Improved Survival of Patients with Myelofibrosis in the Last Decade

Introduction: The myeloproliferative neoplasm myelofibrosis (MF) is associated with reduced overall survival (OS) compared to the general population. In 2011, the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, was approved in the USA for the treatment of intermediate and high-risk MF. Long-term follow-up of patients in pivotal phase 3 studies showed survival benefit of ruxolitinib therapy. Objective: We sought to evaluate the outcome of patients with MF diagnosed before and after the year of 2010 to assess whether OS changed in the past decade in the era of ruxolitinib. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 1346 patients with MF who presented to our institution in the last 25 years and compared clinical parameters and outcomes between those presented before and after the year of 2010 (before / after y. 2010). Newly diagnosed MF patients and patients within 12 months from diagnosis who were previously only treated with supportive therapy (danazol, growth-factors, steroids) were included. Cytogenetics (≥10 metaphases) was classified according to Gangat, JCO, 2011. Molecular analysis (≥ 28 genes) was performed only after y. 2010 by using next generation sequencing platform. Fisher exact test and χ2 were used for analysis of categorical variables. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison was done by the log-rank test. Results: Among the 1346 patients, 806 (60%) patients were seen after y. 2010. Median age of all patients was 65 years (range, 20-94), 62% were males. Patient characteristics with comparison between groups are shown in Table 1. Patients after y. 2010 were older, with lower WBC and lower lactate dehydrogenase, but had more symptoms. The distribution of IPSS scores between groups were comparable at around 10% for low, 36% for intermediate-1, 20-25% for intermediate-2 and ~30% for high risk. Eighty-five and 80% of patients before and after y. 2010, respectively, received therapy for MF at our institution. Overall, 78 patients (37 after y. 2010) underwent stem cell transplantation. Among treated patients at our institution, 25% (n 117) and 37% (n 241) before and after y. 2010 received ruxolitinib during their follow-up. Ruxolitinib therapy was initiated with a median time of 2 months (range, 0.2-156) from presentation to our institution, longer in those before y. 2010 (11 vs 1 months in patients after y. 2010, respectively, p = 0.001) After a median follow-up of 30.4 months (range, 0.9-266); 659 (49%) of patients died. More deaths were noticed in those before y. 2010 (74% vs 32 %, respectively, p < 0.001); but these patients had also longer follow-up (37.5 months vs 25 months, p < 0.001). Eighty-five patients (10%) developed acute leukemia: 2 cases per 100 person-years per observation for both groups. Patients after y. 2010 had superior OS to those before y. 2010 with HR 0.7 (95% CI: 0.59-0.82), p < 0.001, Figure 1. Superior OS was observed in all patients after y. 2010 (vs before y. 2010) when stratified by IPSS score (higher equals for combination of int -2 and high, Figure 2), or age (cutoff of 65 years, Figure 3). Patients exposed to ruxolitinib had superior OS regardless of being diagnosed before or after y. 2010, with respective medians of 98 (95% CI: 78-118) and 91 (95% CI: 73-109) months (details to be presented at the conference). Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that survival of patients with MF has improved in the last decade. Survival has improved in younger and older patients as well as in those with more advanced disease (per IPSS risks). Many factors may have contributed to the observed improvement in outcome of MF patients, including new therapies, e.g. ruxolitinib, as well as improved supportive management and disease awareness. Disclosures Bose: Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; MustangBio: Honoraria; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Verstovsek:CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

High-Risk Cytogenetics Multiple Myeloma: Impact of Consolidation and Maintenance

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2271.2271 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2271-2271 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Victor Jimenez-Zepeda ◽

