scholarly journals Novel Prognostic Scoring System for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AHCT) in Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 783-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Binod Dhakal ◽  
Raphael Fraser ◽  
Zhubin Gahvari ◽  
Aric C. Hall ◽  
Natalie Scott Callander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Scoring System ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Validation Cohort ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Final Model ◽  
Free Survival

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) <10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p<0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

High Risk Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Comparison of Aggressive Subtypes Treated with Dose Adjusted Chemotherapy-the University of Texas MD Anderson Experience

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 106-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan ◽  
Yasuhiro Oki ◽  
Amir K Issa ◽  
Mohamed Amin Ahmed ◽  
Mansoor Noorani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Md Anderson

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).Nearly 50% of high-risk DLBCL patients are not cured with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (RCHOP). High risk DLBCL may be defined as double hit lymphoma (DHL, translocation of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6), double expressor lymphoma (DEL, over expression of MYC and BCL2), high risk international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5, high Ki-67, and non-germinal center subtype (non-GCB). The majority of DHL cases occur in the GCB subtype, as opposed to the majority of DEL cases which occur in non-GCB. Hence we sought to compare different high risk subsets treated with dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab (DA) EPOCH-R. In single arm phase II clinical trials, dose adjusted (DA) EPOCH-R has shown promising results, with potential greater efficacy in the GCB subtype in subset analyses (Wilson et al, Hematologica 2012). A randomized phase III study comparing RCHOP with (DA) EPOCH-R in newly diagnosed DLBCL has completed accrual, with highly anticipated results due in late 2016. Methods: We conducted a retrospective reviewof all consecutive, newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010 to 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or greater, had high-risk DLBCL as determined by the treating physician, and had available data of treatment and response. The cell of origin subtype was determined by immunohistochemistry using Hans algorithm, and MYC and BCL2 positivity were defined as BCL2 positive in at least 70% and MYC positive in at least 40% of cells. DHL was defined as rearrangement of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6 by fluorescent in situ hybridization. The objectives were to analyze demographic, prognostic, and treatment variables in comparison with clinical response and survival outcomes in three sub groups which included 1. DHL (GCB) 2. DLBCL without MYC and BCL2 expression (GCB), and 3. DEL (GCB and non GCB). Complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using standard methods. Statistical analysis was done using Fishers exact test or Chi-square test / Kruskal-Wallis test. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analysis including overall survival and progression free survival. The Log-rank test was used to evaluate the difference in time-to-event endpoints between patient groups. Results: We identified 233 high risk DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R. After filtering the data to identify patients which were included in our three groups, we identified 22 patients with DHL (GCB), 46 patients with non DEL (GCB), and 16 with DEL. The demographic features and outcomes are mentioned in the table 1 below. The DHL group had more frequent bone marrow (BM) involvement, and the DHL and DEL groups were more frequently age >60 years and high IPI in comparison to the non DEL GCB group. The CR rate, OS and PFS at 1 year were not significantly different between these three groups. Figure 1 highlights the OS (A) and PFS (B) results of each group. Conclusions: (DA) EPOCH-R is highly effective in patients with subsets of patients with high-risk DLBCL and may be able to overcome prognostic factors which have been shown to be adverse with RCHOP therapy. The results of this retrospective study suggest that OS in DHL, DEL and non DEL (GCB) are not statistically different. Hence, intensive chemotherapy with (DA) EPOCH-R could be considered as a frontline treatment option for patients with high risk DLBCL, pending further confirmation in randomized trials. Disclosures Oki: Novartis: Research Funding. Fowler:Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Westin:ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Phase II Trial of Combination of Elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 154-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-jen Liu ◽  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Mark Bustoros ◽  
Kaitlen Reyes ◽  
