scholarly journals Triangle: Autologous Transplantation after a Rituximab/Ibrutinib/ara-c Containing Induction in Generalized Mantle Cell Lymphoma - a Randomized European MCL Network Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2816-2816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dreyling ◽  
Marco Ladetto ◽  
Jeanette K. Doorduijn ◽  
Eva Gine ◽  
Mats Jerkeman ◽  
...  

Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a distinct subtype of lymphoma with a wide variation of clinical course. Based on randomized trials of our network, current standard of care is a cytarabine-containing immunochemotherapy induction (Hermine, Lancet 2016) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT; Zöllner, ICML 2019) and rituximab maintenance for 3 years (Le Gouill, NEJM 2018). In relapsed MCL the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib achieves high response rates and ongoing remissions (Wang, NEJM 2013; Dreyling, Lancet 2016). This approach achieved especially longer remission durations in earlier treatment lines (Rule, Hamatologica 2019). We aim to clarify whether ibrutinib added to induction and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplantation might improve outcome. Study design and methods: In this international, randomized three-arm phase III trial (EudraCT-no. 2014-001363-12) young, fit patients ( up to 65 years) with histologically confirmed, untreated mantle cell lymphoma advanced stage II-IV qualify for 1:1:1 randomization after written informed consent according to ICH/EU GCP. In the control arm A, patients receive an alternating R-CHOP/R-DHAP induction followed by myeloablative consolidation (either BEAM or THAM: TBI, high dose Ara-C and melphalan). In arm A+I Ibrutinib is added to the R-CHOP cycles (560 mg day 1-19) and applied as maintenance (continuous dosing) for 2 years. In arm I the same induction and maintenance is applied but high dose consolidation and autologous SCT is skipped. A rituximab maintenance (single doses every 2 months up to 3 years) may be added in all study arms according to national clinical routine. The primary study aim is to show superiority of one of three study arms as future standard of care based on the comparison of the investigator-assessed failure-free survival (FFS), i.e. to investigate if the addition of ibrutinib improves the efficacy of standard 1st line treatment, and can even challenge the use of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous SCT. Secondary study aims include the efficacy of the three treatment arms and the safety and tolerability of ibrutinib during induction immuno-chemotherapy and maintenance. Accordingly, overall and complete response rates, progression-free and overall survival will be determined as well as adverse events during induction immuno-chemotherapy and follow-up including the cumulative incidence rates of SPMs. In addition, minimal residual disease is regularly determined based on patient-specific PCR assay according to the standardized Biomed-2 procedure. Results: As of July 30th, 511 of up to 870 patients have been randomized from 12 different European countries. In a meanwhile completed safety run-in of the initial 50 patients, feasibility of the two experimental arms was confirmed with no major differences in hematological and other toxicities and no major delays during induction. Disclosures Dreyling: Acerta: Other: Scientific advisory board; Novartis: Other: Scientific advisory board; Mundipharma: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Other: Scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Other: Scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ladetto:Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria. Doorduijn:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gine:Janssen: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Jerkeman:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mey:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kolstad:Merck: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Trneny:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gomes da Silva:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Siences: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Klapper:Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding. Unterhalt:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Hoster:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Travel Support.

