scholarly journals African-Americans Multiple-Myeloma Patients Undergoing Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplant Have Similar Survival Outcomes Compared to Whites: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
Neeraj Saini ◽  
Junsheng Ma ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Ruby Delgado ◽  
Gabriela Rondon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Grant Support

Background: Since the introduction of novel anti-myeloma agents, multiple studies have shown disparate survival outcomes among African American (AA) patients compared to whites with multiple myeloma (MM). Limited access to novel therapies and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HCT) has been considered partly responsible for the lower survival outcomes in AA, but other disease-related features may also contribute to this disparity. We hypothesize that patients receiving ASCT would have equal healthcare access, which may nullify the impact of disparate access to novel drugs and healthcare facilities. To test this hypothesis, we compared survival outcomes of AA and whites with MM who underwent upfront ASCT at our center through propensity score matching analysis. Methods and patients: A total of 705 MM patients, including AA and whites, who underwent auto-HCT at our institution from 2007 to 2015. By using 1:1 propensity-matching, we identified 251 patients, 125 AA and 126 whites. Clinical response, relapse, and progression were defined by the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: Table 1 includes the baseline characteristics of the matched doublets. Patients in the two groups were well matched for age at auto-HCT, ISS stage, serum creatinine, induction, response to induction, consolidation, preparative regimen, and maintenance therapy. The median follow-up for the matched cohort was 71.5 (interquartile range: 51.6-90.3) months. The overall response rate (CR+VGPR+PR) after auto-HCT was 95.2% (119/125 patients)) and 98.4% (123/125 patients) in the AA and the white group, respectively (p = 0.289). Thirty-four (27.2%) patients achieved a CR in each group. Sixty (48.0%) and 62 (49.6%) patients achieved a VGPR in the AA and the white group, respectively. The median PFS for the AA and the white group was 44.6 (95%CI: 35.5 - 54.7) and 51.0 (95%CI: 38.3 - 63.9) months, respectively (p = 0.763, stratified log-rank test). The 4-year PFS in the AA and the white group was 48% (95%CI: 39.3 - 57.8) and 51.2% (95%CI: 43.0 - 61.0), respectively (Fig. 1). The 4-year OS in the AA and the white group was 78.5% (95%CI: 71.5 - 86.2) and 80.9% (95%CI: 74.1 - 88.2), respectively (Fig. 2). Conclusions: In this propensity score matching analysis of MM patients who underwent an auto-HCT at our institution, we showed that AA patients had similar response rates, PFS, and OS as white patients Disclosures Bashir: KITE: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Hosing:NKARTA Inc.: Consultancy. Nieto:Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support; Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Other: Grant Support. Kebriaei:Amgen: Other: Research Support; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Alousi:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding; Alexion: Honoraria. Mehta:Kadmon: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Khouri:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Thomas:Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ascentage: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Patel:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding. Orlowski:Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; STATinMED Research: Consultancy. Champlin:Actinium: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Cytonus: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Patents & Royalties. Qazilbash:Bioclinica: Consultancy; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

scholarly journals High-Dose Chemotherapy (HDC) with Autologous Stem-Cell Transplant (ASCT) with Consolidative Radiation Therapy (RT) for Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Primary Mediastinal B-Cell Lymphoma (PMBCL): 20-Year Experience at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Neeraj Saini ◽  
Junsheng Ma ◽  
Melissa Timmons ◽  
Amin M. Alousi ◽  
Paolo Anderlini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grant Support

Background Most PMBCL pts are cured with frontline chemoimmunotherapy ± RT. Data are scant regarding the role of HDC/ASCT for R/R PMBCL, and the benefit of RT administered peri-HDC/ASCT. Our institutional approach has focused on developing potentially more active HDC regimens, and on consideration of post-ASCT consolidation RT, especially for pts who had not achieved a CR at the time of HDC. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients (pts) with R/R PMBCL treated with HDC/ASCT at MDACC between 01/01/2000-12/31/2019. All pts underwent similar standard pre-SCT evaluation and met eligibility criteria as per our institutional guidelines. Response assessment differed over time and included CT and gallium scan (N=9) and PET/CT (N=49). Cox proportional hazards regression models evaluated the associations of the specific HDC regimen and clinical covariates of interest with EFS and OS. Results 58 pts received HDC/ASCT with BEAM-rituximab (N=36) or rituximab/gemcitabine/busulfan/melphalan ± vorinostat (R-GemBuMel) (n=22) (Table 1). The R-GemBuMel group included more pts pretreated with >2 lines of therapy than the R-BEAM group (55% vs. 28%, p=0.025), had fewer pts in CR (41% vs. 69%, P=0.01) and more pts in PD/SD at ASCT (32% vs. 3%, P=0.01). Prior RT at a median 44 (36-48) Gy was administered to 29 pts (20 R-BEAM, 9 R-GemBuMel, P=0.27). Nineteen pts (89% not in CR at SCT) who had not previously received full doses of RT received post-SCT RT (6 after BEAM, 13 after R-GemBuMel, P<0.001) at median 40 Gy (36-48). There were 2 treatment-related deaths in the R-BEAM arm, none in the R-GemBuMel arm. At median follow-up of 69.1 months (interquartile range, 36.5-85.2), the EFS rates were 57.6% (overall), 67.6% (R-GemBuMel) and 52.7% (R-BEAM) (Figure 1a). Their respective OS rates were 69.3%, 81.1% and 63.9% (Figure 1b). