Reduced-Intensity Induction with Dasatinib Vs. Hypercvad + 2nd Generation TKIs with MRD-Guided Follow-up Therapy Leads to Comparable Rates of MRD-Negative Remission While Reducing Transfusions and Neutropenia in Ph+ ALL

Background: Reduced-intensity induction (RII) with imatinib yields comparable outcomes to HyperCVAD with imatinib with fewer induction deaths and an improved CR rate in Ph+ ALL (Chalandon. Blood. 2015). Dasatinib with steroids also produces excellent responses with little toxicity (Foa. Blood. 2011). Allogeneic bone marrow transplant (AlloBMT) remains the goal of therapy in Ph+ ALL based on contemporary trials with TKIs demonstrating improved survival in patients transplanted in CR1, and we have shown that transplant following induction with dasatinib yields better outcomes than with imatinib. Thus we implemented RII with dasatinib for the treatment of Ph+ ALL and compared to patients who received HyperCVAD with a 2nd generation TKI. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital from September 2017-June 2020 underwent a 4-week RII with: vincristine 2 mg/d weekly, dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly on days 1 and 2, and dasatinib 100 mg PO daily. CNS prophylaxis with IT MTX was given on day 8. Dexamethasone and vincristine were reduced by 50% for patients over age 70. Filgrastim was started on day 15 for patients without ANC recovery. Patients who received HyperCVAD with dose adjustments for age (Rausch et al. Cancer. 2020) from July 2011-June 2020 were included for comparison. Dasatinib 100 mg PO daily or nilotinib 400 mg PO BID were given with HyperCVAD at the discretion of the treating physician. Rituximab 375 mg/m^2 on days 1 and 8 was given based on CD20 status. Subsequent therapy after induction was not specifically mandated. Results: 21 patients received RII and 24 received HyperCVAD. The cohorts were comparable in terms of gender (38.1% female vs. 50%, p=0.55), age (median 49.8 vs. 50.3, p=0.33), age >60 (33.3% vs. 29.2%, p>0.99), median WBC at diagnosis (19 vs. 23.5, p=0.56), and the presence of decompensated DIC (fibrinogen <150) prior to treatment initiation (4.8% vs. 8.3%, p>0.99). Among the patients treated with HyperCVAD, 15 received dasatinib (62.5%) and 9 received nilotinib (37.5%). Rituximab use was balanced between the cohorts (61.9% vs. 58.3%, p>0.99). Table 1 compares the time to ANC recovery >500, transfusion requirements within 30 days of chemotherapy initiation, rates of decompensated DIC following treatment initiation, and the duration of inpatient hospitalization for induction. While the rates of decompensated DIC were similar in each cohort, patients treated with RII required fewer platelet and pRBC transfusions. ANC recovery was faster following RII, and only 5 patients (23.8%) received growth factor support. All patients achieved a hematologic response. There was one induction death with HyperCVAD (4.2%). Most patients received a subsequent cycle of high-dose (HD) MTX and Ara-C with TKI (76.2% following RII and 91.7% following HyperCVAD). The remaining patients treated with RII subsequently received HD MTX (14.2%) or blinatumomab (9.5%) with TKI due to co-morbidities. Among those patients treated with HD MTX and Ara-C, blinatumomab was given with TKI to 6 patients (37.5%) who initially received RII and 1 patient (4.5%) after HyperCVAD (p=0.03) due to persistent MRD. As shown in Figure 1, the incidence of MRD-negativity by multi-color flow cytometry (MFC) with a sensitivity of 10-4 at day 120 after treatment initiation was similar for RII (85.4%, 95% CI 64.8-97.1) versus HyperCVAD (86.7%, 95% CI 69.8-96.6). Among patients subsequently treated with HD MTX and Ara-C, 62.5% proceeded to alloBMT after RII with an additional 12.5% currently undergoing transplant evaluation, while 86.4% proceeded to alloBMT after HyperCVAD. The 1-year RFS and OS following RII were 87.9% (95% CI 59.6-96.8) and 100% compared to 87.5% (95% CI 66.1-95.8) and 95.8% (95% CI 73.9-99.4) following HyperCVAD. Conclusion: RII with dasatinib results in fewer transfusions and less myelosuppression compared to HyperCVAD with a 2nd generation TKI. More patients treated with RII received blinatumomab following high-dose MTX and Ara-C, but the rates of MRD-negativity were comparable between the two regimens. Thus RII with dasatinib followed by MRD-guided follow-up therapy facilitates MRD negative remissions with less toxicity than HyperCVAD. The vast majority of fit patients were able to proceed to alloBMT following either regimen. Transplant outcomes following dasatinib with induction are presented in our concurrent abstract demonstrating a 5-year RFS of 83% (95% CI 59.8-93.5). Disclosures Webster: Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Jain:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dalton:AbbVie: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. DeZern:Abbvie: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy. Gojo:Genentech: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Bolanos-Meade:Incyte: Other: DSMB Fees. Luznik:WindMil Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Patent holder; AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding. Ali:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borrello:Celgene: Research Funding; Aduro: Patents & Royalties; WindMIL Therapeutics: Other: Founder , Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levis:Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 Followed By Maintenance Therapy Versus Maintenance Alone in Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Randomized Phase 3 Study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.242.242 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 242-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Meral Beksac ◽