Peter Duggan ◽

Paola Neri ◽

Jason Tay ◽

Fariborz Rashid-Kolvear ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Rank Test ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Free Survival ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction MM is a very heterogeneous disease for which several new treatments have become available over the past decade. With the advent of novel agents, the outcomes of this disease have improved dramatically. Unfortunately, High-risk myeloma (HRM) defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del13q by conventional karyotype and hypodiploidy, continues to exhibit poorer outcomes. Based on the above mentioned, we aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with HRM treated at our center. Methods All consecutive HRM patients who underwent single auto-SCT at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2004 to March/2016 were evaluated. HRM was defined by FISH and conventional karyotype when available. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. All statistical analyses were performed by using the SPSS 22.0 software. Results 73 consecutive patients with HRM underwent single auto-SCT at our Institution over the defined period. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Eighty-seven percent of patient received bortezomib-containing regimens as induction regimens. Day-100 response post-ASCT is seen in Table 1. Consolidation was given to 41.7% and maintenance to 79% of cases. At the time of analysis, 43 patients are still alive and 40 have already progressed. Median OS and PFS were 50.8 and 21.9 months, respectively for the whole group. Median OS was 50.4 months for the group receiving consolidation compared to 39 months for those without (p=0.1). In addition, median PFS was longer in the group treated with consolidation (NR, Estimate 25 months vs 13.5 months, p=0.02, Fig1a). Furthermore, OS and PFS were longer in the group receiving some form of maintenance compared to those without (56.3 and 22.5months vs 19.9 and 9 months, p=0.04 and 0.01, respectively) (Fig 1b and c). In conclusion, HRM is an aggressive form of myeloma where the OS and PFS are shorter than the standard risk MM. Consolidation and maintenance strategies seemed to increase both OS and PFS in our current report, but clinical outcomes are still poor. Novel strategies such as immune modulation,check-point inhibition, among others are needed to maximize the impact of the consolidation and maintenance phases in this group of patients. Progression-Free Survival and consolidation Progression-Free Survival and consolidation Figure 1 Overall survival and maintenance Figure 1. Overall survival and maintenance Figure 2 Progression-Free survival and maintenance Figure 2. Progression-Free survival and maintenance Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Onyx: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene and Jannsen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Patients with Myelofibrosis and Favorable Karyotype

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142650 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 5-6

Author(s):

Daniel Rivera ◽

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Prithviraj Bose ◽

Naveen Pemmaraju ◽

Lingsha Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Clinical Features ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chromosome 1 ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Molecular Abnormalities ◽

Grant Support ◽

Single Deletion ◽

Deletion 20Q