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, R-GemBuMel (vs. R-BEAM) (HR=0.29, p=0.05), and 1 organ involved (vs. >1) (HR 0.28, p=0.009) were associated with improved EFS, whereas older age (HR= 1.08 per year above median, p=0.005), refractory disease (SD/PD) at SCT (vs. CR/PR) (HR 5.44, p=0.01) correlated with worse EFS. Likewise, R-GemBuMel (HR= 0.16, p=0.03) and 1 organ involved (HR=0.17, p=0.004) significantly resulted in improved OS, whereas older age (HR= 1.11, p=0.002), and refractory (SD/PD) disease at SCT (HR= 21.27, p=0.001) correlated with worse OS. Neither sex nor disease status (primary refractory vs. relapse) nor No. prior lines (2 vs. >2) nor pre-SCT RT nor post-SCT RT correlated significantly with EFS or OS. Conclusions HDC/ASCT for R/R PMBCL pts, with post-SCT RT for pts with active disease at SCT, results in favorable long-term results. R-GemBuMel ± vorinostat seems to improve EFS and OS compared to R-BEAM. Disclosures Alousi: Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding; Alexion: Honoraria. Hosing:NKARTA Inc.: Consultancy. Kebriaei:Amgen: Other: Research Support; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Shpall:Zelluna: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Other: Licensing Agreement. Champlin:Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; Cytonus: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nieto:Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support; Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support.

scholarly journals Impact of Novel Agents on the Outcomes of Patients with Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma That Relapsed after Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1373-1373
Author(s):  
Aung M Tun ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
Aasiya Matin ◽  
David J. Inwards ◽  
Patrick B. Johnston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Introduction: Novel therapeutic agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are active in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including in patients that relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, optimal management strategy is unclear for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) cHL post-ASCT. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of novel agents relative to conventional therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) on survival outcomes of patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT. Methods: Patients with RR cHL who underwent ASCT between 06/1993 and 10/2017 at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. For patients who relapsed after ASCT, the post-relapse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were done in JMP v15.2.1 and EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 332 patients with RR cHL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 8.6 years (range 6.8-9.7), 136 (41%) patients had a relapse or disease progression after ASCT. Patient characteristics of the 136 cases are summarized in the Table. The median age at post-ASCT relapse was 34 years (range 20-73), and 77 (57%) were male. 59 (43%) relapsed within 6 months and 77 (57%) relapsed after 6 months following ASCT. 59 (45%) had an extranodal site involvement at relapse. 14 (10%) had therapy with ICI or BV as salvage therapy prior to ASCT or maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The median post-relapse PFS and OS was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.2-5.5) years, respectively. Compared to patients who relapse after 6 months, patients who relapsed within 6 months of ASCT had worse post-relapse PFS (median 0.5 [0.3-0.7] vs 1.3 [0.9-1.9] years, p=0.0003) and OS (median 1.3 [0.5-2.2] vs 6.4 [3.7-10.4] years, p=0.0003). Extranodal site involvement at relapse was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.7 [0.5-1.2] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.3] years, p=0.28) but was associated with worse post-relapse OS (median 2.7 [1.5-4.2] vs 6.4 [2.6-NA] years, p=0.006). Prior therapy with ICI or BV was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.6 [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] year, p=0.8) and OS (median NR [1.0-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.5] years, p=0.5). After post-ASCT relapse, the median lines of subsequent therapy were 2 (range 1-12). For first post-ASCT salvage therapy, novel agents (ICI or BV), compared to other therapies, were associated with superior post-relapse PFS (median 1.7 [0.7-3.6] vs 0.7 [0.5-1.0] years, p=0.004) and OS (median 7.6 [4.7-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.6], p=0.02). Allo-SCT following first post-ASCT relapse (n=9) was not associated with improvement in post-relapse PFS (median 2.2 years [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] years, p=0.1) or OS (median NR [0.5-NA] vs 5.1 [3.2-7.3] years, p=0.7). Patients who received ICI or BV at any point post-ASCT relapse had significantly better post-relapse OS (median 7.6 [4.3-16.7] vs 2.2 [1.4-3.7] years, p=0.004) compared to those who never received any novel agent (Figure 1A). In contrast, allo-SCT at any point post-ASCT relapse (n=27) did not improve post-relapse OS (median 5.6 [2.7-NA] vs 4.7 [2.7-7.3] years, p=0.3) (Figure 1B). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, exposure to ICI and/or BV was associated with superior post-relapse OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007); however, allo-SCT was not associated with improvement in post-relapse OS (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.5, p=0.5). Conclusions: Patients relapsing within 6 months of ASCT and those with extranodal involvement at relapse had inferior OS after post-ASCT relapse. Prior therapy with novel agents did not impact post-relapse survival outcomes. In the setting of post-ASCT relapse, novel therapeutic agents significantly improved survival outcomes while allo-SCT did not. Future multicenter studies are needed to explore the role of novel agents and allo-SCT in patients with RR cHL post-ASCT relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; 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; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. 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. 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. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Patients with Multiple Myeloma Who Received VRD Induction, Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Lenalidomide Maintenance

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Mahmoud R. Gaballa ◽  
Taha Al-Juhaishi ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Samer A. Srour ◽  
Neeraj Saini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Standard Risk ◽  
Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Background: Recent clinical trials have shown a steady improvement in the outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), especially in those who have received induction with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (Auto-HCT) and lenalidomide maintenance (Attal et al. 2017, Joseph et al. 2020). Here, we report our center's outcomes of MM patients who received VRD induction, followed by Auto-HCT and maintenance therapy incorporating lenalidomide. Methods: In this single-center retrospective analysis, eligible patients received an auto-HCT between June 2007 and November 2015. We excluded patients who received induction regimens other than VRD or did not receive lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), which were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. We performed multivariate Cox regression analysis to evaluate the impact of several important variables, including age, sex, race, immunoglobulin subtype, light chain, ISS, cytogenetic risk, conditioning regimen, post-transplant therapy, and best final response, on PFS and OS. Results: We identified 303 patients who fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this study. Table 1 and 2 summarize patient demographics, disease characteristics, therapies and responses. Sixty-two patients (20.5%) had high risk cytogenetics defined as del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), and 1q21 gain. 132 (43.6%), 72 (23.8%), and 55 (18.2%) patients had ISS stages I, II, and III, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) at time of Auto-HCT was 93.4% (sCR 7.6%, CR 4%, VGPR 41.3%, and PR 40.6 %). Importantly, ORR after auto-HCT and maintenance therapy was 99.7% (sCR 40.3%, CR 12.5%, VGPR 33.7%, and PR 13.2%). With a median follow up of 45 months (range: 11 - 113 months), the median PFS was 62 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 48- 76 months) and 4-year PFS was 58% (Fig 1). Median OS has not been reached and 4-year OS was 88% (Fig 1). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had median PFS and OS of 31 months (95% CI 25- 37 months) and 76 months (95% CI 44-108 months), respectively. In contrast, in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, the median PFS and OS were 73 months (95% CI 62- 84 months) and not reached, respectively (P<0.001; Fig 2). On multivariate analysis, standard-risk cytogenetics (P<0.001- HR 0.349, P=0.001- HR 0.278) and the final best response of >VGPR (P<0.001 - HR 0.439, P=0.001 - HR 0.306) were associated with significantly better PFS and OS, respectively. Conclusions: These results provide further evidence that VRD induction followed by Auto-HCT and lenalidomide-based maintenance is associated with excellent outcomes in MM, especially in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. Disclosures Bashir: KITE: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding. Nieto:Novartis: Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support; Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support; Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support. Lee:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Patel:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Amgen: Other: Research Support; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support. Thomas:Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Orlowski:Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Champlin:Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytonus: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy. Qazilbash:Bioline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Angiocrine: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Comparison of Fixed Dose, Reduced-Intensity Conditioning with Busulfan and Fludarabine to Reduced PK-Guided Busulfan AUC Conditioning in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for AML/MDS

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5715-5715
Author(s):  
Brendan Rasor ◽  
Tyler Dickerson ◽  