Bronno van der Holt ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Angelo Michele Carella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Primary Study ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background The role of up-front consolidation for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible MM (NDMM) patients (pts) has not yet been prospectively addressed in the novel agents era. Methods The EMN02/HO95 trial was designed to randomly (R) compare (R1) 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), either single or double, as intensification therapy after induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) (M Cavo et al, ASCO 2016, abstract #8000). A second randomization to consolidation therapy with 2 cycles of VRD vs no consolidation (R2) was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance (lenalidomide 10 mg continuously) until progression or toxicity in both arms. (VRD: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1 - 21; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 28 days cycle). Primary study end points were progression-free survival (PFS) from R1 and PFS from R2. A first planned interim analysis for R2 was performed in July 2016 when at least 33% (= 172) of the required events for PFS had been observed. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 pts aged ≤ 65 years with symptomatic MM were enrolled, of whom 1499 were eligible. Of these, 1211 were randomized (stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (505 pts) or HDM (1 or 2 ASCT) (706 pts). For R2 903 eligible patients were randomized to consolidation (459 pts) or no consolidation (444 pts). Median follow up from R2 was 25 months (maximum 53). Response status at time of R2 was ≥ CR (23%), ≥ VGPR (67%), ≥ PR (93%), and will be updated for status at start of maintenance. At the time of analysis, 258 events for PFS after R2 had been reported. 3-year. PFS from R2 was 62% in all patients, i.e., 60% without consolidation and 65% in patients with consolidation, and median PFS had not yet been reached. PFS from R2 with adjustment for R1 was prolonged in pts randomized to VRD (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.61-1.00; P=0.045), a benefit retained across predefined subgroups with revised ISS stage III (HR=0.67; P=0.26) and in patients randomized in R1 to VMP (HR=0.76; P=0.19) and to HDM (HR=0.79; P=0.13). The benefit of consolidation was observed in patients with low-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.68; P=0.03), but not in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); HR=1.03; P=0.91). At 3 years OS from R2 was 86% and 87%, respectively. Toxicity from VRD was limited with 5% CTCAE grade 4, mainly hematological. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by Lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity shows promising results as compared to maintenance alone for younger NDMM pts, but further study follow-up is needed. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR 2528, EudraCT 2009-017903-28 This trial was supported by unrestricted grants from Celgene and Janssen. Disclosures Sonneveld: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Carella:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Driessen:janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma-EDO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schjesvold:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment, Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

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

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

Phase I Dose-Finding Study of Eltrombopag Following High Dose Cytarabine and Mitoxantrone Chemotherapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-152947 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4426-4426

Author(s):

Mahesh Swaminathan ◽

Amanda Przespolewski ◽

Elizabeth A. Griffiths ◽

James E. Thompson ◽

Amro Elshoury ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Dose Finding ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Cytarabine ◽

