scholarly journals Monotherapy Activity with the First CD20-Targeted Immunotoxin, MT-3724, in Subjects with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4098-4098
Author(s):  
Paul A. Hamlin ◽  
Vasile Musteata ◽  
Mamia Zodelava ◽  
Steven I Park ◽  
Christine Burnett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Peripheral Edema ◽  
Monitoring Committee

Background: The near ubiquity and persistence of CD20 expression in B-cell malignancies provides a strong rationale for novel CD20-directed therapies. MT-3724 is a novel engineered toxin body comprised of an anti-CD20 single chain variable fragment genetically fused to Shiga-like toxin A subunit, which forces internalization of CD20-bound MT-3724, irreversibly inactivating ribosomes and triggering apoptosis. As MT-3724 competes with rituximab (RTX) for the same CD20 binding domain, undetectable or low (< 500 ng/mL) RTX levels (RTX-neg) allow potential response to MT-3724. We present final safety and efficacy results from dose escalation to maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) subjects (subj) and dose expansion in RTX-neg DLBCL subj. Methods: In Part 1, MT-3724 dose was escalated in 21 subj with B-cell NHL according to the 3+3 design based on ≤1 subj exhibiting DLT during Cycle 1 (28 days) in 6 sequential dose cohorts (5, 10, 20, 50, 75, and 100 μg/kg/dose IV over 2 hours 3 times per week for 2 of 4 consecutive weeks) for up to 5 cycles. In Part 2, the safety and efficacy of MT-3724 was further evaluated in 6 RTX-neg subj with DLBCL. Tumor response was assessed by the International Working Group Response Criteria for Clinical Trials (Cheson 2007). Results: Twenty-seven subj with NHL (DLBCL:16, composite DLBCL/Follicular Lymphoma (FL): 3, FL: 6, Mantle Cell Lymphoma: 2 were enrolled. Seventeen (63%) were female, mean age was 65 yrs (34-78). Performance status was ECOG 0: 44%, 1: 44%, 2: 11%; median follow-up was 50 (11-372) days; median cycles 2 (1-11). The most common AEs (%) of all grades were peripheral edema (63), fatigue (41), diarrhea (41), myalgia (41), muscle weakness (33), insomnia (30); 27 subj had AEs (%) with related causality, the most common were: peripheral edema (41), myalgia (33), fatigue (26). The most common related grade (G) ³3 AEs included neutropenia, myalgia, and infections (all 11%); There were 9 related SAEs among 6 subj. One subj died on study from disease progression. MT-3724 was not tolerated at 100 µg/kg/dose (DLTs: G3 pneumonia, G2 ileus). After 2 obese (BMI >35) subj treated at 75 µg/kg/dose in the expansion cohort had G2 capillary leak syndrome (CLS), the MTD was set at 50 µg/kg/dose with a 6000 mg/dose cap. Innate immune responses such as CLS or manifestations thereof (hypotension, hypoalbuminemia, peripheral edema) were noted with increasing frequency with higher doses of MT-3724. No cases of >G2 CLS have been observed. Of the 13 RTX-neg DLBCL subj, 5 (38%) responded across the range of 5 to 50 μg/kg/dose. All responses were partial responses (PRs) including 1 subj with composite DLBCL/FL post autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) who had a complete metabolic response of a large mesenteric mass and proceeded to allogeneic SCT. Three subj had stable disease (SD) including two with 49% and 47% tumor reductions, one of whom had FL transformed from DLBCL post autologous SCT; another 5 had progressive disease. Given a limited prescribed period of treatment with MT-3724, duration of response cannot be calculated, however, generally the tumor burden in responders decreased with repeat treatment. Among the responders, mean age was 61 (50-76) yrs, and the median number of prior lines of NHL therapy received was 3 (1-8). Subj with detectable baseline RTX levels did not benefit from MT-3724. Of all 20 subj measured, 6 developed anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) during the first cycle of therapy; 5 developed ADAs at a later timepoint; 6 did not develop ADAs. ADAs were observed in all subj who showed a response, and in 4 of 5 subj with SD. Increasing MT-3724 dose was associated with a dose-dependent peripheral B-cell depletion, evidenced by decreasing CD19+ cells. Conclusions MT-3724 is the first CD20 targeted immunotoxin to enter clinical trials. Safety events were mostly mild-moderate, and DLTs were in line with the mechanism of action of MT-3724. A tolerable dose and schedule have been identified: 50 μg/kg/dose up to a maximum of 6000 μg/dose infused over 1 hour on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 of a 21-day cycle. A 38% objective response rate has been observed with monotherapy in a heavily pretreated, RTX-neg DLBCL population; of these subj, 5 were treated at 50 ug/kg (MTD) and 3 of whom responded. The development of ADAs did not preclude benefit of MT-3724. An ongoing phase 2 monotherapy study to confirm efficacy and safety in RTX-neg subj with DLBCL (NCT02361346) is open for recruitment. Disclosures Musteata: Institute of Oncology: Employment; Arensia EM: Other: Principal Investigator. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Burnett:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment. Dabovic:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment. Williams:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment. Higgins:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Persky:Sandoz: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Tenalisib Given in Combination with Romidepsin in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory T-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results from a Phase I/II Open Label Multi-Center Study