Qiuhong Zhao ◽  
Jonathan E Brammer ◽  
Karilyn Larkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Gvhd ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is recommended to prevent relapse and improve survival in patients with intermediate and poor risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Due to toxicity, older patients with comorbidities were historically not candidates for HSCT. The development of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens has allowed more patients to proceed to HSCT by reducing toxicities associated with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).The cornerstone of reducing conditioning regimen intensity is modification of busulfan exposure, expressed as an area under the curve (AUC). This can be achieved by the use of patient-specific pharmacokinetic targets. Previous studies (including BMT CTN 0901) have demonstrated RIC regimens were associated with less toxicity at the cost of potentially decreased survival relative to weight-based MAC regimens. At OSU, we have utilized an AUC target of 4,000 μmol-min/L per day x 4 days in a subset of patients to balance reduced toxicity with risk of relapse. Here we compare outcomes of AUC 4,000 to weight-based RIC Flu/Bu2. Methods: To compare the two regimens, a retrospective, IRB-approved cohort study was conducted. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18-89 years, HSCT for a diagnosis of AML or MDS, and fludarabine + busulfan conditioning regimen ± antithymocyte globulin. In the AUC 4,000 group, the target busulfan exposure was 16,000 μmol-min/L divided over 4 daily doses. In the RIC group, patents received busulfan 0.8 mg/kg/dose for 8 doses (Flu/Bu2). The primary outcome was relapse free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS); time to neutrophil recovery; time to platelet recovery; incidence of acute and chronic graft vs host disease (GVHD); sinusoidal obstructive syndrome; febrile neutropenia; graft failure; and grade 3-5 mucositis, acute kidney injury, or hepatic dysfunction. The log-rank test was used to compare RFS and OS, and Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. Gray's test was used for competing risks analysis of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Fine and Gray regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio. Results: Seventy-four patients who received conditioning from 2015-2018 with either AUC 4,000 or RIC were identified. Disease type was similar between groups with 61.8% AML in the AUC 4,000 group and 52.5% in the RIC group. There were no significant differences in disease risk status. In the AUC 4,000 group, 17.6% had either AML with myelodysplastic changes or therapy-related AML/MDS, compared to 17.5% in the RIC group. The percent of patients with HCT-Comorbidity Index score of ≥ 3 was 52.9% for AUC 4,000 and 77.5% for RIC. At 18 months, RFS was not significantly different, at 66.9% with AUC 4,000 compared to 57.5% with RIC (p=0.37) (A). Eighteen-month overall survival was also not significantly different with 66.9% alive in the AUC 4,000 group and 60% in the RIC group (p=0.63) (B). Cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD were not significantly different (p=0.82, p=0.18, respectively) (C,D). There was, however, a statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of relapse over 18 months in favor of the AUC 4,000 regimen (hazard ratio 4.08, 95% confidence interval 1.15-14.5) (E). Grade 2-4 mucositis was more common in the AUC 4,000 group (85.3% vs 30%, p<0.01), but there were no significant differences in transaminitis, kidney injury, neutropenic fever, sinusoidal obstructive syndrome, or graft failure. Discussion: Though no significant difference existed in disease risk between the groups, choice of regimen was driven by physician judgement, perceived fitness, and ability to tolerate potential adverse effects. Thus, the results of this study indicate that with patient selection, there is no significant RFS or OS difference, or risk of acute or chronic GVHD between targeted AUC 4,000 and RIC. However, AUC 4,000 was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of relapse. Adverse effects other than mucositis were not significantly different between groups. In order to definitively compare these two conditioning regimens, a prospective study is needed. Figure Disclosures Brammer: Verastem, Inc: Research Funding; Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bioniz Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding. Mims:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vasu:Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: Clinical trial support. William:Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Techspert: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin, Inc.: Consultancy; Defined Health: Consultancy. Saad:Actinium Pharma Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Kadmon: Other: Research Support; OrcaBio: Other: Research Support.

Outcomes in Patients with AL (Light-Chain) Cardiac Amyloidosis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 11-13
Author(s):  
Jeremy L. Ramdial ◽  
Mahmoud R. Gaballa ◽  