Kalvis Hornburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Therapeutic Intervention ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Genomic Studies ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the benefit of early therapeutic intervention with the combination of elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02279394. Aims The overarching objective of this trial is to determine progression free survival to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). Furthermore, the study examined whether genomic studies can help in determining patients who would benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Methods Patients enrolled in this study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al, Blood 2014. Patients were administered weekly elotuzumab (10 mg/kg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for the first two 28-day cycles while receiving lenalidomide on days 1-21. For cycles 3-8, patients were administered elotuzumab infusions on days 1, 8, and 15. dexamethasone (40mg) was given on days 1, 8 and 15 to 40 of the 50 enrolled patients. After 8 cycles or best response, patients were given the option to mobilize with either cyclophosphamide or plerixafor and collect stem cells for future transplant. Patients were then allowed to continue on maintenance therapy where they were administered elotuzumab (20 mg/kg) on day 1, in combination with lenalidomide days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow (BM) samples of 32 patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment and whole exome sequencing (WES) of plasma cells. Results In total, 50 patients were enrolled on this study from January 2015 and completed accrual in December 2016, with the participation of eight sites. The median age of enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 29-79) with 18 males (36%) and 32 females (64%). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) detected high-risk cytogenetics (defined by the presence of 17p deletion, t(4;14), and 1q gain) in 20 patients. The median time to response was 2.8 months (range, 1.8-4.6). The most common toxicities were fatigue (92%), followed by diarrhea (72%), and hyperglycemia (62%). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were hypophosphatemia (34%), neutropenia (26%), and lymphocyte count decreased (22%). Three patients (6%) had grade 4 hypophosphatemia during treatment. Additionally, grade 4 cholecystitis, cataract, lymphocyte count increase, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in one patient (2%). Diabetic Ketoacidosis and sepsis led to death in a patient (2%). Stem cell collection was successful in all mobilized patients to date. As of this abstract date, the overall response rate is 84% (41/49). There were 3 complete responses (6%), 18 very good partial responses (37%), 20 partial responses (41%), 5 minimal responses (10%), 3 stable disease (6%), and 2 unevaluable patients. All the study participants except for three have finished treatment and are currently under follow up. None of the patients showed progression to overt MM to date. We continue to collect data for progression free survival. WES was performed on 32 samples at the time of initiation of therapy. Recurrent mutations in the MAPK pathway (KRAS, NRAS) and tumor suppressor gene, TP53, were detected in 40% of the cases (16% and 24%, respectively), while mutations in the NF-KB and plasma cell differentiation pathways were present in 13% of patients. Somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) were called based on WES: 1q duplication, 13q, 17p, and 1p deletions were identified in 25, 31, 12, and 7% of cases, respectively. Interestingly, in 6 patients, high-risk SCNAs (1q gain and 17p deletion) were not reported in iFISH but were detected by WES. The analysis of these 32 samples showed that patients who are harboring mutations in the DNA repair pathway genes, had modest response to treatment. Finally, we are analyzing the transcriptomic profile of CD138 negative cells, which represent the BM microenvironment cells (immune and stromal cells) to characterize the BM microenvironment at baseline and end of treatment, and thus, elucidate the role of these cells in the differential response to therapy. Conclusion The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is well tolerated and demonstrates a high response rate with no progression to overt MM to date. Correlation with genomic studies can help define patients who benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Disclosures Ghobrial: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Bustoros:Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Badros:GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Rosenblatt:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Coelum: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Munshi:OncoPep: Other: Board of director. Anderson:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; OncoPep: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Evomela® Significantly Increases the Risk of Engraftment Syndrome in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3316-3316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall McKenna ◽  
Phyllis McKiernan ◽  
David S. Siegel ◽  
Scott D. Rowley ◽  
Noa Biran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Engraftment Syndrome ◽  
Equity Ownership