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1365-1365
Author(s):  
Swaminathan P Iyer ◽  
Auris Huen ◽  
Weiyun Z. Ai ◽  
Deepa Jagadeesh ◽  
Mary Jo Lechowicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Member ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Committee Membership

Abstract Background: Tenalisib (RP6530), a highly selective PI3K δ/γ and SIK3 inhibitor has shown promising activity as a single agent in T Cell lymphoma (TCL) and a differentiated safety profile (Huen A et al., Cancers,2020). In vitro studies in TCL cell lines showed synergistic activity when tenalisib was combined with romidepsin. A Phase I/II study of tenalisib in combination with romidepsin was designed to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) TCL peripheral (PTCL) and cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) (NCT03770000). Methods: This was a multi-center, open label study. We performed a Phase I, 3+3 dose escalation study to determine the MTD/recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), and a dose expansion study in both the subtypes separately (PTCL and CTCL). Patients received tenalisib at doses ranging from 400-800 mg BID (fasting), orally in combination with romidepsin at doses ranging from 12-14 mg/m 2, intravenously, given on Days 1,8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Results: Thirty-three patients (16 PTCL and 17 CTCL) who received more than 1 prior therapy were enrolled in the study; 9 in dose escalation and 24 in dose expansion. Of the 33 patients, 64% were refractory to their last therapy. The median number of prior therapies was 3. Most patients (67%) had stage III/IV disease at time of enrolment. No dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was reported during dose escalation; tenalisib 800 mg BID with romidepsin 14 mg/m 2 (given on Days 1, 8, and 15) was chosen as the RP2D. The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (All: 73% and ≥G3:0%), thrombocytopenia (All:57% and ≥G3:21%), fatigue (All: 54% and ≥G3:6%), AST elevation (All:33% and ≥G3:6%) ALT elevation (All:27% and ≥G3:18%), neutropenia (All: 27% and ≥G3:15%), vomiting (All:27% and ≥G3:0%), decreased appetite (All: 27% and ≥G3:0%). There were no unexpected TEAEs. Among CTCL patients, five related TEAEs led to drug discontinuation were sepsis, ALT elevation, GGT elevation, rash, and dysgeusia. None of the PTCL patients discontinued the study drug due to related TEAEs. Incidences of TEAEs leading to drug interruption (72%) and dose reduction (45%) of any the drugs in the combination were similar in PTCL and CTCL groups. Based on C max and AUC, dose proportional exposure of tenalisib was observed from doses 400-800 mg BID. Co-administration of romidepsin with tenalisib did not significantly alter the PK of either agent. Of the 33 patients enrolled, 27 (12 PTCL and 15 CTCL) who received at least 1 dose of study drug and provided at least 1 post-baseline efficacy assessment were considered evaluable for efficacy as per protocol. The overall response rate (ORR) was of 63%; 7 (26%) patients achieved CR and 10 (37%) patients had PR (Table 1). The median duration of response (DoR) was 5.03 months (range: 2.16 months-Not Reached). In twelve evaluable PTCL patients, the ORR was 75% with 6 CR (50%) and 3 PR (25%). Among 15 evaluable CTCL patients, 8 responded with an ORR of 53.3%, 1 CR (6.7%) and 7 PR (46.7%). The median DoR was 5.03 (range: 2.16 months-Not Reached) for PTCL and 3.8 months (1.9-18.86) for CTCL. Three of the six (50%) PTCL patients with CR were bridged to transplant. Six patients who benefitted with the treatment and completed the protocol were enrolled in an open-label compassionate medication study after Cycle 7 and are being followed up. Conclusions: The combination of tenalisib and romidepsin demonstrates a favorable safety profile and promising anti-tumor activity in patients with R/R TCL. Based on these encouraging results, further development of this combination in PTCL patients in being planned. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Huen: Rhizen: Research Funding; Elorac: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Tillium: Research Funding; Innate: Research Funding; Galderma: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding. Ai: Kymria, Kite, ADC Therapeutics, BeiGene: Consultancy. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Alderuccio: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncinfo / OncLive: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member. Kuzel: Cardinal Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genomic Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Genzyme Genomic Health Tempus laboratories Bristol Meyers Squibb: Honoraria; Abbvie: Other; Curio Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AmerisourceBergen Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CVS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus Laboratories: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Other: Data Monitoring Committee Membership; Amgen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee Membership; SeaGen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee Membership; Medpace: Other: Data Monitoring Committee Membership.