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 110-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Hermine ◽  
Eva Hoster ◽  
Jan Walewski ◽  
Vincent Ribrag ◽  
Nicole Brousse ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 110 Background: Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) has been characterized by poor long term prognosis with a median survival of only 3 to 4 years. However, outcome has improved during the last decades. In its first randomized trial, the MCL net demonstrated that myeloablative consolidation followed by ASCT resulted in a significant prolongation of PFS in advanced stage MCL (Dreyling et al Blood 2005). Recent phase II studies suggested that the addition of rituximab to CHOP like chemotherapy and/or high dose ARA-C may significantly improve remission rates and PFS. A French phase II trial using sequential R-CHOP/R-DHAP followed by ASCT showed an overall response rate of 95% with a CR rate of 61% translating into a median EFS of 83 months and a 75% survival rate at 5 years (Delarue et al ASH 2008). Methods: To evaluate the potential superiority of a high dose ARA-C containing regimen, the MCL net initiated a randomized trial comparing 6 courses of CHOP plus Rituximab followed by myeloablative radiochemotherapy (12 Gray TBI, 2×60mg/kg Cyclophosphamide) and ASCT (control arm A) versus alternating courses of 3x CHOP and 3x DHAP plus Rituximab followed by a high dose ARA-C containing myeloablative regimen (10 Gray TBI, 4×1,5 g/m2 Ara-C, 140mg/m2 melphalan) and ASCT (experimental arm B). Patient eligibility criteria included previously untreated MCL stage II-IV up to the age of 65 years. Histological diagnosis was confirmed by a central pathology review board. The primary end point time to treatment failure (TTF) was monitored continuously by a sequential procedure based on a one sided triangular test. Stable disease after induction, progression or death from any causes, were considered as treatment failure. Sample size was calculated to detect a hazard ratio of 52% for arm B with a power of 95%. Randomization was stopped as soon as a significant difference was observed between the two arms. Results: From July 2004 to May 2010, 497 patients were randomized in 4 countries (Germany, France, Poland, Belgium). The 391 patients evaluable for the primary analysis (19 no MCL, 87 not yet documented) displayed similar characteristics in both treatment arms: median age 55 vs 56 years, male 78% vs 79%, stage IV 85% vs 79%, B symptoms 43% vs 33%, ECOG >2 5% vs 5%, elevated LDH 37% vs 38%, and MIPI low/int/high risk 61%/25%/14% vs 62%/23%/15%, respectively. After induction overall response was similarly high in both arms (A: 90% vs B: 94%; p=0.19) and CR rate and combined CR/CRu rate were significantly higher in arm B (26% vs 39%; p=0.012 and 41% vs 60%; p=0.0003). The number of patients transplanted was similar in both arms (72% vs 73%) and after transplantation overall response and CR rates were comparable in both arms (97% vs 97% and 63% vs 65%, respectively). After a median follow up of 27 months, patients in arm B experienced a significantly longer TTF (49 months vs NR; p=0.0384, hazard ratio 0.68) mainly due to a lower number of relapses after CR/CRu/PR (20% vs 10%), whereas the rate of ASCT-related deaths in remission was similar in both arms (3% vs 4%). Although CR rate after ASCT was comparable in both arms, remission duration (RD) after ASCT was superior in Arm B (48m vs NR; p=0.047). Interestingly, for patients in CR after ASCT, RD after ASCT was also presumably superior in arm B (51 months vs NR; p=0.077). At the time of analysis overall survival was similar in both arms with medians not reached and 79% vs. 80% survival rates at 3 years (p=0.74). Safety after induction was comparable in both arms except for an increased grade 3/4 hematological toxicity (Hb 8% vs 28%, WBC 48% vs 75%, platelets 9% vs 74%, respectively), an excess of renal toxicity (creatinine grade 1/2: 8% vs 38%, grade 3/4: none vs 2%), and more frequent grade 1/2 nausea and vomiting in arm B. Toxicities of both conditioning regimen were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 mucositis (43% vs. 61%) in Arm B, and higher grade 1/2 liver toxicity and constipation in Arm A. Conclusions: High dose ARA-C in addition to R-CHOP+ASCT increases significantly complete response rates and TTF without clinically relevant increase of toxicity. Therefore, induction regimen containing high dose ARA-C followed by ASCT should become the new standard of care of MCL patients up to 65 years. Disclosures: Walewski: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer:Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Feugier:roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bosly:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisselbrecht:Roche: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2820-2820
Author(s):  
Barbara Burroni ◽  
Anne Moreau ◽  
Mathieu Baldacini ◽  
Antoine Martin ◽  
Steven Le Gouill ◽  
...  

