Post-Marketing Observational Study to Assess the Incidence of Infusion-Related Reactions in Adult Patients with Therapy-Related Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or AML with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes Who Were Treated with CPX-351

Introduction: CPX-351 (Vyxeos®; daunorubicin and cytarabine liposome for injection), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, has been approved by the US FDA and EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed, therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes. The primary endpoint analysis of the pivotal phase 3 study (NCT01696084) that formed the basis for the approvals evaluated older patients with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary AML; after a median follow-up of 20.7 months, CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival (OS) versus conventional 7+3 (9.56 vs 5.95 months; HR = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.52, 0.90]; 1-sidedP= 0.003), with a comparable safety profile and 2 infusion-related reaction events. After 5 years of follow-up, the improved median OS was maintained, with a HR (0.70) consistent with the primary endpoint analysis. Infusion-related reactions are generally common with liposomal drugs; this post-marketing observational study was therefore requested by the FDA to confirm observations from the phase 3 study by assessing the incidence and severity of infusion-related reactions during induction with CPX-351 in adults with AML. Methods: This was an observational, single-arm study (NCT03526926); prior to enrollment, the decision to prescribe CPX-351 was made based on the approved US indications and dosing. Patients who had been previously treated with CPX-351 or any investigational agent were ineligible. Eligible patients aged ≥18 years were to receive induction with CPX-351 at the label dosage of 100 units/m2 (cytarabine 100 mg/m2 and daunorubicin 44 mg/m2) by 90-minute IV infusion on Days 1, 3, and 5; the observation period included only the first 6 days of the first induction cycle, although patients may have received subsequent treatment cycles at their physician's discretion. The incidence and severity of infusion-related reactions were evaluated during and for 90 minutes after the completion of each infusion. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collected from the start of the first infusion until 1 day after the last infusion of the first induction cycle (Day 6) and graded according to CTCAE v4.03. TEAEs were followed until resolution, stabilization, or permanent sequelae were identified, or the patient was lost to follow-up. Results: In total, 52 patients were enrolled in the study. The median age was 64 years (range: 28, 78), with 67% of patients aged ≥60 years; 56% were male; and 23%, 46%, and 23% of patients had an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. A majority of patients had no history of allergies (64%), allergic asthma (98%), or autoimmune disorders (87%). Most patients (94%) received all 3 CPX-351 infusions, with a mean of 2.9 infusions per patient (standard deviation: 0.3). Patients received a median cumulative daunorubicin dose of 247.5 mg (range: 88, 339) and cytarabine dose of 562.5 mg (range: 204, 774). One (2%) patient experienced infusion-related reactions during the study. The patient experienced grade 1 pyrexia on Day 2 (25 hours after the Day 1 infusion) and grade 2 dyspnea on Day 4 (21 hours after the Day 3 infusion). The infusion-related reactions did not lead to dose change, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment. In total, 39 (75%) patients experienced any-grade TEAEs, and 13 (25%) patients experienced grade 3 or 4 TEAEs within the 6-day study period. Serious TEAEs were reported by 6 (12%) patients and included respiratory failure (n = 2 [4%]), pyrexia, lung infection, sepsis, tumor lysis syndrome, cerebrovascular accident, embolism, and dyspnea (n = 1 [2%] each); serious TEAEs resolved after treatment in 2 patients. Three deaths reported during the study were due to serious TEAEs considered unrelated to CPX-351 (sepsis, thromboembolic event, and stroke; n = 1 [2%] each). Conclusions: In this post-marketing observational study in patients with AML, the frequency of infusion-related reactions was low (1 of 52 patients) and the reactions were grade 1-2 in severity. Although this study only collected data on adverse events during and immediately after infusion of the first induction cycle of CPX-351, the TEAEs and serious TEAEs reported were consistent with those seen in AML patients receiving induction chemotherapy. These data support the prior safety profile reported in the pivotal phase 3 study, with no new safety signals identified. Disclosures Jacoby: Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Research Funding;AbbVie:Research Funding.Finn:Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Speakers Bureau;Celgene:Speakers Bureau;Seattle Genetics:Speakers Bureau.Emadi:Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Research Funding;NewLink Genetics:Research Funding;Amgen:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;KinaRx:Other: co-founder and scientific advisor;Genentech:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Servier:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.Saba:Kyowa Kirin:Other: Advisory Board;Janssen:Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau;AbbVie:Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau;Pharmacyclics:Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau;Kite:Other: Advisory Board.Powell:Pfizer:Research Funding;Novartis:Research Funding;Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Consultancy, Other: Advisor, Research Funding;Rafael Pharmaceuticals:Consultancy, Other: Advisor, Research Funding;Genentech:Research Funding.Seiter:Alexion:Speakers Bureau;AbbVie:Speakers Bureau;Onconova:Research Funding;Forma:Research Funding;Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Sanofi:Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Incyte:Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Celgene:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Novartis:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Sun Pharma:Research Funding;Roche:Research Funding;Amphivena:Research Funding.Garcia:Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Faderl:Jazz Pharmaceuticals:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Download Full-text