Background: Evomela, a Melphalan bioequivalent, was approved by the FDA in 2016 for high-dose conditioning treatment prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Evomela has increased solubility and stability compared to traditional Melphalan which requires propylene glycol, a stabilizing agent. A retrospective review (Miller et al. 2019) showed that there was no difference in outcomes or short term morbidity in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) recipients conditioned with either Melphalan or Evomela. There was, however, an increased incidence of C. difficile-negative diarrhea in the Evomela group. Engraftment syndrome (ES) is a well characterized, although poorly understood, conglomerate of symptoms occurring in the autologous peri-engraftment period. We have previously demonstrated (McKiernan et al. 2017) that patients with ES have an adverse overall outcome. This study aims to evaluate the effect of Evomela conditioning on patients with MM receiving ASCT. Methods: Our study cohort included 644 patients with MM who received ASCT between January 2008 and December 2018. Evomela conditioning was administered to all patients treated on or after September 4, 2016, defining the Melphalan and Evomela cohorts. ES was defined as diarrhea, rash, non-infectious fever, hepatic dysfunction, pulmonary infiltrates, or encephalopathy not attributed to other causes from 3 days prior to 15 days post engraftment. High-risk disease (HRD) was defined as del 17p, 1q gain, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) by FISH, monosomy 13, del 13q or hypodiploidy by standard cytogenetics, or high-risk gene expression profiling. Response criteria from the International Myeloma Working Group was used to determine response. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated using log rank or Wilcoxon tests. Cox hazard regression model was examined for factors influencing ES. Results: Of the 644 patients, 78 were conditioned with Evomela and 554 were conditioned with Melphalan. Thirty five percent of the total patient population had HRD, 234 (36%) were age 65 or older, and 369 (57%) were males. A total of 197 (30%) patients developed ES with 171 (87%) receiving treatment with corticosteroids. Conditioning with Evomela was associated with a significantly higher incidence of ES 15 days post ASCT compared to Melphalan (40.3% vs 24.8%, p=0.0006). Multivariate analysis showed that patients conditioned with Evomela were 60% more likely (HR-1.597, 95% CI, 1.116-2.285, p=0.0105) to develop ES than traditional Melphalan. Across both cohorts, higher median CD34+ stem cell doses (5.22 vs 5.85 x 10e6/kg, p=0.0026) were protective against ES. Age greater than 65 was associated with increased 15 day post ASCT incidence of ES (HR-1.903, 95% CI, 1.435-2.523, p=<0.0001). There was no PFS (p=0.2996) or OS (p=0.2778) difference between the Evomela group and the Melphalan group. There was a trend towards decreased OS (p=0.0914) among patients with ES, but it was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant progression difference between ES and non-ES groups (p=0.9739). Conclusion: Patients conditioned with Evomela are significantly more likely to develop ES than patients conditioned with traditional Melphalan. We were not able to show any survival or progression-free survival advantage for patients treated with Evomela. We would caution the use of Evomela in patients with other risk factors for ES. More studies are needed to further understand the differences between Melphalan and Evomela. Disclosures Siegel: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rowley:Allergan: Equity Ownership; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy. Biran:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldberg:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; COTA: Equity Ownership; Cancer Outcomes Tracking and Analysis (COTA) Inc.: Equity Ownership. Goy:Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding.