Introduction Myelofibrosis (MF) is an aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasm negatively affecting patient's (pts) overall survival (OS). Several clinical and molecular factors, such as anemia, leukocytosis, thrombocytopenia, increased blasts, presence of unfavorable karyotype, or adverse molecular abnormalities (e.g., ASXL1, IDH1/2, SRSF2, EZH2), further worsen outcomes. Pts with favorable karyotype (e.g., diploid, single deletion 13q, or single deletion 20q), are assumed to have comparable and superior outcome, only affected by their clinical features and molecular background. We decided to evaluate how adverse clinical and molecular factors impact OS within this subset of patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis on patients with favorable karyotype and newly diagnosed MF who presented to our institution within the last 20 years. Favorable karyotype was considered according to classification in DIPSS-Plus and MIPSS70v2.0 models. Prognostic models, IPSS, DIPSS, DIPSS-Plus and MIPSS70v.20 were calculated for patients as published. Molecular analysis was performed in some patients using at least 28-gene panel by next generation sequencing (NGS). Categorical variables were compared by Chi-squared test. Univariate analysis for association between variables and outcome was performed with Cox-regression analysis. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and calculated from the time of presentation to our institution until the last follow-up or death. Results Among 1002 patients, 741 pts (74%) had diploid karyotype (DP); the remaining patients had single deletion 13q (del13q, n 33), single deletion 20q (n 97), single abnormality of chromosome 1, 9 or minus Y (n 131). Only pts with del13q had inferior OS to all other groups (42 vs ~ 62 months, p 0.001), and therefore we decided to further focus on pts with del13q and DP karyotype. Patients and disease characteristics are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. We did not observe any significant clinical differences between groups. Distribution by prognostic systems; IPSS, DIPSS, DIPSS-Plus and MIPSS10v2.0 is shown in Table 1. IPSS and DIPSS classified more patients with del13q into higher (combined intermediate 2 and high) risks. DIPSS-Plus and MIPSS70v2.0 showed similar distribution of patients into risks in both groups. Forty - two percent (n 87) and 36% (n 4) of patients with DP karyotype and del13q carried at least one high risk molecular mutation (HMR; such as ASXL1, IDH1/2, EZH2, U2AF1/SRSF2/SF3B1), respectively (Table 2). Whilst all applied clinical risk models (IPSS, DIPSS, DIPSS-Plus) appropriately discriminated distinct OS in pts with DP karyotype, only DIPSS-Plus was able to accurately predict distinct OS in those with del13q (Table 3). MIPSS70v2.0 (only patients with NGS panel) did not predict for distinct OS in DP or del13q pts (Table 3). Pts with DP karyotype had superior OS to those with del13q with median OS of 62 and 42 months, respectively (Figure 1), p < 0.001, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.78. Although presence of HMR had negative impact on OS in both groups (Figure 2), pts with del13q with HRM had OS of only 15 months (vs 55 months in DP pts with HMR, p < 0.001). Conclusion Patients with MF and del13q appear to have inferior OS than those with diploid karyotype, despite similar clinical features. Impact of molecular abnormalities, especially presence of high-risk mutations, might be underestimated in this group and deserves further investigation. Ongoing research in our center is aimed to provide new evidence on the role of mutations for this karyotypically "favorable" subgroup. Disclosures Verstovsek: CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding. Bose:Kartos Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Pemmaraju:Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MustangBio: Honoraria; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Early Relapse Following ASCT for Patients with MM: Identification of Predictor Factors in the Era of Novel Agents