Conventional Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOEP) Vs High-Dose Immunochemotherapy (R-MegaCHOEP) in Younger Patients with High-Risk Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: 10-Year Long-Term Follow-up of a German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123637 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1589-1589

Author(s):

Fabian Frontzek ◽

Marita Ziepert ◽

Maike Nickelsen ◽

Bettina Altmann ◽

Bertram Glass ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Scientific Advisory Board ◽

Scientific Advisory

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

Download Full-text

Consolidation with Vtd Significantly Improves the Complete Remission (CR) Rate Following Vtd Induction and Single Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (auto) in Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.3096.3096 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 3096-3096

Author(s):

Xavier Leleu ◽

Benjamin Hebraud ◽

Guillemette Fouquet ◽

Murielle Roussel ◽

Denis Caillot ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Incidence Rate ◽

Relapse Rate ◽

Research Funding ◽

The Other ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Induction Regimen

Abstract Abstract 3096 Background. Several studies have demonstrated the impact of VTd on response rates and PFS either as induction or consolidation regimen. However there are limitations to these studies, especially that no data is available regarding the role of VTd consolidation in the context of bortezomib-triple based VTd induction regimen followed by a single auto. At completion of therapy, the response rate (ORR, PR and better) was 89%, VGPR+CR rate 74%, CR rate 29%, relapse rate and median PFS was 53% and 26 months (median F-up 32 months) in the VTd arm of the phase 3 IFM2007-02 trial conducted for newly diagnosed MM (Moreau et al, Blood 2012). In this study, only a minority of patients had received a consolidation or maintenance. On the other hand, Cavo et al. (Blood 2012) reported 97.5%, 92%, 61%, 39% 3-year progression and 62% estimated 5-year PFS (F-up 43 months) respectively in the VTd arm. VTd was given as induction before and consolidation after double auto in this upfront GIMEMA phase 3 trial (Cavo et al, Lancet 2010). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of VTd as consolidation therapy in the context of VTd as induction regimen followed by a single auto (VTd-auto-VTd regimen). Method. This study has included a first group of 121 newly diagnosed MM from 2009 to 2011 across 9 IFM centers. Patients were to be eligible for auto upfront, aged less than 65 and treated with VTd-auto-VTd regimen. The second cohort included MM treated with VTd-auto without consolidation from the IFM2007-02 trial (n=76). A third cohort comprised MM that received upfront a triplet Vd-based combination induction (VCd, VRd) -auto without consolidation (n = 40). Results. In the whole study, the median age was 56 years, the sex ratio was 1,49, 50% had ISS 2 and 3, 22% had adverse FISH [t(4;14); del17p] (similar in the 3 groups). Overall, the ORR was identical in the 3 cohorts at completion of therapy, 104 (86%), 72 (94%) and 32 (80%) for the cohort 1 to 3, respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate was significantly greater in patients that received a consolidation (cohort 1), as compared to the cohorts 2 and 3 that did not receive any consolidation, 59 (53%) vs. 26 (34%) and 13 (32.5%), respectively (p=0.0001). Interestingly, the CR rates were identical at the end of the induction in the 3 cohorts, 13%, 15% and 22.5%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 25 months, the incidence rate of relapse was significantly greater in the cohort 2 and 3 versus 1, further demonstrating the importance of the consolidation, 25 (21%), 42 (55%) and 13 (32.5%) patients (p=0.0001), respectively; and 9 (8%), 6 (8%) and 8 (20%) had died in cohorts 1 to 3 (p=0.07). The median (95%CI) PFS was not reached in cohort 1, and was 32 (28;36) months and 30 (26;33) months in cohort 2 and 3, respectively. Importantly, 54.5%, 32% and 32% of patients were free of relapse at 32 months in the 3 cohorts, respectively. Similar data were obtained for TTP. The median (95%CI) OS was not significantly different in cohorts 1 to 3, although not reached for the first 2 cohorts and 38 (33;43) months for the 3rdcohort. The 3-year survival was 84%, 91% and 76%, respectively (p=ns). A longer follow up will certainly demonstrate greater survival end points benefit in favor for consolidation. The safety profile of the cohort that contained a consolidation was superimposable to that of the remaining 2 cohorts without consolidation. The incidence rate of hematological EIs of grade 3 and 4 was 4%, 6% and 8% in the 3 cohorts (p=ns), respectively. The incidence rate of neuropathy grade 1–2 and 3–4 was 5% and 2% in the cohort 1 with consolidation, but only 1% occurred during the consolidation. This data compares favorably to the 3% reported in the cohort 2 (Moreau et al. Blood 2012). We have also observed 9 (9%) thromboembolic events (TE), 8 of venous type and 1 arterial. None of them happened during the consolidation, and again, this incidence rate if superimposable to that reported in the IFM2007-02 vTd cohort. Conclusion. This study showed an impressive increase in CR rate in relation to the consolidation that translated into a lower relapse rate. This study also demonstrated that the VTd regimen, used both as induction and consolidation, in the context of a single auto upfront in MM, significantly contributed to improve clinical outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile. VTd-auto-VTd compared very favorably to the other upfront protocols, and may become in the near future a standard of care in newly diagnosed patients with Myeloma. Disclosures: Leleu: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; LeoPharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide. Roussel:celgene: Honoraria; janssen: Honoraria. Facon:onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Attal:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.801.801 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 801-801 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Francisco Cervantes ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Dietger Niederwieser ◽