Finding Study ◽

Dose Finding Study ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Thrombocytopenia is prevalent at presentation and following induction chemotherapy (chemo) regimens in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Eltrombopag (EPAG), oral, nonpeptide thrombopoietin (TPO)-receptor agonist, is currently approved for treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, hepatitis-associated thrombocytopenia, and aplastic anemia. It has also been evaluated as a strategy to mitigate chemo-induced thrombocytopenia in pts with solid tumors, myelodysplastic syndrome, and following allotransplant. Prior studies have demonstrated that EPAG can directly inhibit the proliferation of human AML cells in vitro. Although EPAG has been studied following induction and consolidation chemo in the frontline AML setting, to date, the tolerability and efficacy of EPAG in pts receiving salvage chemo for R/R AML is not known. Objectives: This study's objectives were to (a) estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and tolerability of EPAG, (b) examine platelet (plt) response (defined as plt count ≥ 100 x 10 9/L), and (c) anti-leukemic activity of EPAG in pts receiving high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) and mitoxantrone (Mito) for R/R AML. Methods: In this phase I open-label study, adult pts (³ 18 yrs) with R/R AML with adequate organ functions and grade 4 thrombocytopenia following HiDAC (given every 12 hrs (3 g/m 2 for age < 50; 1.5 g/m 2 for age ≥50) for 12 doses) and Mito (dosed at 12 mg/m 2 x 3 doses every other day) were eligible. All pts must have had marrow hypoplasia demonstrated on Day 14 ± 3 days from the initiation of HiDAC. EPAG was started daily on Day 14 ± 3 days with dose determined using a standard '3+3' dose-escalation design. EPAG was discontinued if an adequate plt response was achieved or following 9 weeks of therapy. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) window was defined as the first 15 days of EPAG dosing. Results: Nine pts with R/R AML were enrolled (Table 1). Median age was 64 yrs (range, 33-80), and 5 pts were men. All pts had intermediate (6/9, 67%), adverse (2/9, 22%), or unknown (1/9, 11%) cytogenetic risk disease. One (1/9) pt had NPM1+FLT3-ITD+ disease. Five pts (56%) had relapsed disease (2pts had prior allotransplant). All pts received HiDAC+Mito chemo and started on EPAG on Day 14 ± 3 days. Three received EPAG 150 mg, and 6 pts received 200 mg daily. The median duration on EPAG was 26 days (range, 11-82). One pt experienced a DLT of grade 3 myocardial ischemia while receiving EPAG 200 mg/day and was taken off study. No other DLTs were reported, and no MTD was determined. The most frequent grade ³3 adverse events (AEs, Table 2): were bacteremia (56%), neutropenic fever (44%), and hyperbilirubinemia (33%). Similarly, common grade 1-2 AEs consisted of hyperbilirubinemia, tachycardia, and confusion (33% each, respectively). At a median follow-up of 30.3 months (mo), all 9 pts had discontinued EPAG. Six pts (67%) achieved plt response (3 each in 150 mg and 200 mg/day dose level). The median time to achieve plt response and the duration of plt response was 27 days (range, 14-41) and 40.5 mo (range, 2-49.6), respectively. Three other pts discontinued EPAG therapy: 1 each due to cardiac ischemia, donor lymphocyte infusion, and patient choice, respectively (Table 3). Of note, 7/9 pts (78%) had clinical response: CR in 5 (56%), CRc (CR+CRp) in 6 (67%), MLFS in 1 (11%, Table 4). Two (2/7 responders) went on to subsequent allotransplant, and 6 died; 2-progressive disease, one each from pneumonia, failure to thrive, encephalopathy, and unknown cause, respectively. Among the 6 pts who achieved plt recovery on EPAG, 5 achieved CR and 1-MLFS following HiDAC+Mito. Conclusion: This phase 1 dose-finding study demonstrated that EPAG 150-200 mg daily following HiDAC+Mito chemo for R/R AML was well tolerated with one DLT of cardiac ischemia (200 mg dose). Two-thirds (67%) of pts achieved plt recovery on EPAG after a median of 27 days (range, 14-41). In these small number of pts (n=9), addition of EPAG therapy did not seem to adversely affect clinical outcomes (CRc 67%) and may have contributed to long-term platelet recovery. Further studies are required to determine the optimal schedule and potential benefit of EPAG added to chemo regimens for R/R AML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Przespolewski: Jazz: Research Funding. Griffiths: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Taiho Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Thompson: Novartis/ Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Elshoury: Bristol Meyers Squibb: Other: advisory board. Wang: Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Kura Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, steering committee, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mana Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data safety monitoring committee; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Genentech: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Cladribine Combined with Idarubicin and High-Dose AraC (CLIA2) As a Frontline and Salvage Treatment for Young Patients (≤65 yrs) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-119271 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4039-4039 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mansour Alfayez ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Farhad Ravandi ◽

