndrome, atrial fibrillation, hyponatremia and hypokalemia. One case of laboratory TLS occurred, but no clinical TLS was observed. At data cutoff, the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 13 patients that had at least one cycle of therapy and end of treatment response or had discontinued prior to response assessment; 3 pts did not complete all planned cycles of VICER: one patient died after DLT, one patient proceeded to ASCT in complete remission (CR) after 2 cycles and another withdrew after cycle 1, achieving partial remission (PR) with additional 2 cycles of R-ICE. Nine pts (69%) achieved CR and 2 (15%) achieved PR (overall response rate (ORR): 11/13 [84.6%]) (Tables 2 and 3). Figure 1 depicts tumor response data. Among 11 responding pts, 7 have undergone stem cell collection, with a median CD34 cell count of 3.73x106 cells/kg. Seven pts have completed their ASCT, with hematopoietic engraftment in all cases. Median follow up of patients in CR/PR is 6 months (range 1 - 12), none has experienced progression. Conclusions: In this Phase 1 study, VICER shows encouraging antilymphoma activity in r/r DLBCL, including double hit/double expressor lymphomas, with high rates of complete metabolic response (69% CR by PET), which is higher than historical levels reported with R-ICE alone (CR typically <45%). The RP2D of VEN is 800 mg. Hematologic toxicity - particularly neutropenia - is common, and G-CSF support as well as antibiotic prophylaxis are necessary to prevent infectious complications. Updated safety, progression-free survival and response data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Caimi: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) Consolidation Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Large Multi-Center Phase II Trial

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 123-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Nitya Nathwani ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Abhinav Deol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Oral Regimen ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free and overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM) and has largely become the standard of care. Consolidation therapy, a brief duration of more-intensive chemotherapy administered prior to maintenance, has been shown to further deepen responses and may improve long-term outcomes. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an all oral regimen that has been shown to be active in newly diagnosed MM as well as relapsed disease. In this study, we are analyzing the safety and efficacy of IRd as consolidation therapy after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, are being consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients receive 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. The primary end point is minimal residual disease (MRD) status. MRD is being assessed by ClonoSEQ where possible and by multi-color flow where not. Toxicity, IMWG response rate, PFS, and OS are secondary end points. One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients are randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15) or lenalidomide (15 mg daily). In total, 240 patients will be enrolled on the trial. This presentation coincides with planned interim analysis 2 which included data from the consolidation phase only. Results: As of July 2018, 172 patients with NDMM have been enrolled from 10 centers within the US. The median age was 57 (range 28-70) and 67% were male. 76% were white, 10% African-American/Black, and 13% were another race. 39% were ISS Stage I, 30% were Stage II, and 20% were Stage III. All patients received proteasome inhibitors and/or IMIDs as front-line induction and melphalan as conditioning for ASCT. IRd consolidation started at a median of 110 days post-ASCT (range 80-138). IRd has been well tolerated. Only 4% (6/154) of patients have been unable to complete the 4 cycles of consolidation to date due to toxicity. Grade 3 hematologic toxicity has been uncommon; 4% neutropenia, 3% thrombocytopenia, and 2% anemia. There has been no grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Non-hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities have included: infection (8%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (3%), and transaminitis (1%). No grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy has been reported. One case of grade 5 pneumonia was reported but was not considered related to study treatment. Following ASCT, the MRD-negative rate was 26% and this improved to 37% following consolidation. In the subset of patients with Clonoseq results available, the MRD negative rate improved from 19% to 27%. Clinical response rate improved similarly; prior to consolidation the VGPR or better rate was 76% including 39% CR/sCR. Following consolidation, the VGPR or better rate was 85% including 56% CR/sCR. 137 patients went on to receive maintenance with either ixazomib (n = 71) or lenalidomide (n = 66). At time of submission, the median follow-up from start of IRd is 14 months and 28 patients have relapsed/progressed and 6 have expired. An interim analysis is planned for 2019, representing the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. Conclusion: IRd consolidation following ASCT appears to be safe and effective. The all oral regimen is convenient for patients which greatly simplifies follow-up in the peri-transplant period. Study enrollment is scheduled to complete in Q1 of 2019. Disclosures Vij: Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Deol:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gregory:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Chari:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; The Binding Site: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Ixazomib or Lenalidomide Maintenance Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (IRD) Consolidation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results from a Large Multi-Center Randomized Phase II Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 602-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Nitya Nathwani ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Feng Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of &gt;1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