Andres Sirulnik ◽

Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Extension Phase ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety in COMFORT-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: 5-Year Final Study Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.59.59 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 59-59 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Claire N. Harrison ◽

Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali ◽

Heinz Gisslinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Final Study ◽

Study Results

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated rapid and durable improvements in splenomegaly and symptoms as well as improved survival in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies in patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF). In COMFORT-II, significantly more pts achieved the primary endpoint (a ≥ 35% decrease in spleen volume from baseline at wk 48) with RUX compared with best available therapy (BAT) (28% vs 0%; P ˂ .0001). The 3-year follow-up confirmed that spleen volume reductions were sustained and RUX treatment remained tolerable with long-term use. Here, we report final study results on longer-term safety and efficacy after 5 years of RUX treatment in COMFORT-II. METHODS: COMFORT-II is a randomized (2:1), open-label phase 3 study of RUX vs BAT in pts with intermediate-2- or high-risk primary MF, post-PV MF, or post-ET MF. Pts initially received RUX 15 or 20 mg bid based on their platelet counts at baseline (100-200 and > 200 x 109/L, respectively), and doses were individually titrated to maximize safety and efficacy. Pts were allowed to cross over from the BAT arm to receive RUX upon protocol-defined progression (primarily progressive splenomegaly, a ≥ 25% increase in spleen volume from on-study nadir). All pts randomized to BAT had crossed over or discontinued by Nov 2011. The date of final database lock for the study is 20 Apr 2015. RESULTS: Pts were randomized to RUX (n = 146) or BAT (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms and have been described previously (Harrison, N Engl J Med, 2012); disease and hematologic characteristics were representative of a population of pts with advanced primary or secondary MF. At study completion (median follow-up, 4.3 years), 39 pts (26.7%) in the RUX arm and 11 of the 45 pts (24.4%) who crossed over from BAT completed 5 years of on-study treatment. Primary reasons for premature discontinuation before 5 years were adverse events (AEs; 24.0%) and disease progression (21.9%) in the RUX arm and withdrawal of consent and other in the BAT arm (12.3% each). Overall 78 pts (53.4%) in the RUX arm achieved a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at any time during treatment; the median duration of maintenance of spleen volume reduction was 3.2 years. The K-M estimated probability of maintaining this reduction was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38-0.62) at 3 years and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.60) at 5 years. Approximately one-third of evaluable JAK2 V617F-positive pts had a ˃ 20% reduction in allele burden at 3.2 years (38.3%) and 3.7 years (31.0%). With RUX treatment, 23 pts (15.8%) had improved fibrosis (including 4 who improved to grade 0 from baseline fibrosis grades of 1 [n = 1], 2 [n = 2], and 3 [n = 1]), 47 pts (32.2%) had stable fibrosis, and 27 (18.5%) had a worsening at their last assessment. There was no relevant increase in the incidence of AEs with longer exposure (median: RUX arm, 2.6 years; BAT arm, 0.87 years; RUX after crossover, 1.2 years) compared with previous reports. The most commonly reported AEs in pts who received RUX any time (randomized treatment, extension phase or after cross over from BAT) were thrombocytopenia (52.4%), anemia (49.2%), diarrhea (35.6%), and peripheral edema (33.0%); grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (22.5%), thrombocytopenia (15.2%), pneumonia (5.8%), general physical health deterioration (4.2%), and dyspnea (4.2%). 8 pts (5.5%) and 5 pts (6.8%) developed leukemia in the RUX and BAT arms, respectively. There were no new or unexpected AEs. Overall, 59 (40.4%) and 35 (47.9%) deaths were reported in the RUX and BAT arms, respectively. Median OS was not reached in the RUX arm and was 4.1 years in the BAT arm. There was a 33% reduction in risk of death with RUX compared with BAT (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.02; P = .06). The K-M estimated probability of survival at 5 years was 56% with RUX and 44% with BAT. As expected, the confounding effect on OS of crossover from BAT to RUX became apparent in this extended follow up compared with previous analyses; an analysis of OS correcting for crossover will be presented. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: The immediate benefits of RUX treatment, such as improvements in spleen size, were maintained with long-term therapy. The previously reported OS benefit was maintained, although results are confounded by extensive crossover from the BAT arm following the primary analysis at wk 48, which becomes more apparent with longer follow-up. Long term safety and tolerability was consistent with previous findings. Disclosures Harrison: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kiladjian:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Al-Ali:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gisslinger:AOP ORPHAN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy. Cervantes:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment. Descamps:Novartis Pharma S.A.S: Employment. Stalbovskaya:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gopalakrishna:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