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.5818.5818 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 5818-5818

Author(s):

Victor Jimenez-Zepeda ◽

Peter Duggan ◽

Paola Neri ◽

Ahsan Chaudhry ◽

Jason Tay ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Research Funding ◽

Conditioning Regimen ◽

Novel Agents ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Rank Test ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Dramatic Improvement ◽

Early Relapse ◽

Predictor Factors

Abstract Introduction Auto-SCT, still remains as the standard therapy for patients with MM deemed to be eligible for this approach. Unfortunately, even when most patients will respond to auto-SCT, 10-20% of cases will progress within a year. Over the last few years, a dramatic improvement on clinical outcomes has been made by using novel agents in the treatment of MM. Based on the above mentioned, we aimed to assess the incidence of Early Relapse (ER) for patients undergoing auto-SCT treated with novel-agents induction combinations at our center and to explore possible predictor factors. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent single auto-SCT at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2006 to March/2016 were evaluated. ER was defined as per recent publications (<12 months from auto-SCT). Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. All statistical analyses were performed by using the SPSS 24.0 software. Results 232 consecutive patients with MM underwent single auto-SCT at our Institution over the defined period. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 172 patients are still alive and 112 have already progressed. Among these cases, 35 patients have relapsed in <12 months (ER) from auto-SCT (15.1%). 16 out of 35 patients with ER had HRC (high-risk cytogenetics) (45.7%). ER was seen in 25% of cases with HRC and 11% of patients with Standard Risk (SRC) (p=0.01). Patient with <VGPR at day-100 post-ASCT exhibited a shorther PFS (24 months vs 34 months, p=0.03) (Fig1b). Patients with <VGPR at day-100 post-ASCT were more likely to develop ER (31.5% vs 9%). (p=0.001) The use of lenalidomide maintenance or any consolidation strategy did not impact on the rate of ER (p=0.1 and 0.4, respectively). Neither the type of conditioning regimen nor the induction chemotherapy (p>0.5) was associated to a higher rate of ER. Median OS was shorter for the ER group (17.8 months) compared to an estimated 93 months for those patients relapsing >12 months. (p=0.0001) In conclusion, patients with ER after auto-SCT remain to be a challenge. Even with the advent of novel agents, patients with ER had poor outcomes. ER seems to be associated to HRC and low degree of response. Patients with these features should be considered for novel alternatives, aiming to achieve and sustain the deepest possible response. More biological insights on ER cases are needed to further improve survival outcomes. PFS according to level of response at day-100 post ASCT PFS according to level of response at day-100 post ASCT Figure 1 Overall survival according to the pattern of relapse Figure 1. Overall survival according to the pattern of relapse Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Onyx: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene and Jannsen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (CyBorD) Compared to Bortezomib, Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (VTD) As Induction Therapy for the Treatment of Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4505.4505 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4505-4505 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Victor Jimenez-Zepeda ◽