Taha Al-Juhaishi ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Samer A. Srour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Organ Response ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Background: Cardiac involvement by light chain amyloidosis (AL) is generally associated with an unfavorable outcome. Bortezomib-based induction, and high-dose melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) in eligible patients is associated with best long-term outcomes. We report the outcome of cardiac AL patients who underwent auto-HCT at our institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with cardiac AL who received auto-HCT between January 1997 and December 2018 at our institution. Hematologic and cardiac organ responses were evaluated according to the Consensus Guidelines for AL (R Comenzo et al. Leukemia 2012). Revised Mayo staging system was used for cardiac staging (S Kumar et al. JCO 2012). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of transplant. Survival was estimated using Kaplan Meier method and compared using log rank test. Cox proportional hazard models were used for adjusted survival analysis. Results: 57 patients were identified and baseline characteristics summarized in Table 1. Thirty eight patients (67%) at diagnosis and 17 (30%) at auto-HCT were evaluable by the revised Mayo staging system. Eleven (19%), 14 (25%), 17 (30%), and 13 (23%) patients had stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 disease, respectively, while the stage was unknown in 2 (3%) patients. Twenty-four (42%) patients received induction with a combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD), 14 (25%) received bortezomib and dexamethasone, and 2 (3%) received other bortezomib-based induction (Table 1). Based on hematologic response criteria, 3 (5%), 15 (27%) and 22 (39%) patients achieved complete response (CR), a very good partial response (VGPR), or partial response (PR) to induction, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 71%. All patients underwent peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization with filgrastim, with or without plerixafor. Thirty-nine (68%) patients received melphalan 200mg/m2 and 18 (32%) received melphalan 140mg/m2 as preparative regimen. Nineteen patients (33%) received maintenance therapy post auto-HCT. One-hundred day and 1-year post auto-HCT non-relapse mortality rate was 5% (3 patients). Best post auto-HCT hematologic ORR was 92%, with 19 (34%), 20 (35%), and 13 (23%) patients achieving CR, VGPR and PR, respectively. Based on the consensus guidelines for cardiac response in AL using NT-proBNP or NYHA class, 51 patients (89%) had a cardiac organ response at their last evaluation (Table 2). Median follow up in surviving patients was 32.9 months (range 5.1 - 140.6). The 3-year PFS was 53.5% [95% CI 38.6-68.4%], and 3-year OS was 67.8% [53.9-81.7%]. On univariate analysis, melphalan 200 vs. 140 (p=0.017, HR 0.387 95%CI 0.178- 0.844) was associated with a better PFS, but none of the variables had an impact on PFS or OS on a multivariate Cox regression analysis, perhaps due to a small sample size. Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis we showed that in transplant-eligible patients with advanced cardiac AL, high-dose melphalan and auto-HCT is associated with a low (5%) NRM, an organ response rate of almost 90%, and a 3-year OS of almost 70%. Disclosures Bashir: Takeda: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding; KITE: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board. Nieto:Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Other: Grant Support; Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support. Hosing:NKARTA Inc.: Consultancy. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lee:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Manasanch:Merck: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Quest Diagnostics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; JW Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Thomas:X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards. Kaufman:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Orlowski:Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Champlin:Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytonus: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy. Qazilbash:Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Prognostic Impact of Beta 2 Microglobulin in Patients with Immunoglobulin Light-Chain Amyloidosis Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 20-21
Author(s):  
Aimaz Afrough ◽  
Samer A. Srour ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Neeraj Saini ◽  
Chitra Hosing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Immunoglobulin Light Chain ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis ◽  
Beta 2 Microglobulin

Background: Risk stratification for Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL) has been refined with advances in the understanding of disease biology. Although nonspecific, beta 2 microglobulin (β2M) levels correlate with disease burden and are considered a prognostic marker in several hematologic malignancies. Recently, we and others have shown the association of β2M levels with survival in AL. In this study, we evaluated the role of β2M as a predictor of outcome for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) in patients with AL. Methods: We identified 175 consecutive patients with AL who received auto-HCT between 2009 and 2019 at our institution. A β2M≥3.5 mg/L, regardless of renal function status was used as a cutoff value. Hematologic and organ responses were evaluated according to the Consensus Guidelines for AL. Revised Mayo staging system was utilized for Cardiac staging. Results: The median age at auto-HCT was 60 years (range, 27 to 77). Of 175 patients, 153 (87%) had a β2M value available, of whom 57 (37%) had a β2M ≥ 3.5 mg/L. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups, except for the higher level of LDH, worse renal function, and more patients with renal involvement in the β2M ≥ 3.5 group, and more patients with lambda light chain type in the β2M &lt;3.5 group (Table 1). The median follow-up from auto-HCT was 38 months (range; 1 to 124). One-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 2%. The 1-year NRM was 5% (n=3) and 1% (n=1) in patients with β2M≥3.5, and β2M&lt;3.5, respectively (p=0.115). Hematologic CR after auto-HCT was seen in 21 (37%), and 38 (40%) patients with β2M≥3.5 and β2M&lt;3.5, respectively (p=0.864). Organ response (OR) after auto-HCT was seen in 36 (73%), and 65 (71%) patients with β2M≥3.5 and β2M&lt;3.5, respectively (p=1.00). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 66%, and 74% in patients with β2M≥3.5, and β2M&lt;3.5 (p=0.17) (Figure 1A).The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 73%, ad 89% in patients with β2M≥3.5, and β2M&lt;3.5 (p=0.009) (Figure 1B). On Cox-regression multivariate analysis, cardiac involvement with AL (p=0.043), and β2M≥3.5 (p=0.029) were associated with a shorter OS. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective analysis, we showed that high serum β2M is associated with shorter OS. β2M may be incorporated as a prognostic marker for AL if these findings are confirmed in larger studies. Disclosures Bashir: Acrotech: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue: Other: Advisory Board. Hosing:NKARTA Inc.: Consultancy. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support. Shpall:Takeda: Other: Licensing Agreement; Magenta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Zelluna: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Manasanch:Sanofi: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Quest Diagnostics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; JW Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lee:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Patel:Cellectis: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding. Thomas:BMS: Research Funding; Ascentage: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards. Orlowski:STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding. Champlin:Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Cytonus: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Patents & Royalties. Qazilbash:Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) for Patients with POEMS Syndrome (Polyneuropathy, Organomegaly, Endocrinopathy, Monoclonal Protein, Skin Changes): A CIBMTR Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 120-120
Author(s):  
Ankit Kansagra ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Raphael Fraser ◽  
Noel Estrada-Merly ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Rare Disease ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Poems Syndrome ◽  
Plasma Cell Dyscrasia ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score &lt;90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Myeloablative Fractionated Busulfan with Fludarabine in Older Patients: Long Term Outcomes of Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Rohtesh S. Mehta ◽  
Roland Bassett ◽  
Julianne Chen ◽  
Benigno C. Valdez ◽  
Jitesh Kawedia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Gvhd Prophylaxis

Background: We started a randomized phase II trial [NCT01572662] that compared the safety of two myeloablative fractionated ("timed-sequential") busulfan with fludarabine (Bu-Flu) conditioning regimens: one with a lower dose of busulfan (area under the curve [AUC] of 16 000 μmol.min; 16K arm) and one with a higher dose (AUC of 20 000 μmol.min; 20K arm). After 49 patients were treated on the 16K group and 48 patients on the 20K group, the randomization was stopped as the higher dose arm was found to be as safe as the lower dose arm. The outcomes of those patients were previously reported, with the primary endpoint of interest being day 100 non-relapse mortality (NRM). The trial then continued enrolment as a single-arm study with increased accrual onto the higher dose arm. The current paper reports long-term outcomes of a total of 150 patients treated on the higher dose arm with an extended median follow-up of over 3.5 years. Methods: Patients with hematological malignancies up to 75 years of age were included. Bu dosing was determined on the basis of pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses conducted after day -13 and day -6 dose to achieve target AUC 20 000 ± 12% μmol.min (20K arm). On days −13 and −12, patients received 80 mg/m2 Bu IV daily as outpatient. Then, Flu 40 mg/m2 and Bu IV once daily were given as inpatient from day −6 though −3. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis consisted of tacrolimus from day −2 and methotrexate on days 1, 3, 6, and 11. Results: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 55-67); most were males (91; 61%) had an unrelated donor (n=93, 62%) and received peripheral blood graft (n=110, 73.3%). The most common diagnoses were acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 88, 58.7%). Among AML, 41% (n=24) were in CR, 44% (n=26) had primary induction failure and 15% (n=9) had relapsed disease without attaining CR before HCT. Over half had HCT-Specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) &gt;3 (n=79, 52.7%). Estimated relapse, NRM, and overall survival (OS) were 40% (95% confidence interval (CI), 32.1%-47.9%), 22% (95% CI, 15.3%-28.7%), and 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7%-57.8%) at 3 years [Table]. The highest relapse rate at 3 years was noted in patients with myeloma (70.6%), followed by MDS (51.7%), and lymphoma (46.2%), while it was the lowest in myelofibrosis (13.6%). Among AML patients not in CR, the rate of relapse was not higher than those who were in CR (37.1% and 41.7%, respectively at 3 years). NRM at 3 years ranged from 7.7% (lymphoma) to 37.1% (AML, not in CR). Lymphoma patients had the lowest NRM (7.7%) and the best OS (69.2%) at 3 years, while AML patients not in CR had the highest NRM (37.1%) and the lowest OS (31.4%) [Figure]. Patients with HCT-CI 0-2 had lower NRM (14.1%; 95% CI, 5.9%-22.3%) and better OS (57.2%; 95% CI, 46.7%-70.1%) than those with HCT-CI &gt; 3 (NRM: 29.1%; 95% CI, 19%-39.2% & OS: 41.7%; 95% CI, 32.2%-54.2%). Day 100 cumulative incidence of grade II-V acute GVHD was 38% (95% CI, 30.2%-45.8%), grade III-IV was 11.3% (95% CI, 6.2%- 16.4%). At 3 years, cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was 27% (95% CI, 20%-34%), bronchiolitis obliterans was 4.