ABVD Versus Escalated Beacopp in Advanced Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results from a Retrospective, Multicenter European Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety (27 months) of the Biosimilar CT-P10 in Patients with Low Tumor Burden Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 27-28
Author(s):  
Larry W Kwak ◽  
Juan Manuel Sancho ◽  
Seok-Goo Cho ◽  
Hideyuki Nakazawa ◽  
Junji Suzumiya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Travel Costs ◽  
Single Transition ◽  
Second Year

We assessed long-term safety and efficacy of CT-P10 and rituximab in patients with newly diagnosed low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (LTBFL), and following a single transition from rituximab to CT-P10. This double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled phase 3 trial randomized patients with CD20+ LTBFL to receive CT-P10 or US-sourced rituximab (375 mg/m2 intravenous). Induction therapy (weekly for 4 cycles) was followed by a 2-year maintenance period for patients achieving disease control (CR, CRu, PR and SD). During the maintenance, CT-P10 or rituximab were administered every 8 weeks (6 cycles) in the first year and additional CT-P10 was administered every 8 weeks (6 cycles) in the second year. Secondary endpoints (reported here) were overall response rate during the study period, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, and overall survival. Safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated over the study period. Between Nov 9, 2015 and Jan 4, 2018, 258 patients were randomised (130 CT-P10; 128 rituximab). Over the study period, 115 (88%; CT-P10) and 111 (87%; rituximab) patients achieved overall response. At a median follow-up of 29·2 months (IQR: 26·1-33·7), median progression-free survival, time-to-progression, and overall survival were not estimable. The KM estimates (95% CI) for OS at 36 months were 98% (93-99) and 97% (89-99) in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively. Corresponding values for PFS were 80% (70-87) and 68% (54-79), while results for TTP were 82% (72-88) and 68% (54-79) in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively. (Figure A. OS; Figure B. PFS and Figure C. TTP) Over the study period, 114 (88%) and 104 (81%) patients in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively, experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and 14 (11%) patients in each group experienced TE-serious adverse events (TESAEs). There were no unexpected safety findings observed during the second year of the maintenance period after single transition from rituximab to CT-P10. Figure 1 Disclosures Kwak: Celltrion Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xeme Biopharma/Theratest: Other: equity; CJ Healthcare: Consultancy; Sellas Life Sciences Grp: Consultancy; Enzychem Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigenics: Other: equity; InnoLifes, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pepromene Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy. Sancho:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; Gelgene: 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; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Menne:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Jurczak:Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Krakow, Poland: Current Employment; Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MeiPharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Trneny:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Ogura:Cellgene: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria; Denovo Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MejiSeika Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundi Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SymBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TevaTakeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Pfizer: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; JJ: Research Funding. Lee:Celltrion, Inc.: Current Employment. Kim:Celltrion, Inc.: Current Employment. Ahn:Celltrion, Inc.: Current Employment. Buske:Roche, Janssen, Bayer, MSD: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celltrion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Rituximab monotherapy to LTBFL patients

Progressive but Previously Untreated CLL Patients with Greater Array CGH Complexity Exhibit A Less Durable Response to Chemoimmunotherapy

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2406-2406
Author(s):  
Neil E. Kay ◽  
Jeanette Eckel Passow ◽  
Esteban Braggio ◽  
Scott Van Wier ◽  
Tait Shanafelt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Genomic Complexity ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Gains And Losses

Abstract Abstract 2406 The outcome for a given CLL patient is difficult to predict. While there are promising models, they require collation of multiple clinical and laboratory parameters, and it remains to be seen whether they will apply to typical CLL patients in the community. To further dissect out explanations for this dramatic clinical heterogeneity, we sought to understand genomic complexity of clonal B-cells as a possible explanation of clinical variability with specific application to genomic complexity as a predictor of therapeutic response and clinical outcome in CLL. Thus we wished to identified global gains and losses of genetic material in order to define copy-number abnormalities (CNA) in 48 clinically progressive CLL patients who were about to be treated on a chemoimmunotherapy protocol. This protocol was previously reported by us (Blood. 109:2007) and had an induction phase with pentostatin (2 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) and rituximab (375 mg/m2) given every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and then responding patients were followed ever three months until relapse. In order to estimate CNA, we employed array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) using a one-million oligonucleotide probe array format on the leukemic B-cells from the 48 patients entering this trial. In those same patients, the aCGH data were compared to a) FISH detecxtable data using a panel for the common recurring genetic defects seen in CLL and b) to their clinical outcome on this trial. With aCGH we found that 288 CNA were identified (median of 4 per patient; range 0–32) of which 215 were deletions and 73 were gains. The aCGH method identified most of the FISH detected abnormalities with a complete concordance for 17p13.1- deletion (17p-) between aCGH and FISH. We also identified chromosomal gain or loss in ≥6% of the patients on chromosomes 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17. We found that CLL patients with ≥15 CNA had a significantly worse progression free survival (PFS) than patients with <15 CNA (p=0.004)(figure). Patients with ≥15 CNA also had a shorter duration of response than those with <15 CNA (p=0.0726). Of interest, more complex genomic features were found both in patients with a 17p13.1 deletion and in more favorable genetic subtypes such as 13q14.1. Thus, for 5 patients with >15 CNAs the following FISH patterns were seen: +12/13q14.1-x1/13q14.1 -x2, 13q14.1 ×1 (n=2), and 17p13.1 (n=2). In addition, a 17p- by FISH was positively associated with the number of CNA and total deletion size. The odds of having an overall response decreased by 28% (95% CI: 5–55%; p=0.015) with each additional CNA for the 17p13.1- patients. In addition to defining genomic complexity as the total number of CNA for each patient, we also defined complexity as the sum of the lengths of all interstitial chromosomal gains and losses. When defined as the total size of chromosomal gains or losses, genomic complexity was significantly associated with 17p13.1 and worse overall clinical response. In summary, this analysis utilized the global assessment of copy number abnormalities using a high-resolution aCGH platform for clinically progressive CLL patients prior to initiation of their treatment. One outcome was that we found higher genomic complexity was associated with shorter progression-free survival, reduced duration of response and predicted a poor response to treatment. In addition since we did find genomic complexity in more traditionally favorable FISH categories, such as 13q14.1 type defects, this may explain why some of the latter patients do not fare as well as might be expected even with aggressive chemoimmunotherapy approaches. This study adds information on the association between inferior trial response and increasing genetic complexity as CLL progresses. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Pentostatin. Kipps: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Memgen: Research Funding; Igenica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Research Funding.