Nizar J. Bahlis ◽

Peter Duggan ◽

Rafael Alonso ◽

Juan José Lahuerta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Treatment Regimen ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Rank Test ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Similar Response ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and Dexamethasone (CyBorD) has become the standard frontline approach for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in many centers across Canada. A recent study led by the IFM group showed that the triplet combination of bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone is superior as an induction regimen compared to CyBorD for patients undergoing ASCT. Based on the above-mentioned, we aimed to compare the effect of CyBorD and VTD for the treatment of transplant eligible MM patients in 2 different centers from Canada and Spain. Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to assess ORR and ³VGPR rates after induction and at day-100 post-ASCT, as well as MRD assessed by flow cytometry. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant and survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Results: 101 patients have received CyBorD and 23 have received VTD. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 90 and 19 patients in the CyBorD and VTD are alive of which 25 and 9, respectively, have progressed. ORR and VGPR rates after a median of 4 cycles of induction were 94% and 56.4% for patients treated with CyBorD, and 91% and 78.2% for VTD, respectively (p=0.3 and 0.05). At day-100 post-ASCT, a ³VGPR rate of 84% and 94% was observed for the CyBorD and VTD groups, respectively (p=0.2). MRD negativity and CR rates were higher in the group receiving VTD (36.8% vs 27%, and 61% vs 38%, p=0.3 and 0.01). Furthermore, median OS and PFS did not differ among both groups (p=0.8 and 0.9, respectively) (Fig1a and Fig1b). In Conclusion: CyBorD and VTD appeared to be effective treatment options for transplant-eligible myeloma patients with similar response rates. Our study is in agreement with that reported by the IFM group, showing a higher rate of³VGPR after induction and day-100 post-ASCT in the VTD group. MRD negativity and CR rate appears also higher in the VTD group suggesting a higher degree of response by using animmunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor together. Overall Survival according to treatment regimen Overall Survival according to treatment regimen Figure 1 Progression-Free survival according to treatment regimen Figure 1. Progression-Free survival according to treatment regimen Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Onyx: Honoraria. Bahlis:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene and Jannsen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Bortezomib-Containing Regimens (BCR) for the Treatment of Non-Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1846.1846 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1846-1846

Author(s):

Victor H Jimenez-Zepeda ◽

Peter Duggan ◽

Paola Neri ◽

Nizar J Bahlis

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Rank Test ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Free Survival ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction In patients not eligible for transplant due to age and/or co-morbidities, the selection of up-front therapy needs to balance efficacy and toxicity. Recently, regimens with bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor proven to be efficacious in myeloma, have been reported. Based on these findings, we aimed to evaluate the impact of different bortezomib combinations for the treatment of non transplant-eligible MM. Methods All- consecutive patients treated with bortezomib-containing regimens (BCR) at Tom Baker Cancer Center (TBCC) from 01/2006 to June/2015 were evaluated. Definitions of response and progression were used according to the EBMT modified criteria and a category of very good partial response (VGPR) was added. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. Results 113 consecutive patients with MM received BCR. Thirty-three patients were treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD), 41 with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) and 39 with bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD). Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of analysis, 20, 17 and 18 patients in the CyBorD, VMP and VD groups are still alive and 14, 33 and 30 have already progressed, respectively. ORR and VGPR rates were 93.9%/75.7%, 80%/53% and 76%/48% (p=0.001) for patients treated with CyBorD, VMP and VD, respectively. Median OS was NR for CyBorD, compared to 41months and 37 months for VMP and VD patients (p=0.6). Median PFS was 16.7 months for CyBorD compared to 17.5 months and 11 months for VMP and VD (P=0.6), respectively. The rate of treatment discontinuation and median number of cycles were: 9%, 26% and 12.8% and 6, 7.5 and 4 cycles for CyBorD, VMP and VD patients, respectively. Patients were to receive 6-9 cycles of treatment and the regimen could be continued to a maximum of 2 years at the discretion of the treating hematologist based on tolerability and response. Nine patients (27%) in the CyBorD group and 17 (41.4%) and 4 (10%) in the VMP and VD group received maintenance treatment. Median OS and PFS was longer for the group receiving maintenance (62 months vs 32 months and 23 months vs 10 months, p=0.007). In conclusion, bortezomib containing regimens are efficacious in the treatment of non-transplant eligible MM. Patients receiving maintenance appeared to exhibit longer PFS and OS. Very elderly patients should be subjected to frailty and comorbidity indexes aiming to decrease toxicity and prolong survival. Table 1. Clinical Characteristics Characteristic CyBorD, n=33 VMP, n=41 VD, n=39 Age (median) 58 58 58 GenderMaleFemale 20 (60.6%)13 (39.4%) 22 (53.6%)19 (46.4%) 26 (66.6%)13 (33.4%) Hb (g/L) 107 110 103 Calcium (µmol/L) 2.4 2.35 2.31 Creatinine (µmol/L) 115.5 103 108 B2microglobulin (µmol/L) 4.1 3.42 5.9 Albumin (g/L) 31 31 30 Stage IStage IIStage III 6 (12.1%)14 (42.4%)13 (45.5%) 9 (21.9%)19 (46.3%)13 (31.8%) 4 (10.2%)16 (41%)18 (48.8%) LDH (IU/L) 185 179 174 BMPC (%) 31 30 33.5 Heavy chain:IgGIgAFLC onlyIgDIgMBiclonal 2247000 19148000 21107010 Light chain:KappaLambdaBiclonal 16170 29120 24150 High riskStandard risk 5 (15%) 28 6 (14.6%)35 8 (20%)31 Ab: BMPC: Bone marrow plasma cells. Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 1. Overall survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 2. Progression-Free survival for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Figure 3. OS for patients receiving CyBorD, VMP and VD maintenance Disclosures Jimenez-Zepeda: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria. Duggan:Jansen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Neri:Celgene: Research Funding. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Thirty-Five Year Follow-up Analysis of Follicular Lymphoma Patients Treated through the Nebraska Lymphoma Study Group: Prognostic Factor Analysis and Outcomes