A Phase I/II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Obinutuzumab in Relapsed Indolent Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131045 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 348-348 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Nathan H Fowler ◽

Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽

Collin Chin ◽

Paolo Strati ◽

Fredrick B. Hagemeister ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Marginal Zone ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Indolent Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Background: Patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) can develop chemoresistance and most relapse following standard therapy. Although multiple treatment options exist, most are associated with short remission or intolerable side effects. Lenalidomide activates NK cells ± T cells and leads to in vivo expansion of immune effector cells in NHL models. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) in relapsed iNHL is highly active and was recently approved. Obinutuzumab is a glycosylated type II anti-CD20 molecule with enhanced affinity for the FcγRIIIa receptors leading to improved ADCC. The primary objective of this phase I/II study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of lenalidomide and obinutuzumab in relapsed indolent lymphoma. Methods: Patients with relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), marginal zone, and follicular lymphoma (gr 1-3a) were eligible. Patients enrolled in three predefined dose cohorts of lenalidomide (10mg,15mg, 20mg) given on days 2-22 of a 28 day cycle. Obinutuzumab was given at a fixed dose (1000mg) IV on days 1,8,15 and 22 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles for 6 cycles. The combination was given for up to 12 cycles in responding pts. Antihistamines were given in pts who developed rash. Prophylactic growth factor was not allowed. In the absence of progression or toxicity, single agent obinutuzumab was continued every 2 months for maximum of 30 months on study. Traditional 3+3 dose escalation was used with dose limiting toxicities (DLT) assessed during cycle 1. Once the MTD was established, 60 additional patients were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study. Adverse events were graded using CTCAE version 4.03. Results: 66 pts were enrolled between May 2014 until March 2019, and all are eligible for safety and response assessment. No DLTs were observed in dose escalation, and 60 pts were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study at 20mg of lenalidomide daily. Histologies included follicular lymphoma (FL) n=57, marginal zone n=4, SLL n=5. The median age was 64 (36-81), with 2 (1-5) median prior lines of treatment. For 53% of pts, the combination represented the third or greater line of treatment. The overall response (OR) rate for all pts was 98% with 72% attaining a complete response (CR). Eighteen pts (27%) had a partial response, and stable disease was noted in 1 (2%). At a median follow up of 17 months, 14 pts have progressed, with an estimated 24mo progression-free survival (PFS) of 73% (57-83% 95% CI). The estimated 24 mo PFS for ≥ third line pts was 63%. Twenty five pts (38%) remain on treatment and 95% remain alive at last follow up. The most common grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic toxicities included fatigue (5 pts), rash (4 pts), and cough (3 pts). Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11 (17%) and 7 (11%) pts respectively. Two pts stopped treatment due to adverse events, including 1 transient bradycardia and 1 grade 3 fatigue. Conclusion: The combination of 20 mg of lenalidomide and 1000mg obinutuzumab is safe and effective in patients with relapsed indolent lymphoma. Adverse events appeared similar to our prior experience with lenalidomide and rituximab and were generally well tolerated. Overall response rates were high, with many pts achieving prolonged remission, including pts who had relapsed after 2 or more lines of prior therapy. Validation studies in the frontline and salvage setting are ongoing. Disclosures Fowler: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Westin:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Neelapu:Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Pediatric-Inspired Chemotherapy Incorporating Pegaspargase Is Safe and Results in High Rates of MRD Negativity in Adults Ages 18-60 with Philadelphia Chromosome-Negative Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Lymphoblastic Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-115486 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4013-4013 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Mark Blaine Geyer ◽