On behalf of the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) Introduction: Aggressive Mantle Cell Lymphoma variant (A-MCL), including blastic and pleomorphic morphological variants, is a rare subtype of MCL whose frequency varies around 10-15% of all newly-diagnosed MCL patients. According to 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, the diagnosis of A-MCL is based on morphology. A high proliferation rate on Ki-67 staining is not sufficient to be classified as a blastoid or pleomorphic subtype. This might induce diagnostic confusion. The aim of the present retrospective study is to investigate whether or not the CD71, c-Myc, SOX11, P53, ki67 and P16 expressions assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) can distinguish A-MCL from classical MCL (C-MCL). We also investigate the prognostic value of these markers in A-MCL patients. Methods: We re-investigated all MCL patients presented with A-MCL (n=110) at diagnosis and who have been enrolled in six prospective clinical trials. At time of inclusion, a centralized pathological review was performed to confirm the diagnosis of MCL. Cases were initially classified according to the 2008 WHO classification (LYMA, MCL-SA, MCL-SJ, RIBVD and RIPAD trials) or according to the 2017 WHO classification (MCLR2-ELDERLY trials). For the present study, we performed a supplemental pathology review by a panel of 5 hematopathologists experts from the LYSA group according to 2017 WHO classification. We identified 75 cases (out of 110) of A-MCL (8 blastic and 67 pleomorphic variants) which represent 15% of all MCL enrolled in these six trials. We have compared A-MCL characteristics to C-MCL who had specimens available for TMA (n=412 C-MCL out of 487 patients enrolled). IHC was performed on TMA, using the six selected antibodies and were scored by quantifying the percentage of cells stained on each spot. Patients available for survival analysis (53 A-MCL and 312 C-MCL) were drawn from all studies (except from the MCLR2-Elderly study that is ongoing). Different cut-offs were considered for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for each variable. The proliferation index was evaluated with Ki67 classical determination eyeballing and Ki67 reading by grid counting. Cut-offs for each of these markers were determined using X-tile software, which determines the optimal value for classifying patients into groups based on overall and progression-free survival. Results: At baseline, the aggressive forms were similar to classical forms in terms of demographic characteristics (age at diagnosis, localization and sex). p53 protein expression was significantly higher in A-MCL patients than in C-MCL (p<0.001) like p16 (p=0.002), c-MYC (p<0.001), CD71 (p<0.001) and Ki67 index (both classical and by grid) (p< 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in SOX11 expression. In univariate analyses, elevated levels of P16 (>10%), c-MYC (>30%) Ki67 (>40%) were associated with poorer OS and PFS in the cohort of A-MCL and C-MCL patients. There was no significant difference in survival both for OS and PFS regarding P53 (>30%). In multivariate analysis stratified by trial, Ki67 by grid>40% (HR=2.303[1.479-3.585] ; p =0.0002) and c-MYC >30% (HR=1.865 [1.060-3.279] p =0.0305) were predictive for OS whereas only Ki67 by grid >40% (HR=2.055 [1.434, 2.944], p<0.0001) was a significant prognostic factor for PFS. Conclusion: CD71, c-Myc, P53 and P16 expression levels assessed by IHC are higher in A-MCL as compared to C-MCL. These markers could therefore be recommended in routine practice to distinguish between A-MCL and C-MCL. We also found that patients with Ki67 count by grid >40% had significantly shorter PFS and OS and patients with high Myc expression >30% had a significantly poorer OS. Thus, MYC expression and Ki67 by IHC is a suitable test for routine diagnostic practice to assess A-MCL prognosis. Disclosures Le Gouill: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Roche-Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dreyling:Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hermine:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AB science: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2819-2819
Author(s):  
Bernd Metzner ◽  
Jochen Casper ◽  
Koehne Claus-Henning ◽  
Andrea Renzelmann ◽  
Thomas H. Mueller ◽  
...  

Background:Long-term clinical and molecular remissions in patients with MCL following HDT and ASCT have been evaluated in only a few studies. Results are especially limited for remission duration over 5 years. So the curability of this disease remains an open question. Patients and methods:Altogether 61 patients with MCL were treated in our institution with ASCT from 1998 to April 2019 (50 1st-line ASCT, ten 2nd-line ASCT, one 3rd-line ASCT). The data were collected retrospectively in 29 and prospectively in 32 patients who participated in two clinical trials: the 1st-line therapy trials of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG, principal investigator W. Hiddemann [Dreyling M, Blood 2005] and the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network [Hermine O, Lancet 2016], respectively. The diagnosis was regularly approved by the reference pathology of the GLSG (W.K.). The induction therapy before 1st-line ASCT consisted of 6 courses CHOP (n=11), mostly combined with rituximab and followed by Dexa-BEAM, and 6 alternating courses of R-CHOP and R-DHAP (n=39), respectively. For the