scholarly journals Copy Number Signatures Predict Chromothripsis and Poor Clinical Outcome in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 52-53
Author(s):  
Kylee H Maclachlan ◽  
Binbin Zheng-Lin ◽  
Venkata Yellapantula ◽  
Andriy Derkach ◽  
Even H Rustad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Signature Analysis ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Manual Curation ◽  
Low Coverage

Chromothripsis is emerging as a strong and independent prognostic factor in multiple myeloma (MM), predicting shorter progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (Rustad BioRxiv 2019). Reliable detection requires whole genome sequencing (WGS), with 24% prevalence in 752 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) from CoMMpass (NCT01454297, Rustad BioRxiv 2019) compared with 1.3% by array-based techniques (Magrangeas Blood 2011). In MM, chromothripsis presents differently to solid cancers. Although the biological impact is similar across malignancies, in MM the structural complexity of chromothriptic events is typically lower. In addition, chromothripsis can occur early in MM development and remain stable over time (Maura Nat Comm 2019). Computational algorithms for chromothripsis detection (e.g. ShatterSeek; Cortes-Ciriano Nat Gen 2018) were developed in solid cancers and are accurate in that setting. Running ShatterSeek on 752 NDMM patients with low coverage WGS from CoMMpass, we observed a high specificity for chromothripsis (98.3%) but poor sensitivity (30.2%). ShatterSeek detected chromothripsis in 64/752 samples (8.5%), with 85% confirmed on manual curation; however, missed 114 cases located by manual curation. This indicates that MM-specific computational methods are required. We hypothesized that a signature analysis approach using copy number variation (CNV) may provide an accurate estimation of chromothripsis. We adapted CNV signature analysis, developed in ovarian cancer (Macintyre Nat Gen 2018), to now detect MM-specific CNV and structural features. The analysis utilizes 6 fundamental CN features: i) absolute CN of segments, ii) difference in CN in adjacent segments, iii) breakpoints per 10 Mb, iv) breakpoints per chromosome arm, v) lengths of oscillating CN segment chains, and vi) the size of segments. The optimal number of categories in each CNV feature was established using a mixed effect model (mclust R package). Using CoMMpass low-coverage WGS, de novo extraction using the hierarchical dirichlet process defined 5 signatures, 2 of which (CNV-SIG 4 and CNV-SIG 5) contain features associated with chromothripsis: longer lengths of oscillating CN states, higher numbers of breakpoints / chromosome arm, and higher total numbers of small segments of CN change. Next, we demonstrate that CNV signatures are highly predictive of chromothripsis (average area-under-the-curve /AUC = 0.9, based on 10-fold cross validation). Chromothripsis-associated CNV signatures are correlated with biallelic TP53 inactivation (p= 0.01) and gain1q21 (p&lt;0.001) and show negative association with t(11;14) (p&lt;0.001). Chromothriptic signatures were associated with shorter PFS, with multivariate analysis after correction for ISS, age, biallelic TP53 inactivation, t(4;14) and gain1q21 producing a hazard ratio of 2.9 (95% CI 1.07-7.7, p = 0.036). A validation set of 29 NDMM WGS confirmed the ability of CNV signatures to predict chromothripsis (AUC 0.87). As WGS is currently too expensive and computationally intensive to employ in routine practice, we investigated if CNV signatures can predict chromothripsis without using WGS. First, we performed de novo signature extraction using whole exome data from 865 CoMMpass samples. CNV signatures extracted without reference to WGS produced an AUC = 0.81 for predicting chromothripsis (in those with WGS to confirm; n =752), and the chromothriptic-signatures confirmed the association with a shorter PFS (HR=7.2, 95%CI 1.32-39.4, p = 0.022). Second, we applied CNV signature analysis to NDMM having either the myTYPE targeted sequencing panel (n= 113; Yellapantula, Blood Can J 2019) or a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array (n= 217). CNV signature assessment by each technology