Ellen K. Ritchie ◽

Arati V. Rao ◽

M. Isabella Cazacu ◽

Shreya Vemuri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Philadelphia Chromosome ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Lymphoblastic Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Among adolescents and young adults with (w/) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LBL), treatment using a pediatric (vs. adult) regimen appears to achieve superior event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS); this observation has driven increased interest in adapting pediatric regimens for middle-aged adults w/ ALL/LBL. However, greater risk of toxicities associated w/ asparaginase complicates administration of pediatric-inspired regimens in adults. We therefore designed a pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimen w/ doses of pegaspargase (PEG) rationally synchronized to limit overlapping toxicities w/ other chemotherapeutic agents. Methods: We conducted a phase II multi-center trial in adults ages 18-60 w/ newly-diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) ALL/LBL (NCT01920737). Pts w/ Ph+ ALL or Burkitt-type ALL were ineligible. The treatment regimen consisted of 2-phase induction (I-1, I-2), followed by consolidation w/ 2 courses of alternating high-dose methotrexate-based intensification and reinduction, followed by 3 years of maintenance (Figure 1). PEG 2000 IU/m2 was administered in each of the 6 intensive courses of induction/consolidation at intervals of ≥4 weeks. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed in bone marrow (BM) by multiparameter flow cytometry (FACS) on day (d) 15 of I1 and following I-1 and I-2. Any detectable MRD (even <0.01% of BM WBCs) was considered positive. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4.0. Results: 39 pts were enrolled (30M, 9F), w/ B-ALL (n=28), T-ALL (n=7), B-LBL (n=3), and T-LBL (n=5). Median age at start of treatment was 38.3 years (range 20.2-60.4), w/ 18 pts age 40-60. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated w/ PEG are summarized in Table 1. Grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia was observed post-PEG in I-1 in 9 pts, but only recurred thereafter in 1/8 pts resuming PEG. Pts completing consolidation on protocol (n=16) received median of 6 doses of PEG (range, 2-6). Four pts developed hypersensitivity to PEG and subsequently received Erwinia asparaginase. PEG was discontinued in 4 additional pts due to hepatotoxicity (n=2), pancreatitis (n=1), and physician preference (n=1). Of pts w/ available response assessments, 35/36 (97%) achieved morphologic complete response (CR) or CR w/ incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) following I-1 (n=34) or I-2 (n=1). Both pts not achieving CR/CRi after I-I had early T-precursor ALL; one of these pts was withdrawn from study, and the other (w/ M2 marrow after I-1) achieved CR after I-2. Of the pts w/ ALL (excluding LBL) w/ available BM MRD assessments, 11/28 (39%) achieved undetectable MRD by FACS following I-1; 18/22 (82%) achieved undetectable MRD by FACS following I-2. Of the pts w/ LBL w/ available BM MRD assessments, 7/7 (100%) achieved or maintained undetectable MRD by FACS following I-1 and I-2. Ten pts underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in CR1. Seven pts experienced relapse at median 15.2 months from start of treatment (range, 5.4-30.4), of whom 6 subsequently underwent 1st (n=5) or 2nd (n=1) alloHCT. Of the 11 pts w/ ALL w/ undetectable MRD following I-1, only one has relapsed. Five patients have died, including 2 pts in CR1 (from sepsis and multi-organ system failure), and 3 pts in relapse. At median follow-up of 22.3 months among surviving pts (range, 1.0-48.1), median EFS and OS (Figure 2A&B) have not been reached (EFS not censored at alloHCT). 3-year EFS was 62.1% (95% CI: 38.4-78.9%) and 3-year OS was 80.0% (95% CI: 57.5-91.4%). Conclusions: PEG can be incorporated into pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens w/ manageable toxicity for appropriately selected adults up to age 60 w/ Ph- ALL/LBL. While PEG-related AEs are common, few pts require permanent discontinuation of asparaginase. Grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia was common, particularly post-I-1, but recurred infrequently when PEG was continued. Two induction courses resulted in a high rate of MRD negativity post-I-2 and translated to a low rate of relapse. Though further follow-up is required, 3-year EFS is encouraging. Data regarding asparaginase enzyme activity and silent inactivation w/ neutralizing anti-PEG antibody will be presented. Ongoing and future studies will additionally investigate whether incorporating novel therapies (e.g. blinatumomab, nelarabine) into frontline consolidation therapy may reduce risk of relapse among adults receiving PEG-containing regimens. Disclosures Geyer: Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rao:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Douer:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy. Park:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Ruxolitinib in an 1869-Patient Cohort of JUMP: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Single-Arm, Expanded-Access Study in Patients with Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.2799.2799 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 2799-2799 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Renato Tavares ◽

Giuseppe A. Palumbo ◽

Philipp Le Coutre ◽

Francesca Palandri ◽

Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Costal Margin ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Expanded Access ◽