salvage treatment patients usually received three to four courses of the DHAP protocol or the ESHAP protocol, since 2001 also combined with rituximab.Stem cell apheresis was carried out in the Blood Transfusion Service following these protocols in remission. High-dose protocols: 1) total body irradiation with cyclophosphamide or melphalan and cytarabin (n=32) or 2) BEAM (n=29). Patients with partial remission after ASCT received a radiotherapy (RT) with 30-36 Gy in the field of persisting lymphoma, if possible (n=4). Since 09/2016 patients received a maintenance therapy with rituximab after ASCT (every 2 months, planned for 3 years, n=14). Further details are described in an earlier publication of our first 36 patients (Metzner B, Ann Hematol 2013). Response assessment was performed by careful clinical examination and by ultrasound, chest x-ray and partly CT at regular 3 - 12 monthly time points. In the case of long-term remission (≥ 5 years; n = 18), peripheral blood was regularly tested twice a year for minimal residual disease (MRD) by quantitative t(11;14) or allel specific IGH RQ-PCR and/or IGH-consensus PCR.Calculations were done using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25. Data were analysed as of 01 July 2019. Results:With a median follow-up of 5 years (range 0.1-20) 10-year overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from progression (FFP) after 1st-line ASCT were 54%, 46% and 52%, respectively, after 2nd-line ASCT 42%, 20%and 20%, with a significant difference for PFS (p=0.045) and FFP (p=0.014) between 1st-line and 2nd-line cohort.Further prognostic factors (like sex, age, MIPI, bone marrow involvement, remission grade at ASCT: CR vs. PR, type of HDT: TBI vs. BEAM…) seemed to be without relevance (considering the small subgroups). Only one clinical relapse occurred after 5 years following ASCT in 1stor 2ndremission, respectively (one patient 6 years after 1st-line ASCT and another patient 7 years after 2nd-line ASCT and subsequent radiotherapy). So far, 18 patients experienced long-term remissions of at least 5 years (median 9 years, from 5 to 16 years). Fifteen of 17 tested patients were MRD negative at last follow-up, the two MRD positive patients (positive at a low level below the quantitative measuring range) had no clinical signs of relapse at last follow-up. None of these 18 patients had received rituximab maintenance therapy. None showed clinical criteria of "smoldering mantle cell lymphoma" at induction therapy. Treatment-related mortality at 100 days after ASCT was 1.6% (pneumonitis following TBI). One patient developed a secondary invasive malignancy in remission after ASCT (acute myeloid leukemia 4 years following TBI). Conclusion: Sustained long-term clinical and molecular remissions up to 16 years can be achieved following ASCT (without rituximab maintenance therapy), indicating the potential curative impact of 1st-line ASCT in MCL. The 2nd-line ASCT was obviously less effective. Disclosures Dreyling: Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board. Klapper:Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 491-491
Author(s):  
Stefan Alig ◽  
Charles Macaulay ◽  
David M. Kurtz ◽  
Ulrich Dührsen ◽  
Andreas Hüttmann ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Selection biases can impair the generalizability of clinical trials. Studies investigating aggressive diseases such as Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) can be particularly affected by such biases since clinical urgency and need for therapy may not allow the requisite extensive screening and consent processes for trials. Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval (DTI) has recently been proposed as a novel metric to capture this phenomenon (Maurer et al, JCO, 2018), and short DTI is associated with both adverse clinical factors and adverse clinical outcomes. Intriguingly, DTI was independent of clinical risk factors like the International Prognostic Index (IPI) suggesting that widely applied prognostic scores do not adequately reflect risk factors considered for clinical decision making. In this study, we aim to assess whether pretreatment levels of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are associated with shorter DTI and may constitute an objective measure of clinical urgency. METHODS We quantified pretreatment ctDNA levels in plasma samples from 178 patients treated in 5 US and European centers for large cell lymphoma (DLBCL, Follicular lymphoma grade 3b, or High-grade-B-cell-lymphoma) using Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq) as previously described (Kurtz, JCO 2018; Scherer, STM 2016). Pretreatment ctDNA levels were correlated with DTI, clinical factors and treatment outcome. RESULTS Pretreatment ctDNA was detectable in 175/178 cases. Median number of single nucleotide variants (SNV) detected per patient was 129 (range 0-628). Pretreatment ctDNA levels ranged from 0 - 1.4 x105 haploid genome equivalents per milliliter of plasma (hGE/ml, median 239). Median DTI was 19 days (range 0-141, Figure 1A) and was similar in distribution to 2 previously described cohorts from the US and Europe (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Shorter DTI was associated with higher ctDNA levels (RS=-0.39, P= 1.4 x10-7, Figure 1B). Patients with longer DTI had improved Event-Free Survival (EFS, Hazard Ratio (HR) for DTI: 0.9/week, P= 0.03). However, this association was lost when adjusting for pretreatment ctDNA