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-8.1%), and secondary malignancies was 8.7% (95% CI, 4.1%-13.2%). Conclusion: The fractionated myeloablative Bu-Flu conditioning regimen is well tolerated and leads to acceptable risk of NRM, relapse and long term survival in older patients, those with high risk disease and high comorbidities. Acknowledging the high risk study population, the long term outcomes, although acceptable, provide a framework to further improve upon. Modifications of this fractionated Bu-Flu regimen to further enhance its efficacy (with the addition of other chemotherapy agents) while reducing the toxicity and risk of NRM (with an inclusion of novel GVHD prophylaxis regimens) are currently being investigated. Disclosures Mehta: Incyte: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Alousi:Therakos: Research Funding; Alexion: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bashir:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; KITE: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding. Hosing:NKARTA Inc.: Consultancy. Kebriaei:Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Oran:Celgene: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Bioline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Shpall:Takeda: Other: Licensing Agreement; Magenta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Zelluna: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Champlin:Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Cytonus: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; DKMS America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Outcomes after Plerixafor Plus FLAG-IDA (PLERIFLAG) Versus FLAG-IDA +/- Gentuzumab for Adult Patients with First Relapsed/Refractory AML: A Propensity Score Analysis from the Pethema Registry

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1321-1321
Author(s):  
Juan Miguel M. Bergua Burgues ◽  
Isabel Cano-Ferri ◽  
David Martínez-Cuadron ◽  
Blanca Boluda ◽  
Pilar Martínez-Sánchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Propensity Score Analysis ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Score Analysis ◽  
Time To Relapse ◽  
Support Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chemosensitization using plerixafor combined with FLAG-IDA (PLERIFLAG regimen) showed promising results (48% CR/CRi) in a phase 2 trial for primary refractory and early relapsed (duration of first CR &lt;12 months) Adult AML patients. We aim to compare retrospectively results of the PLERIFLAG cohort versus historical cohorts of patients salvaged with FLAG-IDA (Fludarabine, Idarubicine, Cytarabine, G-CSF as priming agent), or FLAGO-IDA (Gemtuzumab plus FLAG-IDA) registered in the PETHEMA epidemiologic AML registry (NCT02006004). To match different cohorts, we used two risk-score classifications: EPI/HOVON (De Breems, JCO 2005) and SALFLAGE (Bergua, BJH 2016). The purpose is to analyse the complete remission (CR+CRi) rate, the rate of patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were adjusted using established risk factors (time to relapse (TTR), karyotype, FLT3-ITD, previous stem cell transplant (SCT)) using propensity score analysis. Patients: Of the 540 patients in the data base we analysed 300 patients relapsed or resistant to induction therapy, which had all data available. 241 patients were treated with FLAG-IDA, 41 with FLAGO-Ida, and 42 with PLERIFLAG. Differences between treatment cohorts were tested using Fisher exact test. Treatment cohorts (PLERIFLAG vs FLAG-IDA vs FLAGO-IDA) were similar in Age (p=0.5), Sex (p=0.5), FLT3-ITD mutated (p=0.5), EPI/HOVON cytogenetics score (p=0.5) and previous myelodisplasia (p=0.2). The three cohorts differed in time to relapse (p=0.001), previous stem cell transplantation (0.001), HOVON score (p=0.03) and SALFLAGE score (0.001). RESULTS There were no differences in terms of CR+CRi between the three types of treatment adjusted by Hovon risk score (Pleriflag: 48%, FLAG-IDA: 50% or FLAGO-IDA: 58%; Chrochan Maentel-Haenszel test, p=0.466) or SALFLAGE score (Chrochan-Maentel-Haenszel test, p=0.23). More patients were allografted in the PLERIFLAG (61%) group even not achieving CR/Cri, as compared to FLAG-IDA (38%) or FLAGO-Ida (61% vs 38% vs. 18%, p=0.0001). To compare PLERIFLAG against the other two types of salvage treatment we performed a Propensity Score in a proportion 1:3. We adjust variables like age, previous allogeneic transplant, time to relapse (refractory, &lt;12 months and &gt;12 months), karyotype using MRC, and FLT3-ITD status. Karyotype risk was considered by HOVON criteria (inv16, t(8;21) vs others), and SALFLAGE (inv 16, intermediate risk, and unfavourable risk by MRC risk plus t(8;21)). The propensity score analyses showed that Compared to FLAG-IDA, PLERIFLAG was associated to increased survival (median OS 10.56 months vs. 5.6, p=0.03), but not improved EFS (2.83 months vs 1.41 months, p=0.8). The benefit in OS but not in EFS could be explained in part by frequent use of Allo SCT in patients who had not achieve CR/CRi in the PLERIFLAG cohort. In conclusion, our historical control study show that PLERIFLAG regimen is an acceptable therapeutic option for first relapsed/refractory adult AML patients. Disclosures Esteve: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Salamero:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Daichii Sankyo: Honoraria. Perez Encinas:CELGENE: Consultancy; JANSSEN: Consultancy; GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Montesinos:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Real-World Patterns of Utilization and Outcome of Market Approved Lenalidomide-Based Triplet Combinations in First Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4109-4109