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142743 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 7-8

Author(s):

Amulya Yellala ◽

Elizabeth R. Lyden ◽

Heather Nutsch ◽

Avyakta Kallam ◽

Kai Fu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Treatment Regimen ◽

Research Funding ◽

Study Group ◽

Secondary Malignancies ◽

Lymphoma Study Group

Background Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and most common of the clinically indolent NHLs. Although often considered an incurable disease, overall survival has increased significantly with refinement in diagnostic techniques and the addition of rituximab. The course of FL is quite variable and presence of symptoms, organ dysfunction, cytopenias, aggressiveness of tumor are all taken into consideration when deciding individual treatment. In this study, we evaluated a large patient cohort with FL treated over a 35 year period for progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) based on FLIPI score, tumor grade, and treatment regimen and also looked at causes of late failures. Methods We evaluated 1037 patients (pts) from the Nebraska Lymphoma Study Group that were diagnosed with FL between the years of 1983-2020. Descriptive statistics were stratified according to age, histological subtype, treatment regimen, FLIPI category, presence and type of secondary malignancy. PFS was calculated from the time of diagnosis to progression or death and OS was the time from diagnosis to death from any cause. PFS and OS were plotted as Kaplan-Meier curves with statistically significant p<0.05. Results The median age at diagnosis and treatment was 61 years (yrs, range 17-91). A total of 9.1% were characterized as FLIPI high risk, 37.8% intermediate risk, and 33.6% low risk, 19.5% unavailable. Among the histological grade, 23.1% had FL- grade 1, 30.2% FL-2, 27.3% FL-3A, 2.5 % FL-3B and 16.9 % Composite Lymphoma. Anthracycline + rituximab was given in 24.5% of pts, whereas 43.8% of pts received an anthracycline based regimen without rituximab, 9.8% received rituximab without an anthracycline and 10.6% received neither of these agents. 6.75% (70 pts) were later found to have secondary malignancies of which 11 pts had myelodysplastic syndrome, 10 pts had acute leukemia and 9 pts had lung cancer. With a median follow up of 9.2 yrs and a maximum of 36 yrs, 29.7% (308 pts) had not relapsed. The median PFS across all groups was 4.6 yrs (Fig 1) and OS was 12.1 yrs. Median OS was significantly longer in patients that received rituximab at 16.1 yrs as compared to patients that did not receive rituximab at 9.89 yrs (Fig 2). PFS was 8.6 yrs, 3.6 yrs and 2.1 yrs and OS was 15.1 yrs, 11.7 yrs and 4.9 yrs in FLIPI low, intermediate and high risk groups respectively (p=<0.001) (Fig 3), suggesting that survival was influenced by FLIPI score. Median PFS in FL-3B and FL-3A was 9.2 yrs and 5.2 yrs respectively which is longer than 4.7 yrs and 4.2 yrs for FL-1 and FL-2 (p=0.24). OS in FL-3A and FL-3B subgroups was 10.8 yrs while it was 11.6 yrs and 14.3 yrs in FL-2 and FL-1 (P=0.081). PFS is significantly longer at 10.6 yrs in pts treated with both anthracycline and rituximab containing regimen as compared to 5.3 yrs in pts treated with rituximab alone and 3.05 yrs in pts that had only anthracycline based regimen (p=<0.001) (Fig 4). The median OS also was significantly higher in the combination regimen group at 18.8 yrs as compared to 11.3 yrs in rituximab only group and 9 yrs in anthracycline based regimen group (p=<0.001). When pts with FL-3A and FL-3B were grouped together and stratified according to treatment regimen, the group that received anthracycline and rituximab combination has highest PFS and OS at 13.3 yrs and 18.8 yrs (p<0.001). when pts with FL-3A were analyzed separately and stratified by treatment regimen, the results of PFS and OS were similar and statistically significant. However, of the 24 pts in FL-3B group, analysis revealed that PFS and OS was longer in anthracycline based regimen only group, however results were not statistically significant. Among the pts that relapsed/died after 10 years (n=190), the cause of death was relapsed lymphoma in 13.7%, unknown in 55.8%, secondary malignancies in 4.2%, treatment related in 2.6% and not related to disease in 23.7%. A total of 278 pts survived > 10 yrs, and of these pts, 119 (30%) had not relapsed at the last follow up. Conclusion The addition of rituximab to standard anthracycline based chemotherapy has resulted in significant improvements in the PFS and OS rates of FL. These results also support the prognostic value of the FLIPI in patients treated in the rituximab era. Late relapses after 10 yrs from disease can occur, but 11.5% of patients had not relapsed with long term follow up. Secondary malignancies are also an important consideration in the long term survivors. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Armitage:Trovagene/Cardiff Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Samus Therapeutics: Consultancy; Ascentage: Consultancy. Vose:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Allogene: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Wugen: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria; Loxo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Front-Line FLAG-IDA and Nove-HiDAC Chemotherapy Improves Overall Survival (OS) and Complete Remission Rates (CR) for Patients with Secondary or Therapy-Related AML Compared to 3&7