levels (HR for DTI: 0.95/week, P= 0.39; HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.7, P= 5.8 x10-5). In a multivariate analysis including DTI, ctDNA and IPI, only ctDNA levels were significantly associated with EFS (HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.6, P= 0.002, n=178, Figure 1C). Pretreatment ctDNA levels remained the only prognostic factor for EFS in a second multivariate analysis also considering pretreatment metabolic tumor volume (MTV, HR for log10(ctDNA): 1.8, P= 0.01, n=93, Figure 1D). DISCUSSION Shorter DTI is associated with higher pretreatment ctDNA levels in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas. When comparing to established factors (DTI, IPI, MTV), pretreatment ctDNA levels appear to best predict clinical outcomes. This suggests that quantification of ctDNA better reflects disease burden and treatment urgency than existing clinical biomarkers. Pretreatment ctDNA level may therefore be a valuable metric for disease aggressiveness of patients included in clinical trials, and may help identify studies suffering from selection bias. This may be particularly useful for noncontrolled Phase I/II single arm trials, but also for stratification in randomized trials. Disclosures Kurtz: Roche: Consultancy. Dührsen:Alexion: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; CPT: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hüttmann:Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; University Hospital Essen: Employment. Westin:Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi:Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Diehn:Novartis: Consultancy; BioNTech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Quanticell: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Alizadeh:Pfizer: Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 779-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zinaida Good ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Bita Sahaf ◽  
Meena B. Malipatlolla ◽  
Matthew J. Frank ◽  
...  

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). Long-term analysis of the ZUMA-1 phase 1-2 clinical trial showed that ~40% of Axi-cel patients remained progression-free at 2 years (Locke et al., Lancet Oncology 2019). Those patients who achieved a complete response (CR) at 6 months generally remained progression-free long-term. The biological basis for achieving a durable CR in patients receiving Axi-cel remains poorly understood. Here, we sought to identify CAR T-cell intrinsic features associated with CR at 6 months in DLBCL patients receiving commercial Axi-cel at our institution. Using mass cytometry, we assessed expression of 33 surface or intracellular proteins relevant to T-cell function on blood collected before CAR T cell infusion, on day 7 (peak expansion), and on day 21 (late expansion) post-infusion. To identify cell features that distinguish patients with durable CR (n = 11) from those who developed progressive disease (PD, n = 14) by 6 months following Axi-cel infusion, we performed differential abundance analysis of multiparametric protein expression on CAR T cells. This unsupervised analysis identified populations on day 7 associated with persistent CR or PD at 6 months. Using 10-fold cross-validation, we next fitted a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) model that identified two clusters of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 as potentially predictive of clinical outcome. The first cluster identified by our model was associated with CR at 6 months and had high expression of CD45RO, CD57, PD1, and T-bet transcription factor. Analysis of protein co-expression in this cluster enabled us to define a simple gating scheme based on high expression of CD57 and T-bet, which captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 with greater expansion in patients experiencing a durable CR (mean±s.e.m. CR: 26.13%±2.59%, PD: 10.99%±2.53%, P = 0.0014). In contrast, the second cluster was associated with PD at 6 months and had high expression of CD25, TIGIT, and Helios transcription factor with no CD57. A CD57-negative Helios-positive gate captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells was enriched on day 7 in patients who experienced progression (CR: 9.75%±2.70%, PD: 20.93%±3.70%, P = 0.016). Co-expression of CD4, CD25, and Helios on these CAR T cells highlights their similarity to regulatory T cells, which could provide a basis for their detrimental effects. In this exploratory analysis of 25 patients treated with Axi-cel, we identified two populations of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 that were highly associated with clinical outcome at 6 months. Ongoing analyses are underway to fully characterize this dataset, to explore the biological activity of the populations identified, and to assess the presence of other populations that may be associated with CAR-T expansion or neurotoxicity. This work demonstrates how multidimensional correlative studies can enhance our understanding of CAR T-cell biology and uncover populations associated with clinical outcome in CAR T cell therapies. This work was supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. Figure Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Miklos:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5263-5263
Author(s):  
Karin Hohloch ◽  
Christine Windemuth-Kieselbach ◽  
Pier Luigi Zinzani ◽  
Roberto E. Cacchione ◽  
Wojciech Jurczak ◽  
...  