was predictive of clinical outcome, likely due to the detection of chromothripsis. As with WGS, multivariate analysis confirmed CNV signatures to be independently prognostic (myTYPE; p = 0.003, SNP; p = 0.004). Overall, we demonstrate that CNV signature analysis in NDMM provides a highly accurate prediction of chromothripsis. CNV signature assessment remains reliable by multiple surrogate measures, without requiring WGS. Chromothripsis-associated CNV signatures are an independent and adverse prognostic factor, potentially allowing refinement of standard prognostic scores for NDMM patients and providing a more accurate risk stratification for clinical trials. Disclosures Hultcrantz: Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Intellisphere LLC: Consultancy. Dogan:Takeda: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Landgren:Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Other; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Understanding the functions and operations of data monitoring committees: Survey and focus group findings

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim A Calis ◽  
Patrick Archdeacon ◽  
Raymond P Bain ◽  
Annemarie Forrest ◽  
Jane Perlmutter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Statistical Data Analysis ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Analysis Center

Background: The use of data monitoring committees in the conduct of clinical trials has increased and evolved, but there is a lack of published information on when data monitoring committees are needed and utilized, the acceptable range of data monitoring committee practices, and appropriate qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Methods: To gain a better understanding of data monitoring committee operations and areas for improvement, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative conducted a survey and set of focus groups. A total of 143 respondents completed the online survey: 76 data monitoring committee members, 52 sponsors involved with organization of data monitoring committees, and 15 statistical data analysis center representatives. There were 42 focus group participants, including data monitoring committee members; patients and/or patient advocate data monitoring committee members; institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration representatives; industry, government, and non-profit sponsors; and statistical data analysis center representatives. Results: Participants indicated that the primary responsibility of a data monitoring committee is to be an independent advisory body representing the interests of trial participants by assessing the risk and benefit ratio in ongoing trials. They noted that data monitoring committees must have access to unmasked data in order to perform this role. No clear consensus emerged regarding specific criteria for requiring a data monitoring committee for a given trial, and some participants felt data monitoring committees may be overused. Respondents offered suggestions for the data monitoring committee charter and communications with sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators. Overall, data monitoring committee members reported that they are able to function independently and their recommendations are almost always accepted by the sponsor. Participants indicated that there are no standards or guidelines pertaining to qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Furthermore, only 8% (6/72) of data monitoring committee member survey respondents received any formal training, and 94% (68/72) were not aware of any training programs. Conclusion: Findings from the survey and focus groups provide a better understanding of contemporary data monitoring committee operations and insights regarding challenges and best practices. Overall, it was clear that increased training will be needed to prepare the next generation of qualified data monitoring committee members to meet the growing demand. These findings can be used by Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and others to develop recommendations and tools to improve data monitoring committee operations and the overall quality of trial oversight.