Tandem Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants (AuHCT) with or without Maintenance Therapy (auto-auto) Versus Single AuHCT Followed by HLA Matched Sibling Non- Myeloablative Allogeneic HCT (auto-allo) for Patients with Standard Risk (SR) Multiple Myeloma (MM): Results From the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0102 Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 41-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amrita Krishnan ◽  
Marcelo C Pasquini ◽  
Marian Ewell ◽  
Edward A. Stadtmauer ◽  
Edwin P Alyea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Allogeneic Hct ◽  
Matched Sibling

Abstract Abstract 41 AuHCT improves survival in patients with MM, but disease relapse and progression remain a challenge. Both tandem AuHCT and post transplant maintenance therapy improve progression-free survival (PFS). Alternatively, allogeneic HCT has the potential to reduce disease progression through a graft-versus-myeloma effect. Use of nonmyeloablative conditioning regimens allows the latter approach to be used with reduced treatment-related mortality (TRM). BMT CTN 0102 was a multicenter phase III trial that biologically assigned patients with MM to auto-auto using melphalan 200mg/m2 (MEL 200) conditioning or an auto-allo approach using MEL 200 followed by alloHCT with 2 Gy total body irradiation. Graft-versus-disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil. The primary endpoint was 3-year progression free survival (PFS). Between December 2003 and March 2007, 710 patients from 43 US centers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to the auto-allo arm based on availability of an HLA-matched sibling donor at time of enrollment. Patients in the auto-auto arm were further randomized to thalidomide and dexamethasone (Thal-Dex) for 1 year or observation (obs). Among 625 patients with SR MM (absence of chromosome 13 deletion by metaphase karyotyping and β-2 microglobulin ≤ 4mg/L), 436 were assigned to auto-auto (217 Thal-Dex, 219 obs) and 189 to auto-allo. Compliance with Thal-Dex was poor, with 84% of patients not completing prescribed therapy. PFS and overall survival (OS) between the Thal-Dex and obs cohorts were equal and these arms were pooled for the primary analysis. The auto-auto and auto-allo groups differed in age (median 55y vs. 52y, p =0.01) and time between first and second transplants (median 98d vs 105d, p =0.02), but were otherwise balanced. Complete and near complete (CR+nCR) response rates at study entry were 24% for both groups. Three-year PFS was 46% and 43% (p=0.67) and 3-year OS was 80% and 77 % (p=0.19) for the auto-auto and auto-allo groups, respectively. Corresponding probabilities for 3-year progression/relapse were 50% and 46% (p=0.8) and for 3-year TRM were 4% and 11% (p=0.04). Among auto-allo patients, probabilities of grade III-IV acute and chronic GVHD were 9% and 47%, respectively. Eighty-two percent of patients in each arm received the assigned second transplant. Among 522 patients who received their second transplant, 3-year PFS was 47% and 44% (p=0.89) with auto-auto and auto-allo, respectively. Disease response rates at day 56 after second HCT were: 50% very good partial response (VGPR) or better and 40% CR+nCR in the auto-auto group; and 49% (VGPR or better, p=0.8) and 48% (CR+nCR,p=0.12) in the auto-allo group. In conclusion, there were no differences in 3-year PFS and OS between patients receiving auto-auto or auto-allo. Potential benefits of graft-versus-myeloma to reduce disease progression or relapse were offset by increased TRM. Thal-Dex maintenance did not improve PFS or OS, likely due to poor tolerability of this regimen. At 3 years, the auto-allo approach for SR MM had no added benefit compared to tandem AuHCT. Disclosures: Krishnan: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Stadtmauer:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Comenzo:Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elan Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genzyme: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ortho: Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Giralt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Efficacy of Melflufen, a Peptidase Targeted Therapy, and Dexamethasone in an Ongoing Open-Label Phase 2a Study in Patients with Relapsed and Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Including an Initial Report on Progression Free Survival