To assess the efficacy of radioimmunotherapy (RIT) with 90yttrium-ibrutinib-tiuxetan (90Y-IT) in mantle cell lymphoma, data from 90 patients registered in the RIT Network with a median follow-up (FU) of 5.5 years after RIT were evaluated. 90Y-IT was given as first-line therapy in 45 (50%) (consolidation 44 pts., primary therapy 1 pt.) and at relapse in 45 (50%) patients (consolidation 24 pts., recurrence 12 pts., therapy refractory 3 pts., conditioning 2 pts., other 4 pts.). As a first-line treatment, 30 patients (pts.) (67%) achieved CR, 10 pts. (22%) PR%., 1 pt. (2%) PD, and for 4 pts. (9%) no response data was available. At relapse, CR was achieved in 17 pts. (38%), PR in 6 pts. (13%), SD in 2 pts. (4%), and 6 pts. (13%) had PD, while the response was not documented for 14 pts. (31%). After a median FU of 5.5 years, median PFS for all patients was 2.11 (95%CI: 1.03-2.32) years, and median OS was 4.05 (95%CI 2.79-7.21) years. Eleven pts. (12.2%) developed second malignancy. In conclusion, this is the largest report of MCL pts. treated with 90Y-IT to date. 90Y-IT was most often used as consolidation after first- and second-line chemotherapy and may improve the results achieved using chemoimmunotherapy alone. However, the results are less encouraging compared to treatment with small molecules such as ibrutinib. Disclosures Zinzani: TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy. Jurczak:Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Truemper:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy. Scholz:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Hexal: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy; GILEAD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankio: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Yttrium 90 (90Y) Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin) is approved for treatment of patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma and as consolidation therapy after chemo(immuno)therapy of patients with follicular lymphoma.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5868-5868
Author(s):  
Neerav Monga ◽  
Jamie Garside ◽  
Matthew S. Davids ◽  
Constantine S. Tam ◽  
Katherine Ward ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and aggressive form of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) with poor survival outcomes. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is recommended as first-line therapy in younger patients. However the comparative efficacy of such regimens, and of alternative therapy options (for patients unable to tolerate chemotherapy + ASCT), remain unclear. A comprehensive understanding of the current evidence is therefore required. Methods Two systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to identify efficacy and safety data for therapies used in the first-line treatment of MCL. One review identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the other non-randomised studies (NRSs). Searches were carried out in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials electronic databases. Additionally, conference materials were screened from ASH, EHA, ESMO and ASCO proceedings from the last 2 years. All review methodologies were performed according to Cochrane best practice guidelines Results The RCT SR was run in August 2017 and updated in April 2018. Overall, 2,787 abstracts were screened. The SR included 9 full-text articles and data from 2 conference proceedings, together reporting a total of 7 independent studies. Across the RCTs, the most commonly investigated treatment regimens were rituximab + cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisone (R-CHOP), and bendamustine + rituximab (BR). Frequently reported primary endpoints were response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). Table 1 presents the PFS and overall survival (OS) data reported in the included RCTs. Data from the RCT reporting on intensive induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT are separated from regimens that did not include ASCT. There were notable differences in median PFS rates, between both patients receiving ASCT versus patients not receiving ASCT and also between the two ASCT treatment arms. In pharmacotherapy studies, PFS ranged from 14.4 to 35.4 months, whereas the two arms of the ASCT RCT reported 51.6 and 109.2 months, respectively. Similar trends were observed in OS: the only result for patients undergoing ASCT (117.6 months) was higher than any result reported in patients not receiving transplant (range 40 - 60 months). However, study heterogeneity may affect the appropriateness of directly comparing these results. Frequently reported grade 3-4 adverse events included anemia, infusion-related reactions, nausea, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (four of seven RCTs reported each event). The NRS SR was run in April 2018. A total of 3,290 abstracts were screened and 75 full papers were assessed. The SR included 25 full-text articles and 6 conference proceedings, together reporting a total of 18 independent single-arm studies. Several of the NRSs investigated treatment regimens that have not been described in RCT studies, including: R-CHOP with alternating or sequential rituximab + cytarabine (maxiCHOP), and cyclophosphamide + vincristine + doxorubicin + dexamethasone alternating with high dose methotrexate or cytarabine + rituximab (hyperCVAD + R). Across the NRSs, the longest median PFS was 8.5 years (102 months), in patients treated with maxiCHOP (who were young/ASCT-eligible patients). This outcome was reported in a patient population who had responded to induction therapy and were treated with consolidative ASCT. Across all studies there was heterogeneity in the eligible patient population, with some studies focusing on unfit patients and others focusing on high-dose-therapy-eligible patient populations. Many studies also reported maintenance or consolidation treatments, which would influence the long-term outcomes of the patients. Conclusions These SRs highlight the paucity of directly comparable evidence on the efficacy and safety of therapies for patients with MCL. Although there are some marked differences in patient outcomes according to therapy regimen, considerable heterogeneity in study design and patient populations make direct comparison difficult. Despite this, these SRs highlight that MCL remains a difficult subtype of NHL to treat, with short survival highlighting the high unmet need. With new and emerging therapies, additional research is essential to understand optimal regimens for first-line MCL. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Monga: Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Employment. Garside:Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Employment. Davids:Merck: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: 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; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Tam:BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ward:Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Consultancy. Quigley:Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Consultancy. Parisi:Janssen: Employment. Tapprich:Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2426-2426
Author(s):  
Nicole McLaughlin ◽  
Jonas Paludo ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
David J. Inwards ◽  
Nora Bennani ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: While extranodal involvement by mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is relatively common, involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) is rare (&lt;5% of cases), with limited treatment options. We report the outcomes of 36 patients (pts) with CNS involvement compared to 72 matched control MCL pts without CNS involvement. Methods: MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic between 1/1995-9/2020 were identified using the Mayo Data Explorer tool. CNS involvement was defined by tissue biopsy confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS involvement. A 2:1 control group of MCL pts without CNS involvement, matched by age (+/- 2 years) and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year), was selected among all MCL cases. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Out of 1,753 pts with MCL, 36 (2%) had evidence of CNS involvement, including 4 pts with CNS involvement at initial MCL diagnosis. Baseline characteristics of pts with CNS involvement (CNS MCL group) and those without CNS involvement (control group) are shown in Table 1. At MCL diagnosis, non-CNS extranodal involvement was seen in 30 (83%) pts in the CNS MCL group (24 pts with 1 site and 6 pts with ≥ 2 sites), with bone marrow being the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=24, 67%). For the control group, 54 (75%) pts had extranodal involvement (44 pts with 1 site and 10 pts with ≥ 2 sites), and bone marrow was also the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=50, 69%). Notably, advanced stage disease (stage 3-4) was more commonly seen in the CNS MCL group (n=32, 97%) than in the control group (n=59, 83%) (p=0.04) at MCL diagnosis. Blastoid variant was present in a higher proportion of pts in the CNS MCL group (n=11, 31%) compared to the control group (n=8, 11%) (p=0.02). The CNS MCL group also presented with a higher median serum LDH at diagnosis (239 U/L [range 153-1901] vs. 187 U/L [range 124-588], p=0.02), and higher Ki-67 (40% [range 15-100] vs. 30% [range 10-90], p=0.04) compared to the control group. The most common frontline treatment regimen was anthracycline-based therapies (i.e. R-CHOP, Nordic regimen, R-hyperCVAD) for both groups (58% in CNS MCL group and 56% in control group). 14 (39%) pts in the CNS MCL group underwent autologous stem cell transplant in CR1 vs. 31 pts (43%) in the control group. Similar use of rituximab maintenance was seen in both groups (31% in CNS MCL group and 25% in control group). Median total lines of therapy from initial MCL diagnosis was 3 (range 1-9) in CNS MCL group and 2 (range 1-9) in the control group. The median follow-up from MCL diagnosis was 134 months (95% CI:119-163) for the entire cohort. Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 50.3 months (95% CI: 20.9-71.1) for the CNS MCL group compared to 97.1 months (95% CI: 82.6-192.7; p=&lt;0.001) for the control group (Figure 1). Median time from MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 25 months (range 0-167). Median OS from CNS involvement was 4.7 months (95% CI: 2.3-6.7). At last follow up, 31 (86%) pts were deceased from the CNS MCL group, compared to 38 (52%) pts in the control group. For the CNS MCL group, the causes of death were CNS lymphoma in 10 (32%) pts, systemic lymphoma in 9 (29%) pts, treatment-related complication in 7 (23%) pts, and other/unknown in 5 (16%) pts. For the control group, the causes of death were systemic lymphoma in 15 (39%) pts, treatment-related in 2 (5%) pts, and other/unknown in 21 (55%) pts. Conclusion: In pts with MCL, CNS involvement is associated with worse outcomes as evident by a shorter median OS from initial MCL diagnosis (50 months vs. 97 months). Involvement of the CNS by lymphoma is an important contributor for the shorter OS as suggested by the median OS of only 5 months from CNS involvement. Advanced stage, blastoid variant, elevated LDH, and elevated Ki67 at MCL diagnosis were features more commonly seen in the CNS MCL cohort. Validation of risk factors at initial MCL diagnosis associated with CNS involvement and exploring the role of CNS prophylaxis are important topics for further investigation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 744-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liora M Schultz ◽  
Lori S Muffly ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Sneha Ramakrishna ◽  
Nasheed Hossain ◽  
...  