Grade 3

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX) is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that demonstrated improvements in splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms, as well as improved survival, in patients (pts) with intermediate (Int)-2- or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF), and has proved superior to placebo and best available therapy in the phase 3 COMFORT studies. JUMP is an expanded-access phase 3b trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of RUX in pts with MF and includes patients with no access to RUX outside a clinical trial. As of Dec 2014, final enrollment was 2233 pts in 26 countries. METHODS: Eligible pts had Int-2- or high-risk MF with or without splenomegaly, or Int-1-risk MF with a palpable spleen (≥ 5 cm from the costal margin). Pts received starting doses of RUX based on platelet counts at baseline (5 mg twice daily [bid; ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L], 15 mg bid [100 to 200 × 109/L], or 20 mg bid [> 200 × 109/L]). The primary endpoint was assessment of safety and tolerability of RUX. Additional analyses included changes in palpable spleen length and symptom scores as measured by the FACT-Lymphoma total score (FACT-Lym TS). The final analysis will be performed after all pts have completed 24 months of treatment or discontinued the study. RESULTS: This analysis includes 1869 pts (primary MF, 59.1%; n = 1105) who started treatment ≥ 1 year before the data cutoff date (01 Jan 2015). At baseline, median age was 67 y (range, 18-89 y); 54.1% were male; median palpable spleen length was 12 cm below the costal margin; 87 pts did not have splenomegaly. Median hemoglobin (Hb) was 106 g/L, and 38.9% of pts had Hb levels ˂ 100 g/L; median platelet count was 257 × 109/L; mean FACT-Lym TS and FACIT-Fatigue score were 113.7 and 33.2, respectively. At data cutoff, 37.0% of pts remained on treatment; 26.1% had completed treatment per protocol. Primary reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (AEs; 17.4%), disease progression (8.2%), and death (3.4%). Median exposure was 13.6 months; the median average daily dose was 36.7 mg for pts starting at 20 mg bid (n = 1168; 62.5%) and 23.2 mg for pts starting at 15 mg bid (n = 559; 29.9%). The majority of pts (66.0%) had dose modifications, and 26.2% had a dose interruption. Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs included anemia (34.0%), thrombocytopenia (14.9%), and neutropenia (3.9%), which led to discontinuation in 2.2%, 3.3%, and 0.2% of pts, respectively. The most common nonhematologic AEs (≥ 10%) were pyrexia (14.5%), asthenia (13.8%), diarrhea (12.4%), and fatigue (10.3%), and were primarily grade 1/2; grade 3/4 AEs were low overall (≤ 2%), except pneumonia (3.9%), which led to discontinuation in 9 pts (0.5%). Rates of infections were low; all-grade infections ≥ 5% included pneumonia (6.2%), urinary tract infection (5.7%), and nasopharyngitis (5.3%). Tuberculosis was reported in 5 pts (0.3%; grade 3/4, 0.1%); hepatitis B was reported in 1 pt (0.1%; grade 3/4, 0.1%). At wk 24 and 48, 57.2% (742/1297) and 62.0% (588/949) of pts with baseline splenomegaly achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in palpable spleen length; 22.9% (297/1297) and 19.0% (180/949) had 25% to 50% reductions, respectively. Most pts (70.5%; 1208/1713) experienced a ≥ 50% reduction at any time; 23.3% (399/1713) had complete resolution of splenomegaly (Figure). At wk 24 and 48, 96.6% (57/59) and 91.5% (43/47) of evaluable pts without splenomegaly at baseline continued to have a nonpalpable spleen; 1.7% (1/59) and 4.3% (2/47) had a spleen that was 0-5 cm, and 1.7% (1/59) and 4.3% (2/47) had a spleen ≥ 5 cm. A large proportion of pts achieved a response (ie, a clinically significant improvement) on the FACT-Lym TS and FACIT-Fatigue at wk 24 (43.0% [525/1220]; 47.1% [593/1258]) and wk 48 (43.2% [368/852]; 45.7% [396/867]). Similar responses were seen in pts without a palpable spleen (FACT-Lym TS: wk 24, 44.0% [22/50]; wk 48, 36.1% [13/36]; FACIT-Fatigue: wk 24, 49.1% [27/55]; wk 48, 35.1% [13/37]). CONCLUSIONS: To date, JUMP includes the largest cohort of pts with MF treated with RUX. Consistent with previous findings, anemia and thrombocytopenia were the most common AEs but rarely led to discontinuation. As observed previously, most pts experienced reductions in splenomegaly and symptoms with RUX treatment. Clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms were also seen in pts with no palpable spleen, a pt group not included in the COMFORT studies. Overall, the safety and efficacy profile of RUX in JUMP is consistent with that in the phase 3 COMFORT studies. Disclosures Palumbo: Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Le Coutre:Novartis: Honoraria. Al-Ali:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ullrich:Novartis: Honoraria. Brittain:Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Foltz:Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raanani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Ariad: Other: Advisory Board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory Board. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghosh:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Tannir:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Perez Ronco:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Vannucchi:Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Outcome of Patients with Myelofibrosis after Ruxolitinib Failure: Role of Disease Status and Treatment Strategies in 214 Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116289 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4277-4277 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Francesca Palandri ◽

Elena Maria Elli ◽

Nicola Polverelli ◽

Massimiliano Bonifacio ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Strategies ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Disease Status ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Transfusion Dependency ◽