scholarly journals A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-112
Author(s):  
J Athene Lane ◽  
Carrol Gamble ◽  
William J Cragg ◽  
Doreen Tembo ◽  
Matthew R Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Trial Management ◽  
Independent Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
The Third ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Oversight Committee ◽  
Trial Oversight

Background/aims: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. Methods: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. Results: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. Conclusion: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

A Phase I Study of DCDT2980S, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) Targeting CD22, in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 59-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranjana Advani ◽  
Daniel Lebovic ◽  
Mark Brunvand ◽  
Andy I. Chen ◽  
Andre Goy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Antibody Drug Conjugate ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels ◽  
Anti Tumor Activity

Abstract Abstract 59 Introduction: CD22 is a lineage marker expressed in most B-cell lymphomas. DCDT2980S is an ADC consisting of an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a potent microtubule disrupting agent linked to the antibody via a protease-cleavable peptide linker. DCDT2980S exhibits potent anti-tumor activity in murine xenograft models of B-cell lymphoma and is being evaluated in a Phase I study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and biologic activity in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. Methods: Pts receive DCDT2980S intravenously every 21 days at dose levels 0.1 to 3.2 mg/kg until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Intrapatient dose escalation based on tolerability at higher doses is permitted. Following determination of the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) based on protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring within 21 days of dosing, additional pts with indolent and aggressive B-cell NHL are being enrolled to further evaluate safety and efficacy based on Cheson response criteria. Here we report the RP2D and preliminary safety and efficacy results. Results: To date, 35 pts (57% male), median age 66 years (range 30–85) have been enrolled: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, n=18), follicular lymphoma (FL, n=11), transformed FL (n=4), and small lymphocytic lymphoma (n=2). Enrolled patients were heavily pre-treated: 26 pts had received ≥ 3 prior regimens, all pts had received prior rituximab, and 7 pts received prior high-dose therapy followed autologous or allogenic stem cell transplantation. Overall, pts received a median of 4 doses (range 1–25) of DCDT2980S in 7 dose-escalation cohorts, and 2 expansion cohorts at the RP2D. All 3 pts treated with DCDT2980S at 3.2 mg/kg developed Grade 4 neutropenia following the first dose, one of which constituted a DLT. No DLTs were reported in the 6 pts treated at 2.4 mg/kg, which is the RP2D. Across all dose levels, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) in ≥ 20% of pts were diarrhea (34%), fatigue (34%), nausea (31%), neutropenia (26%), decreased appetite (23%), vomiting (23%), and peripheral edema (20%). Treatment-emergent Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 9 (27%) pts including 5 out of 9 pts who were treated at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg. Overall, neutropenia (24%) was the only Grade ≥ 3 AE in ≥ 10% of pts (24%) and was the only Grade ≥ 3 AE reported in > 1 pt (n=2) treated at the RP2D. Eight (26%) pts across all dose levels experienced a serious AE (SAE) of which one Grade 3 dehydration in a pt treated at 3.2 mg/kg was attributed to DCDT2980S. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 3 pts: Grade 3 neutropenia (n=1) and Grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (n=2). No deaths were reported within 30 days of the last dose of DCDT2980S. Assessment of Cycle 1 PK after the first dose of DCDT2980S indicated that the exposure of antibody-conjugated MMAE (acMMAE), total antibody, and free MMAE increased with dose. The clearance estimates of both acMMAE and total antibody were similar across doses from 1.0–3.2 mg/kg. The volume of distribution estimates for acMMAE and total antibody approximated plasma volume and did not change with dose and suggest dose-proportional increase of acMMAE and total antibody exposures for doses of 1.0–3.2 mg/kg. Early evidence of anti-tumor activity was observed. At the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg, 2 of 3 pts with DLBCL had > 75% reduction in tumor sum of perpendicular dimensions (SPD) and negative PET scans; 1 partial response was noted in a pt with FL treated at 1.8 mg/kg. These 3 pts continue on study, each having received at least 8 cycles of study treatment. Two additional pts with DLBCL receiving 0.5 mg/kg and 3.2–2.4 mg/kg had > 50% reduction in tumor SPD and discontinued study treatment after 8 and 6 cycles, respectively, to undergo stem cell transplant. Conclusions: In this early experience, DCDT2980S is well tolerated, has a favorable safety profile and has evidence of anti-tumor activity in in a heavily pretreated pts with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. Updated clinical data will be presented. These results support additional clinical evaluation of DCDT2980S in B-cell malignancies. Disclosures: Advani: Genentech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: anti-CD79b Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) DCDS4501A. Lebovic:Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Brunvand:Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Chen:Genentech: Research Funding. Chang:Genentech: Research Funding. Ho:Genentech: Employment. Kahn:Genentech: Employment. Lu:Genentech: Employment. Su:Genentech: Employment. Chu:Genentech: Employment.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy Induced and Febrile Neutropenia (CIN/FN) in Bendamustine Plus Rituximab (BR) Regimens in Patients with Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Real-World, Single-Center Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5353-5353
Author(s):  
Logan Moore ◽  
Trace Bartels ◽  
Daniel O. Persky ◽  
Abhijeet Kumar ◽  
Ivo Abraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Real World ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Monitoring Committee