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Marina Y. Konopleva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Young Patients ◽

Multiparameter Flow Cytometry ◽

Intrathecal Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Genetics Research ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Nucleoside analogues such as cladribine can increase the efficacy of cytarabine (araC) by modulating deoxycytidine kinase. The addition of cladribine to standard 7+3 chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in pts with AML (Holowiecki JCO 2012). Results of our part-1 phase-2 clinical trial (cladribine combined with intermediate dose araC and idarubicin (CLIA1)) reported promising results that exceeded pretreatment expectations for response and tolerability (Jain, et. al. ASH 2016). Based on that, and the benefit of higher doses of cytarabine in younger patients (UK-MRC AML, Willemze JCO 2014), we investigated a higher dose of araC in combination with cladribine and idarubicin (CLIA2). Methods Non-APL, non-core binding factor AML pts 18-65 yrs of age with adequate organ function were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: de novo AML, secondary AML (s-AML), or relapsed/refractory AML (R/R). Induction was cladribine 5 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes on days 1-5, followed by araC 2g/m2 IV on days 1-5, and idarubicin 10 mg/m2 IV days 1-3. Consolidation consisted of up to 5 more cycles of CLIA2 for 3 days instead of 5. Dose-adjustments were allowed for age and PS. Sorafenib or midostaurin was added for pts with FLT3 mutations which occurred in 35% of pts on this study. Prophylactic intrathecal therapy was offered to higher risk pts at count nadir during cycle 1. Mutation profiling was performed using next generation sequencing prior to starting therapy. Results 65 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 47 yrs (range, 24-65): 37 pts (57%) in the frontline, 12 (19%) pts in the s-AML, and 16 (25%) in the R/R cohorts. Pt characteristics and outcomes by cohort are outlined in Table 1. The most commonly detected mutations at baseline were TET2 (45%), DNMT3a (37%), FLT3 (35%), ASXL1 (28%), and NPM1 (28%). Of 35 evaluable pts in the frontline cohort, 31 responded (ORR=89%) with 27 CR (77%) and 4 CRi (11%). Among the responders, 61% were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD [-]) by multiparameter flow cytometry. In the s-AML cohort, 10 pts were evaluable with an ORR of 60% (6/10) with 5 CR (50%) and 1 CRp (10%); 4 (67%) were MRD [-]. In the R/R cohort, 14 pts, previously treated with a median of 1 (1-4) prior therapy were evaluable for response. There were 7 CR (50%), 1 CRi (7%), for ORR of 57%; and 63% were MRD [-]. The median OS was not reached in the frontline and s-AML cohorts with median follow up of 5.2 and 11.5, months, respectively. In the R/R cohort, the median follow up was 4.7 months and median OS was 6.7 months [Figure.1]. Relapse-free survival was not reached in frontline and salvage cohort, and was 9.1 months in s-AML with median follow up of 5.2, 3.9, and 3.5 months in frontline, s-AML, and salvage cohorts, respectively [Figure.2]. The regimen was well tolerated. The most common ≥ grade 3 possibly-related non-hematologic adverse events were fever/infection (38), bleeding (2), and abnormal liver function test (3). Conclusion The 3-drug combination with a higher dose of araC, CLIA2, is safe and effective in younger pts with AML. Compared to our prior experience in pts with s-AML, using higher dose of cytarabine in CLIA2 for this cohort seems to have the highest impact. This trend however was also seen in the salvage and frontline cohorts when compared to the results from CLIA1. Response rates for pts in the newly-diagnosed AML, s-AML, and in the salvage settings are promising and should be explored further in larger studies and compared to current standard regimens. Disclosures Ravandi: Jazz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Daver:Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy. Bose:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Andreeff:SentiBio: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy; Oncoceutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eutropics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Equity Ownership; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: MDM2 inhibitor activity patent, Research Funding; United Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: GD2 inhibition in breast cancer . Pemmaraju:abbvie: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; plexxikon: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jabbour:novartis: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Kadia:Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Ritumixab in Combination with Adapted-Dose of Ifosfamide and Etoposide As Salvage Treatment in Elderly Refractory/Relapsed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Non-Candidate for High Dose Therapy: A Retrospective Study of Lyon Hospital University