scholarly journals A Phase 1/2 Study to Assess Safety and Dose of Ixazomib in Combination with Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3128-3128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larysa Sanchez ◽  
Heather J Landau ◽  
Cara A. Rosenbaum ◽  
Alex Abrahams ◽  
Cindy Chin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Al Amyloidosis ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: AL amyloidosis is an incurable clonal plasma cell disorder characterized by tissue deposits of immunoglobulin light chain fragments leading to organ dysfunction and death. Standard treatment for newly diagnosed patients (pts) has traditionally included oral melphalan + dexamethasone as well as high-dose melphalan + ASCT. Although the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CyBorD) has activity, better tolerated treatment approaches are needed. Here we report preliminary results of a Phase 1/2, open-label, multi-institution study of ixazomib (I) in combination with cyclophosphamide (Cy) and dexamethasone (D) in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Methods: Eligible pts are ≥18 years with newly diagnosed, untreated biopsy-proven AL amyloidosis according to standard criteria. A total of up to 30 pts will be enrolled, with up to 18 in the dose escalation arm (phase 1) and 12 in the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) expansion arm (phase 2) according to a classical 3+3 design. Four dose levels were evaluated in phase 1. I and Cy are given orally (PO) on days 1, 8, 15, and D 20mg PO on days 1, 8, 15, 22 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment continues for a total of 6 cycles or until disease progression, significant toxicity or withdrawal. The primary study objective in phase 1 is to establish the MTD and in phase 2 is to determine hematologic/organ response rate. Results: As of May 2019, 18 pts have been enrolled; 16 in phase 1 and 2 in phase 2. The MTD was established at dose level 3 (I 4mg and Cy 500mg). Median age is 65 years (range 46-79), 12 (67%) are male. Light chain isotype is lambda in 14 (78%). Seven pts (39%) have cardiac, 10 (56%) renal, 4 (22%) gastrointestinal, 1 (6%) hepatic, 2 (11%) soft tissue involvement, with 22% having multi-organ involvement. Four pts (22%) completed 6 cycles of therapy and 6 (33%) remain on study with a median of 3 cycles completed. Eight pts (44%) have been taken off study prior to completing 6 cycles due to no response in 5 (28%) after a median of 3.5 cycles (2-5), grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia unrelated to study drug in 1 (6%), cardiac decompensation in 1 (6%), and 1 death attributed to advanced disease. Eight of 16 pts (50%) had at least 1 drug-related adverse event (AE) (any grade), most commonly edema (19%), fatigue (19%), dizziness/lightheadedness (13%) and lymphopenia (13%). Grade 3/4 AEs were rare with grade 3 lymphopenia, anemia, and hyponatremia occurring in 13%, 6%, and 6% of pts, respectively. Of 18 evaluable pts, 7 (39%) achieved ≥VGPR with the median time to best response 2 cycles (1-5). Conclusion: The combination of ICyD for pts with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis is safe and well tolerated. Phase 1 is completed and the recommended phase 2 dose has been established. Deep hematologic responses (≥VGPR) have occurred and time to response appears similar to standard of care induction regimens, ie CyBorD. Phase 2 response data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures Landau: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenbaum:Janssen: Research Funding; Honoraria Akcea: Other: Accordant Health. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Hassoun:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 901-901
Author(s):  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Giulia Benevolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those &gt;75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p&lt;0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4304-4304
Author(s):  
Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽  
Rudy Agius ◽  
Arnon P. Kater ◽  
Mark-David Levin ◽  
Anders Österborg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Educational Grant ◽  
Travel Grant ◽  
Grade 3

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3884-3884
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Suzanne Hayman ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Francis Buadi ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Toxicity Profile ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Phase II Study of the Pan-Deacetylase Inhibitor Panobinostat in Combination with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Bortezomib-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (PANORAMA 2)