Introduction: Granulocyte stimulating growth factors (G-CSF) such as filgrastim or pegfilgrastim are indicated as prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). BR regimen is considered an intermediate FN risk (10-20%) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Therefore, patients receiving BR need to be assessed using patient specific risk factors to evaluate the need for primary prophylaxis. This study evaluates real-world patterns and outcomes associated with primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with B-cell lymphoma and CLL treated with BR. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all lymphoma or CLL patients treated with BR from 11/2013 through 6/2019 at the University of Arizona Cancer Center was conducted. Baseline demographic and chemotherapy cycle data was analyzed through Chi-Squared test and Unpaired t-test with a-priori p-value of 0.05 being considered statistically significant. Results: Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 received G-CSF during all chemotherapy cycles for primary prophylaxis while 37 received G-CSF only for secondary prophylaxis. Same-day pegfilgrastim compared to next-day pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was the most common G-CSF dosing utilized with primary and secondary prophylaxis patients receiving it (87.5%, 94.6%) respectively. As shown in Table, primary and secondary prophylaxis groups were similar on baseline characteristics (p>0.05); the primary outcome of FN (p>0.05); all secondary outcomes (p>0.05) except for a higher frequency of dose delays in secondary (37.8%) vs primary prophylaxis patients (14.6%; p=0.01); and mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) in all cycles (p>0.05) except for cycles 3 and 5. Higher ANC levels were found in primary prophylaxis patients (4.06+0.43) vs secondary prophylaxis (3.03+0.30; p=0.03) for cycle 3 and (3.57+0.25) vs (2.88+0.26; p=0.03) for cycle 5. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective study, BR-treated lymphoma and CLL patients receiving primary vs secondary with G-CSF showed similar outcomes except, notably, for chemotherapy dose delays that may put secondary patients at risk for poor treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of primary vs secondary prophylaxis on chemotherapy treatment outcomes. Table Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee. McBride:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; teva: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document