Author(s):  
Silvia Mangiacavalli ◽  
Monica Galli ◽  
Sara Pezzatti ◽  
Angelo Belotti ◽  
Francesca Fazio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Relapse

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (R) plus dexamethasone (d) triplet combinations have been indicated by ESMO guidelines as standard of care in first relapse for lenalidomide sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) (Dimopoulos et al, 2021). Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) shows better outcome with the combination of Daratumumab + Rd (DaraRd) over other Rd-based combinations (carfilzomib+Rd (KRd), elotuzumab+Rd (EloRd), Ixazomib+Rd (IxaRd). There are few real-life studies focusing on the pattern of utilization and outcome of different Rd triplets in first relapse MM. Aims: To explore performances of market-approved Rd-based triplets in unselected MM pts in first relapse. Patients and methods: After ethics committee approval, we review data of 366 MM pts in first relapse consecutively addressed to Rd-based triplets according to market-approved schedule after 2017. Rd-based therapies was distributed as follows: DaraRd 51.6% (189 pts), KRd 36.1% (132 pts), EloRd 8.7% (32 pts), IxaRd 3.6% (13 pts). Given the limited number of pts treated with IRd and EloRd, the analysis is focused only on DaraRd and KRd group after further excluding 51 pts (13%) addressed to salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) after daraRd (n=9)/KRd(n=42) fixed induction. Few pts in both groups were previously exposed to R/K/Dara (respectively 12 pts (3%), 8 (2%), 0). Treatment choice was influenced by market approval, with KRD regimen used more commonly in the IQR 2017- 2019, while DaraRd more commonly in the IQR 2018-2020. To limit the bias of a retrospective observation, we calculated a propensity score and we used it (after trimming of 5% of observations) to re-weight the data, according to the Inverse Probability of Treatment method (IPTW analysis). For the estimation of the propensity score, we used: age at Rd-triplet starting, ISS stage, presence of high-risk FISH, previous exposure to Bortezomib, previous ASCT, good response at first-line therapy (≥VGPR), time between diagnosis and relapse, myeloma defining events at diagnosis, type of relapse (symptomatic/biochemical), center. Details of these characteristics are reported in table1. Of note, pts addressed to DaraRd were slightly older (68,7 vs 63,4 years in KRd, p&lt;0.001), time from diagnosis was quite longer (3,5 vs 2,9 year in KRd, p=0.094), they received a lower rate of prior ASCT (56% vs 72% in KRd, p=0.008). After a median follow-up of 21.6 months (IQR: 9.6-32.4), response rate ≥PR were similar in both groups (92% in DaraRd vs 87,6% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=0.8, 95%CI: 0.4-1.5, p=0.422). No significant difference was found in terms of ≥VGPR (60% in DaraRd vs 62,9% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=0.7, 95%CI: 0,4-1,1 p=0.098) as well as of ≥CR (16,6% in DaraRd and 23,6% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=1,3, 95%CI: 0.8-2,2, p=0.340). The median number of administered cycles was higher for DaraRd (12 vs 10, IPTW analysis: β: 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.4, p=0.025). Discontinuation rate was lower with DaraRd (28% vs 62% with KRd, IPTW analysis: OR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.4, p&lt;0.001). Most patients in both groups discontinued treatment for progression (55,3% with DaraRd and 59.3% with KRd), discontinuation for TEAE was reported respectively in 38,3% in DaraRd and 31,5% in KR; 6,4% of pts in DaraRd and 9,2% in KRd discontinued treatment for pts decision. Weighted analysis shows a similar outcome. In particular, the median PFS is 28 months for DaraRd vs 23 months for KRd, (HR=0.9, 95%CI: 0.6-1.2, p=0,420) (Figure 1). At left-truncation analysis, patients with ≥VGPR, had similar PFS when comparing DaraRd vs KRd (HR=1.0, 95%CI: 0.6-1.6, p=0.896) while in patients with ≤PR, DaraRd showed a longer PFS (HR=0.5, 95%CI: 0.3-0.9, p=0.012) (Figure 2). The median TTNT was 31 and 29 months in DaraRd and KRd, respectively (HR=0.8, 95%CI: 0.5-1,1 p=0,111). No difference was found in terms of OS (HR=1.2, 95%CI: 0.8-1.8, p=0.408)(Figure 3). Conclusions: Our real-life study shows that DaraRd represents the most commonly received regimen at first relapse followed by KRd triplet. After propensity score matching, DaraRd and KRd combinations proved to be both effective with similar outcomes when used early in the treatment history, after one line of therapy. This study, in addition, points out the possible gap of outcome between RCT and clinical practice. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mangiacavalli: BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Galli: BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Honoraria. Belotti: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazio: Janseen: Honoraria. Petrucci: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document