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3029-3029
Author(s):  
Peter M. Voorhees ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
Torben Plesner ◽  
Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background: Melflufen is a highly potent anti-angiogenic compound that triggers rapid, robust and irreversible DNA damage and exerts its cytotoxicity through alkylation of DNA. The lipophilicity of melflufen leads to rapid and extensive distribution into tissues and cells where it binds directly to DNA or is readily metabolized by intracellular peptidases into hydrophilic alkylating metabolites. With targeted delivery of alkylating metabolites to tumor cells in vitro (such as multiple myeloma that are rich in activating peptidase), melflufen exerts a 20-100 fold higher anti-tumor potency and produces a 20 fold higher intracellular concentration of alkylating moieties compared with melphalan. Methods: Melflufen is evaluated in combination with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg weekly in an ongoing Phase 1/2a study. RRMM patients with measurable disease and at least 2 prior lines of therapy are eligible (NCT01897714). Phase 1 established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of melflufen to be 40 mg every 3 weeks in combination with low dose dex. The primary objective of Phase 2a is the overall response rate and safety of the MTD in a total of 55 patients. Response was investigator assessed at the end of each cycle by IMWG criteria. Here we present the Phase 2 data as of 14 July 2015 data-cut. Results: Thirty-one patients were dosed at the MTD. The median time from initial diagnosis to first dose of melflufen was 6 years (1-15). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-9). 97% of patients were exposed to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 90% to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 77% to melphalan, and 71% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. 58% were double refractory (IMiDs and PIs) and 42% were triple refractory (IMiDs, PIs and alkylators). In total, 121 doses of melflufen have been given (1-11 cycles). Median treatment duration was 13 weeks with 9 patients still ongoing. One patient completed therapy as planned, 15 patients discontinued due to AEs (48%) and 6 due to progression (19%). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response (protocol defined as ≥2 doses of melflufen with baseline and follow-up response assessments). One patient achieved a very good partial response and 10 patients achieved partial response (PR) (1 unconfirmed, still ongoing) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 48%. Three additional patients achieved minimal response (MR) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 61%. Time to clinical benefit and response was rapid with 93% of patients achieving ≥ MR after 1-3 cycles and 64% achieving PR after only 1-3 cycles. Eight patients maintained stable disease and 1 patient had early progressive disease. Similar ORRs were seen in PI-refractory (43%), IMiD-refractory (40%), alkylator-refractory (62%), double-refractory (38%) and triple-refractory (50%) patients. The median progression free survival (PFS) is currently at 7.6 months (95% confidence interval: 3.4 - ∞) based on 14 events in 30 patients. The most frequent adverse events (AE), all grades, occurring in >10% of patients, regardless of relationship to study drug were thrombocytopenia (94%), anemia (84%), neutropenia (61%), leukopenia (42%), pyrexia (36%), asthenia (32%), fatigue and nausea (26%), bone pain (19%), cough, diarrhea, dyspnea, mucosal inflammation and upper respiratory infection (16%) and constipation and epistaxis (13%). Treatment-related Grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported in 27 patients (87%). Those occurring in >5% of patients were thrombocytopenia (68%), neutropenia (55%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (32%) and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, pyrexia, asthenia and hyperglycemia each occurred in 6% of patients. Serious AEs occurred in 9 patients (29%), but were only assessed as related to study drug in 5 patients (16%) including 3 febrile neutropenia, 1 fever and 1 pneumonia. Cycle length has recently been increased to 28 days to improve tolerability with respect to hematologic toxicity. Conclusion: Melflufen has promising activity in heavily pretreated RRMM patients where conventional therapies have failed. The current ORR is 48% and CBR is 61%. Similar results were seen across patient populations regardless of refractory status. The median PFS is encouraging at 7.6 months. Hematologic toxicity was common, but non-hematologic AEs were infrequent. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Voorhees: Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline,Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene and Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Plesner:Roche and Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen and Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mellqvist:Celgene, Amgen, Mundipharma and Novartis: Honoraria. Byrne:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Harmenberg:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Nordstrom:Oncopeptides: Employment. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Richardson:Oncopeptides, Celgene and Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Treatment in Elderly CLL Patients: A Retrospective Study from the Filo Group