Investigational Agents

Abstract Introduction . Ruxolitinib (RUX) is the only targeted therapy available for the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF)-related splenomegaly and symptoms. Significant clinical responses may be achieved in around 50% of patients (pts). However, half of responding pts lose the response over time. Aims . To report the outcome of a large cohort of MF pts after RUX failure, in terms of disease status, treatment strategies and survival. Methods . A clinical database was created in 23 European Hematology Centers including retrospective data of 537 MF pts treated with RUX from Jan 2011 to July 2018. Updated information at the date of July 15th 2018 was available in 442 pts who were included in the present analysis. Spleen and symptoms response (SR & SyR) to RUX were evaluated according to the 2013 IWG-MRT criteria. RUX-related toxicity and infections were graded according to the WHO scale. Overall (OS) was estimated from the date of RUX discontinuation to the date of death or last contact, using the Kaplan-Meyer method (log-rank test). Results . After a median follow-up of 30.5 months (1.7-84.3), 214 out of 442 evaluable (48.4%) pts had discontinued RUX. 43 (20.1%) died while on therapy because of: MF progression (34.9%), infections (25.6%), heart disease (16.3%), second neoplasia (7%), hemorrhages (7%), other (9.2%). The median follow-up after RUX discontinuation for the remaining 171 pts was 11.3 months (0.5-66.7). Causes of RUX discontinuation were: drug-related toxicity (28.6%), loss/lack of response (23.4%), MF progression (12.3%), acute leukemia (AL) (13.4%), allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (11.1%), second solid neoplasia (4.1%), other unrelated causes (i.e. pts decision; 7.1%). After stopping RUX, 68 pts received 1 line of therapy, 21 received 2 lines and 9 received >2 treatments; 73 pts did not receive any therapy. Treatments received after RUX discontinuation, alone or in combination, included hydroxyurea (HU) (n. 61, 62.2%), ASCT (n. 20, 20.4%), second-generation JAK2 inhibitors (momelotinib/fedratinib/pacritinib) (n. 11, 11.2%), splenectomy (n. 7, 7.1%), azacytidine/decitabine (n. 5, 5.1%), chemotherapy (n. 4, 4.1%), investigational agents (imetelstat/PRM151: n. 4), danazole (n. 4), erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA) (n. 4). A total of 95 pts (55.6%) died after RUX discontinuation, because of: MF progression (30.5%), AL (25.4%), infections (14.7%), second neoplasia (9.5%), hemorrhages (4.2%), heart disease (4.2%), ASCT (4.2%), thrombosis (2.1%), other (5.2). Median survival time from RUX stop of the 171 evaluable pts was 22.6 mos (95% CI, 13.2-30.7). Among baseline features, survival after discontinuation was significantly influenced by the dynamic international prognostic score (DIPSS) category (p<0.001), transfusion dependency (p<0.001) and driver mutation status (with triple-negative pts having the worst survival compared to JAK2V617F and CALR-mutated pts, p=0.01). During therapy, 45 out of 153 (29.4%) and 123 out of 161 (76.4%) evaluable pts achieved a SR and a SyR at any time. Survival was not affected by the previous response to RUX at any time-point. Conversely, survival significantly differed according to the reason for stopping RUX, with pts discontinuing because of AL evolution/second solid neoplasia having the worst outcome (Figure 1a, p<0.001). In pts who discontinued RUX in chronic phase, the use of second generation TKIs and other investigational agents tended to prolong survival compared to the administration of conventional medical treatments (i.e. HU, danazole, ESA) (Figure 1b, p=0.07) Discussion . After RUX failure, very limited therapeutic options are available and the prognosis of MF pts is dismal, particularly for those pts starting RUX with advanced stage disease (i.e. high DIPSS category and transfusion dependency). Also, disease evolution into AL and occurrence of a second solid neoplasia significantly reduced life expectancy. In chronic phase pts, survival probability may be improved by the use of medical therapies that are still in the experimental phase. Novel investigational agents are needed. Disclosures Palandri: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Abruzzese:BMS: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Vitolo:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Aversa:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Basilea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Gilead: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Foà:ROCHE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; JANSSEN: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; GILEAD: Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Speakers Bureau; CELTRION: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; ABBVIE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau; INCYTE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; CELGENE: Other: ADVISORY BOARD, Speakers Bureau. Di Raimondo:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Breccia:Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Palumbo:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Prompt CR Plus Consolidation Therapy Yields Improve Survival after Allogeneic Transplantation for AML Patients Receiving Myeloablative, but Not Reduced-Intensity Conditioning: A CIBMTR Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-149962 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 414-414

Author(s):

Michael M. Boyiadzis ◽

Marcos J.G. de Lima ◽

Mei-Jie Zhang ◽

Karen Chen ◽

Christopher S. Hourigan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Disease Status ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Induction Cycle ◽