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting either CD19 or CD22 have yielded striking complete remission (CR) rates of 70%-90% in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but CD19 negative and CD22 low relapse limits the curative potential of these single-antigen CAR T cell approaches. We hypothesized that a bivalent CAR-T construct that can target CD19 and/or CD22 would prevent antigen negative/low relapse. Here we present the combined single institution experience to date of pediatric and adult patients with R/R ALL treated with this novel bispecific CAR. Methods: We conducted parallel Phase I clinical trials of CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells in pediatric and adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. We utilized lentiviral transduction of a bivalent CAR construct incorporating the fmc63 CD19 and m971 CD22 single chain variable fragments (scFvs) and a 41BB costimulatory endodomain. After lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, patients were infused with fresh or cryopreserved CAR T cells manufactured using a 7-11 day process. Two dose levels were tested during dose escalation: Dose level 1 was 1x106 CAR T cells/kg and dose level 2 was 3x106 cells/kg. Primary objectives assessed the ability to successfully manufacture CAR19/22 CAR T cells and safety while response at Day 28 post-infusion was a secondary objective. Blood, bone marrow and cerebrospinal fluid samples were obtained at protocol defined intervals for correlative biology studies. Results: Nineteen patients have been enrolled (10 pediatric; 9 adult) with a median age of 23 years (range, 2-68) and median of 4 (range, 2-11) prior lines of leukemia-directed therapy. Ten patients received prior HCT, 9 were treated with prior Blinatumomab, 3 with prior CD19 directed CAR T cells and 4 with prior Inotuzumab. Fourteen patients (8 pediatric, 6 adult) have been infused to date with CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells; 7 were treated at dose level 1 (DL1) and 7 at dose level 2 (DL2). Successful manufacturing of cells at target dose levels was achieved in all patients. Twelve patients have reached day 28 and are included in the safety and response analysis presented here. Nine of 12 (75%) experienced cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 2/12 (17%) developed immune-effector cell neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). The CRS and ICANS were all grade 1 or 2 across both dose levels and across pediatric and adult patients except for one adult with high disease burden who experienced grade 4 CRS and grade 4 ICANS, both of which were reversible. No differences in toxicities were seen across the patient age spectrum and there were no cases of treatment-related mortality within 28 days following CAR T infusion. Eleven of 12 (92%) patients achieved a CR, 10 of whom achieved CR at day 28 and one with a PR of extramedullary disease at day 28 which improved to CR by day 180 without further leukemia-directed intervention. One patient had primary progressive disease prior to day 28. Peak CAR expansion as detected by peripheral blood flow cytometry reached a median level of 11.13% (DL1) and 29.1% (DL2) CAR T of CD3+ cells with a range of 0.7-22.54% and 3.8-86.96%, respectively. To date, 3 patients (1 pediatric and 2 adult patients) have relapsed, all with retention of CD19. Post-remission practice differed across pediatric and adult patients; Six pediatric patients reaching day 28 underwent consolidative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) whereas no adult patients received subsequent HCT. One patient died from complications post HCT while in remission. Therefore, the overall survival for all infused patients was 92% with a median follow-up of 9.5 months from time of infusion (range, 1-20). Conclusion: The combined pediatric and adult phase I trials of bispecific CD19/CD22 targeting CAR T cells in relapsed/refractory ALL demonstrates safety and tolerability at two dose levels. Expanded accrual at dose level 2 is ongoing and clinical outcomes will be updated. This work additionally demonstrates feasibility of delivering unified B-ALL CAR T cell therapy across age boundaries. Multi-parametric CyTOF studies permitting CAR T cell phenotyping in conjunction with single cell TCR tracking, proteomics, epigenomics and cytokine profiling are ongoing and will be used to further characterize persisting CAR T cells and define inter-product and inter-patient variability. Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding. Majzner:Xyphos Inc.: Consultancy; Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy. Feldman:Octane Biotech, Inc.: Employment; Personalized Medicine Initiative Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document