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3747-3747
Author(s):  
Charlotte Doublet ◽  
Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy ◽  
Emmanuelle Ferrant ◽  
Pierre Feugier ◽  
Alexandra Fayault ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
History Of

Abstract Median age at diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia is 72 years. However, only few patients over 80 years of age are included in clinical trials, even in those devoted to unfit patients. In order to evaluate both efficiency and safety of venetoclax in this category of patients, we conducted a multicentric retrospective study and collected data from 77 CLL patients from 19 FILO centers who started venetoclax after 80 years of age. Median age at venetoclax initiation was 86 years old (81-97). 63% of patients had a history of heart disease, 62% had renal failure (moderate 59% and severe 3%) and 29% had a history of severe infections. Despite their comorbidities and a CIRS greater than 6 in 70% of cases, their autonomy was preserved with a median performans status of 1 (0-4). In this comorbid geriatric population, pretherapeutic geriatric assessment was only performed in a single patient. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (0-6) with an exposure to a BCR inhibitor in 56% of cases. 11q and 17p deletion were found in 39% and 30% of cases respectively, 39% of patients had a complex karyotype and 30% harbored a TP53 mutation. However, in this real life population, these prognostic factors were only performed in half of patients. IGHV mutational status was only available in 11 patients, and 83% of them had unmutated IGHV. At the time of venetoclax initiation, the tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk was moderate in 57% of cases and high in 8% of cases. Venetoclax was administered as a single agent (42%) or in association with rituximab (58%). In total, half of the patients were hospitalized at each dose ramp-up, and only 3 patients were treated on outpatient basis. 82% of the cohort was able to reach the daily dose of 400mg. Half of the patients were included in a phone call monitoring program with oncology nurses to pre-emptively manage side effects and foster therapy adherence. The safety study reported 14% of TLS, with 2 discontinuations of treatment within the first month: one of which led to dialysis and the other to death. As in the previously published studies, 25% of patients had infectious complications, and grade 3 haematological and digestive toxicities were reported in 42% and 22% of cases, respectively. The reduction of the daily dose of venetoclax was necessary for 33%. Permanent discontinuation of venetoclax occurred in 40% of subjects, including 29% of early withdrawal (within the first 3 months). Main reasons for discontinuation were intolerance (21%), CLL progression (21%), death (21%) and scheduled treatment discontinuation (10%). The overall response rate was 86%, consisting of 49% of complete response (unconfirmed by bone marrow biopsy) and 37% of partial response. With a median follow-up of 21months, estimated progression free survival and overall survival were 29 and 38 months respectively. Prior exposure to a BCR inhibitor had no impact on progression free survival. To conclude, venetoclax has a manageable safety profile in elderly patients with comorbidities and can induce prolonged responses. Finally, if additional follow-up by oncology nurses seems to be more and more implemented, the pre-therapeutic onco-geriatric evaluation remains underexploited in this population. Disclosures Ferrant: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Feugier: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laribi: AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees; BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Tchernonog: JANSSEN: Consultancy; ABBVIE: Consultancy; ASTRAZENECA: Consultancy. Dartigeas: Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress. Quinquenel: Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Laboratory Based Scoring System Predicts Early Treatment in Rai 0/Binet a CLL

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4399-4399
Author(s):  
Jared A Cohen ◽  
Francesca Maria Rossi ◽  
Riccardo Bomben ◽  
Lodovico Terzi-di-Bergamo ◽  
Pietro Bulian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Scoring System ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Recursive Partitioning ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Early Stage Disease ◽  
Training Cohort