Relapse Rates ◽

Reduced Intensity

Abstract Leukemia relapse and treatment related mortality (TRM) remain major obstacles for successful allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). The number of induction cycles using intensive chemotherapy at AML diagnosis to achieve complete remission (CR) and the number of consolidation cycles and disease status at the time of allo-HCT for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may each affect TRM and relapse rates. We investigated the impact of the number of induction/consolidation cycles and disease status on the success of allo-HCT in 3113 AML patients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) (2008-2019). They received allo-HCT in first CR or with persistent leukemia (primary induction failure-PIF) receiving myeloablative (MA) or reduced-intensity (RIC) conditioning. 1473 AML patients (median age, 47 years) in CR received MAC; 862 (58%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of intensive induction chemotherapy and 74% of these had no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD). 454 (31%) patients required 2 cycles to CR (72 % MRD negative) and 157 (11%) patients (69% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles. The overall survival (OS), relapse and TRM by induction cycle number is shown in Table 1. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CR after 1 cycle led to higher OS vs. 2 cycles (HR 1.32 95%CI 1.11-1.56, p< 0.01) or ≥ 3 cycles (HR 1.47 95%CI 1.16-1.87, p< 0.01), while OS after 2 cycles or ≥ 3 cycles were similar (HR 1.2 95%CI 0.87-1.4, p=0.38). Higher TRM was observed in patients receiving 2 or ≥ 3 cycles vs. only 1 induction cycles (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p< 0.02). Relapse risk was greater in those needing ≥ 3 cycles to achieve CR. Consolidation therapy after CR was associated with improved OS vs. no consolidation therapy (HR 1.57 95%CI 1.24-1.99, p< 0.01). The need for ≥2 induction cycles plus consolidation therapy was associated with higher TRM (HR 1.34 95%CI 1.05-1.72, p< 0.02). 1162 AML patients (median age, 63 years) in CR received allo-HCT after RIC; 714 (61%) achieved CR after 1 cycle of induction chemotherapy (72% MRD negative); 310 (27%) patients after 2 cycles (67% MRD negative) and 138 (12%) patients (58% MRD negative) after ≥ 3 cycles (Table 1). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the number of induction cycles did not affect the OS or TRM. Relapse risk was greater in patients requiring ≥2 cycles to achieve CR. The use of consolidation therapy did not affect OS or TRM. MRD status at the time of allo-HCT did not have a significant impact on OS, TRM and relapse rates after either MA or RIC conditioning. 478 AML patients received allo-HCT after PIF (328 patients with MAC [median age, 51 years], 150 patients RIC [median age, 61 years], Table 1). After MAC, OS and relapse were significantly worse in PIF patients compared to any CR patients (p<0.01). After RIC, relapse was significantly more frequent in PIF patients vs. CR patients after 1 or more induction cycles (p<0.01). TRM was similar for PIF vs CR patients after MAC or RIC allo-HCT. These data demonstrate that among patients eligible for allo-HCT, the need for only one induction cycle to achieve CR, particularly when combined with consolidation therapy is associated with better outcomes after MA conditioning. Achieving CR prior to allo-HCT needing one or more induction cycles is associated with lower relapse rates and improved OS compared to patients with PIF that receive allo-HCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures de Lima: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hourigan: Govt. COI: Other. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Weisdorf: Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Predictive Factors of Response and Survival of Lenalidomide and Rituximab As Initial Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129311 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1533-1533 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Paolo Strati ◽

Ralph J. Johnson ◽

Sheryl G Forbes ◽

Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽

Felipe Samaniego ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

Baseline Characteristics

Introduction. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) is active in patients with untreated indolent lymphoma. Recent randomized trials (RELEVANCE) have demonstrated similar efficacy when compared to standard chemo-immunotherapy backbones. Long term follow up of patients receiving R2 as well as predictors of long term remission and survival have yet to be published. Methods. We prospectively evaluated patients with low grade advanced stage FL who received R2 as initial treatment at our institution between 07/2008 and 10/2014. Lenalidomide was given at 20 mg (day 1-21, in a 28 day cycle) for 6 cycles with rituximab monthly. Lenalidomide starting dose was 10 mg if baseline creatinine clearance was < 60 mL/min. Patients with an objective response continued with 10-20 mg of lenalidomide with rituximab for up to 12 more cycles. Response was evaluated according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Results. One-hundred and one patients were included in the analysis, baseline characteristics are shown in the Table. Median number of provided cycles was 7 (range, 1-20). Median dose of lenalidomide was 20 mg (range, 5-20 mg), and 29 (29%) patients required a dose reduction. Fifty-six (55%) patients experienced grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities, the most common (> 5%) being neutropenia (39%), skin rash (20%), myalgia (16%) and fatigue (16%). Seven (7%) patients discontinued treatment before completion, after a median time of 4 months (range, 1-10 months): 4 because of toxicity (arterial thrombosis in 2, respiratory failure in 1, and skin rash in 1), and 3 because of progression. Ninety-eight patients were evaluable for response, while 3 patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity before first response assessment. Overall response rate was 98%, CR rate 90% (both achieved after a median of 6 months [range, 3-22 months]), and CR rate at 30 months (CR30) was 80%. Only female sex associated with a higher CR rate (96% vs 83%, p=0.05), while no baseline characteristic associated with CR30 rate. After a median follow-up of 88 months (95% confidence interval, 84-92 months), 31 (31%) patients progressed and/or died, 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 63%, and 13% of patients had a PFS < 24 months (PFS24). Failure to achieve CR was the only factor associated with significantly decreased PFS (10 months vs not reached, p<0.001) and higher likelihood of PFS24 (46% vs 5%, p<0.001). No association was observed with baseline characteristics, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. At most recent follow-up, transformation was reported in 3 (3%) patients, after 30, 32 and 42 months, respectively. Two (2%) patients have died, 1 of unrelated comorbid health conditions, 1 of progressive disease, and 7-year overall survival was 98%. Second cancers (excluding transformation) were diagnosed in 8 (8%) patients, after a median of 55 months (range, 3-105 months). These included: breast adenocarcinoma (2), melanoma (2), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (1), esophageal adenocarcinoma (1), and therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia. Discussion. Long-term follow-up show very favorable outcomes for patients with advanced stage FL receiving R2 as initial treatment, independent of traditional prognostic factors relevant to patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy, including FLIPI and FLIPI-2 score. Combination strategies, aimed at increasing depth of response to R2, may further improve outcomes observed with this regimen. Table. Disclosures Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Westin:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Wang:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Neelapu:Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fowler:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: lenalidomide and rituximab are not yet FDA-approved as frontline treatment for patients with FL

Download Full-text