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4893.4893 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4893-4893

Author(s):

Sita D. Bhella ◽

Eshetu G Atenafu ◽

Andre C Schuh ◽

Mark D. Minden ◽

Aaron D. Schimmer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Complete Remission ◽

Invasive Aspergillosis ◽

Myeloproliferative Neoplasm ◽

Rank Test ◽

P Value ◽

Front Line ◽

First Line ◽

Poor Risk

Abstract Background: Therapy for patients (pts) with high risk AML remains unsatisfactory. Retrospective studies have demonstrated activity of fludarabine, cytarabine, GCSF and idarubicin (FLAG-IDA) and of mitoxantrone, etoposide and cytarabine (NOVE-HiDAC) as salvage therapy in pts with relapsed or refractory AML. A recent randomized trial indicated high complete remission (CR) rates with improved relapsed-free survival when FLAG-IDA is administered as frontline induction therapy (Burnett et al. J Clin Oncol 2013). Since 01/2011, we have used FLAG-IDA as a first line therapeutic option in pts with high risk AML (poor risk cytogenetics, antecedent myeloproliferative neoplasm or myelodysplastic syndrome, and/or therapy-related AML) in an attempt to improve CR rates and permit more patients with AML to advance to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Prior to 2011, either 3&7 or NOVE-HiDAC was used as first line therapy in patients with AML. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients with high risk AML treated with front-line (a) FLAG-IDA between 01/2011 to 03/2015, (b) NOVE-HiDAC from 01/2006 to 12/2014, or (c) 3&7 from January 01/2011 to 12/2014 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, to determine the CR rates and overall survival (OS) associated with the different regimens. Results: Patients characteristics are in Table 1. Fifty-two, 32, and 30 pts received FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC or 3&7 as first induction, respectively. Patients receiving FLAG-IDA had more high-risk features (i.e. complex cytogenetics, more azacytidine failures) compared to those receiving 3&7. Overall CR rate (i.e. CR + [CRi] + [CRp]) with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC, and 3&7 respectively was 86% (n=42/49), 84% (n=21/25) and 50% (n=13/26), respectively. Median CR duration, censored at time of transplant, for pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 3 mos (0.5-15), 3.5 mos (1-9) and 5.5 mos (0.5-42), respectively. OS at 1 year with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 was 61% (95% CI, 41% -75%), 55% (95% CI, 34%-72%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 7.4%-40.7%), respectively (log-rank test p-value=0.0076). On subgroup analysis, there was no statistical difference in OS for pts ≥70 years. Of those with a donor identified, 35% (n=13/37), 73% (n=11/15) and 29% (n=5/17) of pts who were treated with FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 underwent an alloSCT, respectively. Pts with sAML may have had a higher transplant rate due to donor searches initiated earlier. Probable and possible invasive aspergillosis infections in pts receiving FLAG-IDA, NOVE-HiDAC and 3&7 were 50%, 34% and 33% respectively. Institution of earlier bronchoscopies led to increased fungal detection in the FLAG-IDA group. Median length of stay and ICU transfers were similar between groups. Induction deaths were secondary to sepsis, respiratory failure, invasive aspergillosis, and hemorrhage; these were similar across groups. Two pts receiving NOVE-HiDAC, with prior MPN, died of progressive splenomegaly and liver failure. Conclusions: Toxicities associated with frontline FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HIDAC induction are acceptable. FLAG-IDA and NOVE-HiDAC induction can result in durable CR, permitting patients with high risk AML to proceed to alloSCT and providing more favourable survival rates than frontline 3&7. Randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings for pts with poor-risk sAML and tAML. Table 1. Patient Characteristics FLAG-IDA(2013-2015) NOVE-HiDAC(2006-2014) 3&7(2011-2014) N=52 N=32 N=30 Median Age,y (range) Age <70 Age ≥ 70 Sex (M:F) 59.5 (21-76) 47 (90%) 5 (10%) 25:27 54.5 (24-74) 31 (97%) 1 (3%) 18:14 61.5 (20-78) 21 (70%) 9 (30%) 23:7 Cytogenetics by MRC Classification Good Intermediate Poor Not available 0 (0%) 25 (48%) 23 (44%) 4 (8%) 0 (0%) 18 (56%) 9 (28%) 5 (16%) 0 (0%) 20 (67%) 6 (20%) 4 (13%) Molecular (Pts ≤70 y with normal karyotype) FLT3-NPM1+ FLT3+ NPM1+ FLT3+ NPM1- FLT3-NPM1- 1/11 (9%) 5/11 (45%) 2/11 (18%) 3/11 (27%) 0/7 (0%) 2/7 (29%) 1/7 (14%) 4/7 (57%) 0/7 (0%) 1/7 (14%) 0/7 (0%) 6/7 (86%) WBC (x 109/L) (range) 5.15 (0.6 -239) 13 (1.3-182.4) 3.2 (0.7-164) sAML IBMFS MPN MDS Prior AZA 27 (52%) 0/27 (0%) 10/27 (37%) 17/27 (63%) 9/17 (53%) 29 (91%) 1/29 (4%) 15/29 (51%) 13/29 (45%) 2/13 (15%) 20 (67%) 2/20 (10%) 0/20 (0%) 18/20 (90%) 5/18 (28%) Therapy-Related (%) 14 (27%) 6 (19%) 15 (50%) De Novo AML with Complex Cytogenetics FLT3+ Other (ie MLL) 15 (29%) 7/15 (47%) 5/15 (33%) 3/15 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Donor Identified (%) 37(71%) 16(50%) 17(57%) Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Characteristics and Outcome of Myelofibrosis Patients on Long-Term Ruxolitinib Therapy (≥3 years)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142554 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 19-20

Author(s):

Lucia Masarova ◽

Prithviraj Bose ◽

Naveen Pemmaraju ◽

Lingsha Zhou ◽

Sherry A. Pierce ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Median Time ◽

Median Duration ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response To Therapy ◽