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116734 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4215-4215

Author(s):

Guillaume Aussedat ◽

Delphine Maucort-Boulch ◽

Philippe Rey ◽

Violaine Safar ◽

Lionel Karlin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Board ◽

High Dose ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Previously Treated ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: standard treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) but this strategy is not appropriate for elderly DLBCL patients (pts) related to a high risk of toxicities. Multiple chemotherapy regimens had been developed for heavily pretreated elderly DLBCL patients such as R-bendamustine, R-gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (R-GEMOX) and pixantrone; the median progression free survival (PFS) of these regimens were 2, 4 and 3.5 months, respectively in prospective phase II studies for patients previously treated with R (Sehn 2017, Mounier 2013, Pettengel 2016). Adapted dose of ifosfamide and etoposide was firstly developed as sequential consolidation regimen after high-dose CHOP (ACVBP regimen) in first line therapy of young DLBCL patients (Tilly 2003). This regimen with a safe toxicity profile was then used in combination with R in Lyon University Hospital in elderly R/R DLBCL ineligible to intensive strategy. Methods: we retrospectively reviewed the efficacy and the safety profile of this regimen performed in two Lyon University Hospitals (Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud and Leon Berard Cancer Center). Between June 2004 and March 2017, 75 pts with R/R DLBCL (63 de novo DLBCL, 12 transformed DLBCL) received R (375 mg/m2) in combination etoposide (300 mg/m2) and ifosfamide (1500 mg/m2) on day 1 (N=72, 96%) and on days 1-2 (N=3, 4%) at 2 (N=46, 61%) or 3-week (N=29, 39%) intervals. All medical records were reviewed for clinical and biological characteristics, modality of treatment and supportive care, toxicities, responses and outcome. Results: the median age was 79 years (range, 64-92) at the beginning of R-ifosfamide/VP16 treatment with 46% of the patients over 80 years. 13% of pts had a CIRS-G grade 3 or 4 >2 categories and 35% had a cumulative CIRS-G score more than 6. The performance status according to EORTC scale was 2-4 in 37% of the pts and 93% had III-IV Ann Arbor stages. Age-adjusted IPI were 0-1 in 20 pts (27%) and 2-3 in 55 pts (73%). All patients were previously treated in first-line therapy by R in combination with chemotherapy (CHOP, N=56, 75%, low-dose CHOP, N=14, 19%, other, N=5, 6%). The patients received a median number of 1 previous line (range, 1-8) and no patient was previously treated by ASCT. The median time between initial diagnosis and R-ifosfamide/VP16 was 20 months (range 4-187). The median time between the last treatment and R-ifosfamide/VP16 was 5 months (range 0-181). A refractory disease to first-line treatment was showed in 14 pts (19%). 31% of the patients had a refractory disease to the last regimen performed before R-ifosfamide/VP16. Patients received a median of 6 cycles (1-12). At the end of treatment, the overall response rate (ORR), defined by the rate of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) was 37%, with 18% of CR. Evaluations were assessed for 29% of the pts by TEP scanner. For toxicity, among the 387 cycles, 10 patients developed febrile neutropenia (2.6%); 15 (20%) a grade 3-4 neutropenia; 7 (9%) a grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia; 5 patients needed platelet units and 16 patients received packed red blood cell units. No grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity was observed and no toxic death occurred. With a median follow up of 31.3 months (range, 5.0-202.8), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.3 months with a 1-year PFS rate of 26.0% (95%CI, 17.7-38.3) (Figure 1A). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.2 months with a 1-year OS rate of 40.8% (95%CI, 30.9-54.0) (Figure 1B). The median duration of response was 4 months (range 1-97). The median PFS was adversely affected by response (refractory versus CR/PR) to the last treatment (3.0 months versus 5.5 months, P=0.001) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: in this retrospective study, R-Ifosfamide/VP16 regimen provided effective results in R/R DLBCL transplant-ineligible pts with 37% of ORR and a median of PFS of 4.3 months with a safe toxicity profile. This regimen could also be considered as a platform for combinations with novel targeted agents in these categories of patients. Disclosures Karlin: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sarkozy:ROCHE: Consultancy. Bachy:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria. Salles:Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Acerta: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Merck: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Ghesquieres:Sanofi: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: 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