Abstract Introduction: Observation is the standard of care for asymptomatic early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) however these cases follow a heterogenous course. Recent studies show novel biomarkers can delineate indolent from aggressive early stage disease and current clinical trials are exploring the role of early intervention in high risk cases. Although several scoring systems have been established in CLL, most are designed for overall survival, do not circumscribe early stage disease, and require cumbersome calculations relying on extensive laboratory and clinical information. Aim: We propose a novel laboratory-based prognostic calculator to risk stratify time to first treatment (TTFT) in early stage CLL and guide candidate selection for early intervention. Methods: We included 1574 cases of early stage CLL in an international cohort from Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States using a training-validation model. Patient information was obtained from participating centers in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The training cohort included 478 Rai 0 cases from a multicenter Italian cohort, all referred to a single center (Clinical and Experimental Onco-Hematology Unit of the Centro Riferimento Oncologico in Aviano, IT) for immunocytogenetic lab analyses. Considering TTFT as an endpoint, we evaluated 8 variables (age>65, WBC>32K, 17p-, 11q-, +12, IGHV status, CD49d+, gender) with univariate and multivariate Cox regression internally validated using bootstrapping procedures. FISH thresholds were 5% for 11q-, and +12 and 10% for 17p-. Cases were categorized according to the hierarchical model proposed by Dohner. IGHV status was considered unmutated at ≥98%. CD49d+ was set at >30%. WBC cutoff of >32K was established by maximally selected log rank analysis. Variables were weighted based on the proportion of their normalized hazard ratios rounded to the nearest whole integer. We used recursive partitioning for risk-category determination and Kaplan-Meier analysis to generate survival curves. We compared the concordance index (C-index) of our model with the CLL international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) for 381/478 cases in the training cohort with available beta-2-microglobulin data and for all validation cohorts. We used 3 independent single-center cohorts for external validation. Results: The training cohort had 478 cases of Rai 0 CLL with a median (95% CI) TTFT of 124 months (m) (104-183m). Five prognostic variables emerged with respect to TTFT, and each assigned a point value of 1 or 2 according to their respective normalized HR values as follows: 17p-, and UM IGHV (2 pts); 11q-, +12, and WBC>32K (1 pt). We identified three risk groups, based on point cut-offs of 0, 1-2, and 3-5 established by recursive partitioning analysis with a median (95% CI) TTFT of 216m (216-216m), 104m (93-140m) and 58m (44-68m) (p<0.0001, C-index 0.75) for the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively (figure 1). A comparison with the CLL-IPI was possible in 381 cases with available beta-2-microglobulin data. In this subset, the C-index was 0.75 compared to 0.68 when patient risk groups were split according to the CLL-IPI. The scoring system was then validated in 3 independent cohorts of early stage CLL: i) Gemelli Hospital in Rome, IT provided 144 Rai 0 cases. Median (95% CI) TTFT was 86m (80-94m, 95% CI). Median (95% CI) TTFT for the low, intermediate and high-risk groups was 239m (239-239m), 98m (92-132m) and 85m (60-109m) respectively (p=0.002 between low and intermediate groups, p=0.09 between intermediate and high groups; C-index 0.64 v 0.60 for CLL-IPI). ii) Cardiff University Hospital in Wales, UK provided 395 Binet A cases. Median (95% CI) TTFT was 74 m (67-81m) overall and NR, 111m (97-146m) and 70m (29-114m) for the low, intermediate and high-risk groups respectively (p<0.001 between low and intermediate groups, p=0.009 between intermediate and high groups; C-index 0.63 v 0.63 for CLL-IPI). iii) Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN provided 557 Rai 0 cases. Median (95% CI) TTFT was 127m (96m-NR) overall and NR, 76m (64m-NR) and 36m (31-59m) for the low, intermediate and high-risk groups respectively (p<0.0001; C-index 0.72 v 0.68 for CLL-IPI). Conclusion: We present a novel laboratory-based scoring system for Rai 0/Binet A CLL to aid case selection in risk-adapted treatment for early disease. Further comparison to existing indices is needed to verify its utility in the clinical setting. Disclosures Zaja: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Fegan:Roche: Honoraria; Napp: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Pepper:Cardiff University: Patents & Royalties: Telomere measurement patents. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kay:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document