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 814-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Melissa Alsina ◽  
Donna M. Weber ◽  
Steven E. Coutre ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stage 1

Abstract Abstract 814FN2 Background: Patients with refractory multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and an extremely poor prognosis. A recent study of patients who were refractory to bortezomib and were relapsed following, refractory to or ineligible to receive an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD, thalidomide or lenalidomide) demonstrated a median event-free survival of only 5 months (Kumar S et al, Leukemia, 2011). Panobinostat is an oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that increases acetylation of proteins involved in multiple oncogenic pathways. Preclinical studies have demonstrated synergistic anti-myeloma activity of the combination of panobinostat and bortezomib through dual inhibition of the aggresome and proteasome pathways. In a phase I study (B2207) of patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM treated with panobinostat + bortezomib, clinical responses (≥ minimal response [MR]) were observed in 65% of patients, including in patients with bortezomib-refractory disease. PANORAMA 2 seeks to expand upon these preliminary results and seeks to determine whether panobinostat can sensitize resistant patients to a bortezomib-containing therapeutic regimen. Methods: PANORAMA 2 is a single arm, phase II study of panobinostat + bortezomib + dexamethasone in patients with bortezomib-refractory MM. Patients with relapsed and bortezomib-refractory MM (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy including an IMiD and who had progressed on or within 60 days of the last bortezomib-based therapy) are treated in 2 phases. Treatment phase 1 consists of 8 three-week cycles of oral panobinostat (20 mg days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12) + intravenous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, 11) + oral dexamethasone (20 mg on day of and after bortezomib). Patients demonstrating clinical benefit (≥ stable disease) can proceed to treatment phase 2, consisting of 4 six-week cycles of panobinostat (20 mg TIW 2 weeks on 1 week off, and repeat) + bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 22, 29) + dexamethasone (20 mg on day of and after bortezomib). The primary endpoint is overall response (≥ partial response [PR]), as defined by the European Group of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 1998 criteria, in the first 8 cycles of treatment phase 1. A Simon 2-stage design is used to test the primary endpoint where ≥ 4 responses (≥ PR) in 24 patients are needed in stage 1 in order to proceed to stage 2, where ≥ 9 responses in all patients (N = 47) are required to reject the null hypothesis (overall response rate ≤ 10%). Results: A sufficient number of responses ≥ PR were observed in stage 1 to allow for enrollment to continue to stage 2. As of 15 July 2011, 53 patients with bortezomib-refractory MM were enrolled. Safety and demographic data were available for 48 patients. The median age was 61 (41–88) years. Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of 4 (2–14) prior regimens, and most patients (69%) received prior autologous stem cell transplant. Efficacy data were available for 44 patients. At the time of this analysis, 9 patients achieved ≥ PR (2 near CR [nCR] and 7 PR) as best overall response, and an additional 7 patients achieved an MR. Responders exhibited a long duration on therapy, and, to date, 8 patients have proceeded to treatment phase 2. The 2 patients with nCR have received ≥ 10 cycles of treatment (duration of therapy 190 and 253 days). Four patients who achieved PR have received ≥ 9 cycles (duration of therapy 155–225 days). Updated response data will be presented. Common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included, fatigue (52%), diarrhea (41%), thrombocytopenia (38%), nausea (38%), and anemia (21%). Gastrointestinal AEs were generally mild, with a relatively low incidence of grade 3/4 events. Grade 3/4 AEs were generally hematologic in nature, with grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia reported in 38%, 12%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Other common nonhematologic grade 3/4 AEs included fatigue (10%) and pneumonia (10%). Of note, to date, a relatively low rate of peripheral neuropathy (17%) has been observed. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy has been observed. Conclusions: The combination of panobinostat and bortezomib is a promising treatment for patients with bortezomib-refractory MM. These data, along with forthcoming data from the phase III study of panobinostat/placebo + bortezomib + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (PANORAMA 1), will further define the potential role of panobinostat in the treatment of patients with MM. Disclosures: Richardson: Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alsina:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Weber:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Warsi:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ondovik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mukhopadhyay:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Snodgrass:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document