Real World Outcomes of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Who Are Ineligible for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Receive Commercially-Available Salvage Therapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128815 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2893-2893

Author(s):

Emily C. Ayers ◽

David J Margolis ◽

Phyllis A. Gimotty ◽

Daniel J. Landsburg

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Current Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Cell Of Origin ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Ecog Ps

Introduction: Salvage immunochemotherapy (IC) followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) is standard-of-care second-line therapy (2L) for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) deemed fit for autoSCT as per the CORAL study (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 20;28(27):4184-90). Optimal therapeutic management of patients with R/R DLBCL who are autoSCT-ineligible is unknown. Here we describe the real-world outcomes of patients with R/R DLBCL who receive palliative intent 2L therapy in community and academic settings and do not receive autoSCT. Methods: This analysis includes de-identified patients from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database with a histologic diagnosis of DLBCL and R/R disease after frontline IC who do not undergo autoSCT and receive treatment with either bendamustine-based therapy, gemcitabine-based therapy, lenalidomide, or ibrutinib. Patients receiving rituximab/ifosfamide/carboplatin/etoposide (R-ICE) and high-dose cytarabine-containing second-line therapies were excluded. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as the interval between the start of current therapy and start of subsequent therapy if needed, last follow-up on current therapy, or death on therapy. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time between start of current therapy and death or last follow-up while alive. Results: A total of 250 patients were eligible for inclusion in 2L. Eight patients received autoSCT after gemcitabine therapy and were excluded from this analysis. Clinicopathologic characteristics at time of diagnosis include 56% male, 87% age >60, 55% ECOG performance status >1, 87% stage III-IV disease, 78% IPI >2, 56% germinal center (GCB) of those with cell of origin testing performed, 9% cMYC rearrangement positive when tested, and 29% transformed from indolent disease. A total of 106, 78, 36, and 22 patients received bendamustine, gemcitabine, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib, respectively. For all patients, median EFS was 5.1 months and median OS was 14.3 months in 2L. Median EFS was 7.6, 2.4, 9.1, and 4.2 months, and median OS was 16.0, 9.4, 16.3, and 11 months for bendamustine, gemcitabine, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib in 2L, respectively. Patients receiving bendamustine and lenalidomide demonstrated significantly improved EFS compared to those receiving gemcitabine (p=0.001 and 0.01, respectively), see Figure 1. We observed no difference in EFS (p=0.40) or OS (p=0.89) between lenalidomide and bendamustine in 2L. Univariate analysis demonstrated receipt of gemcitabine, ECOG PS>1, and IPI >2 to have statistically significant increased hazard for treatment failure and ECOG PS>1 to have an increased hazard for death in 2L relative to the reference group. Multivariate analysis demonstrated receipt of gemcitabine (HR 1.57, p=0.03 95% CI: 1.04 - 2.37) and ECOG PS>1 (HR 1.61, p=0.02 95% CI: 1.09-2.38) were associated with an increased hazard for treatment failure in 2L. Median EFS for patients on lenalidomide was 6.7 and 8 months (p=0.26), and median OS was 13.9 and 12.2 months (p =0.48) for patients with nonGCB and GCB cell of origin, respectively. Conclusions: For patients with R/R DLBCL treated with palliative therapy in the 2L, bendamustine- and lenalidomide-based therapies resulted in significantly longer EFS compared to gemcitabine therapy. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that some patients received gemcitabine in 2L with the original intent to proceed with autoSCT, this does not contest our results as this therapy remains inferior to bendamustine and lenalidomide even if given to a potentially more fit patient population. Analysis shows no difference in outcomes by cell of origin if receiving lenalidomide in 2L. These findings may serve as benchmarks for outcomes following receipt of these therapies in the non-investigational setting and suggest both bendamustine and lenalidomide may be considered reasonable standard-of-care therapies for patients unfit for autoSCT in the 2L setting. Figure 1 Disclosures Landsburg: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Curis, INC: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Outcomes with lenalidomide and ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL will be discussed.

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