International Prognostic Scoring System ◽

Duration Of Therapy ◽

Grant Support

Introduction: The JAK1/2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib, was approved in the USA in 2011 for the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) with intermediate and high-risk IPSS score (International Prognostic Scoring System). In the approval phase 3 COMFORT 1 - 2 studies, about 50% patients were taking ruxolitinib for at least 3 years, respectively. Objective: We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcome of MF patients on long-term ruxolitinib therapy (≥3 years) at our center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with MF who were treated with ruxolitinib for ≥3 years. Cytogenetic were classified into risks according to Gangat et all, JCO, 2011. Descriptive statistics were used for nominal and continues variables, captured at the time of ruxolitinib start. Duration of therapy and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, from the start of ruxolitinib initiation until the last day of initial ruxolitinib therapy, the date of last follow-up or death, respectively. Response to therapy was according to IWG-MRT 2013 criteria. Results: Among 437 patients who initiated therapy with ruxolitinib at our center, 136 (31%) remained on therapy for ≥3 years and represent current cohort. Ninety-one patients (67%) were newly diagnosed; the remaining patients presented after a median of 28 months (range, 4-228) from MF diagnosis. Median time to initiate ruxolitinib from presentation to our center was 1 month (range, 0.3-123) for all patients. However, the time was longer for patients who presented > 3 months from MF diagnosis (median of 11.5 months; range, 3.5-123). Patient's characteristics (n = 136) at the time of ruxolitinib initiation are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 67 years (range, 32-84), and 76 (56%) of patients were males. Half of the patients had high risk IPSS score, > 80% had systemic symptoms or splenomegaly. Eighty six percent of patients had diploid or favorable karyotype. JAK2 mutation was detected in 87% of tested patients. Median duration of ruxolitinib therapy was 72 months (95% CI: 66-78). Over the median follow-up of 83 months (range, 36-174), 63 patients (46%) died. Currently, 48 (35%) patients are still on ruxolitinib; 88 discontinued therapy after a median time of 55 months (range, 47-63). By 5th and 7th year of therapy, out of 136 patients that were treated for at least 3 years, 35% and 65% percent of patients discontinued treatment. The reasons for discontinuation included allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT, n 5), cytopenia (n 6), progression of MF (n 38), progression to accelerate phase (n 2) or acute leukemia (n 7), patient's choice (n 11), and death (n 23: infection 4, cardiac 3, cancer 3, others 16). Overall, 101 patients (74%) achieved IWG-MRT response, represented in majority by clinical improvement (CI) in spleen (n 90, 84%) and CI in TSS (n 51, 71%), respectively. The remaining patients achieved clinical benefit not qualifying for overall IWG-MRT response. Median duration of IWG-MRT response was 55 months (95% CI: 48-63). Responses were ongoing in 29 patients (29% of initial responders) at the time of last follow-up. Median duration of therapy was 75 months (95% CI: 68-82) for responders vs 60 months (95% CI: 39-79) for non-responders, p = 0.74. Median OS from the start of ruxolitinib was 90 months (95% CI: 76-104), Figure 1. Median OS for patients who were on ruxolitinib for ≥5 years (n = 73) was 106 months (95% CI: 80-137). Univariate and multivariate analysis for factors associated with OS is shown in Table 2. After ruxolitinib discontinuation, 25 patients received subsequent treatment at our center: SCT in 6, another JAK inhibitor in 11, other investigational agents in 3, chemotherapy in 5 patients. Median OS from ruxolitinib discontinuation was 20 months (95% CI: 12-28). Conclusion: Our data with the longest follow-up of patients receiving ruxolitinib for ≥3 years confirm the long-term benefit of this therapy with a median OS approaching 8 years since ruxolitinib treatment initiation. Disclosures Bose: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; MustangBio: Honoraria; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Final Overall Survival Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Bortezomib Plus Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin with Bortezomib Alone in Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3448.3448 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3448-3448

Author(s):

Robert Z. Orlowski ◽

Arnon Nagler ◽

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Joan Bladé ◽

Roman Hajek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Pharmaceutical Research ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grant Support ◽

Johnson Pharmaceutical Research

Abstract Introduction Previous results of an open-label, randomized, controlled, multicenter phase III study (DOXIL-MMY-3001) demonstrated that bortezomib+pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was superior to bortezomib monotherapy in treating subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) whose disease had failed one or more lines of prior therapy. The risk of developing disease progression was significantly reduced by 45% with bortezomib+PLD (median time to progression (TTP) with bortezomib+PLD: 9.3 months, bortezomib: 6.5 months; HR=1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.41, 2.35]; p=0.000004). In the interim analysis, the 15-month overall survival (OS) rate for bortezomib+PLD was 76% (95% CI [70%, 83%]) compared with 65% (95% CI [58%, 73%]) for bortezomib alone (p=0.03)(Orlowski et al JCO 25: 3892-3901, 2007). A protocol-defined analysis of the final survival data of this study is provided here. Methods Subjects with confirmed MM, ECOG status 0 to 1, platelets ≥75,000/mm3, hemoglobin ≥8.0 g/dL, absolute neutrophils ≥1,000/mm3, and creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min were randomized to bortezomib (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, intravenous, days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of an every 21-day cycle), or bortezomib+PLD (same bortezomib+PLD 30 mg/m2 intravenous on day 4). Randomization was stratified according to serum β2-microglobulin levels (≤2.5, >2.5 and ≤5.5, or >5.5 mg/L) and response to prior treatment (response followed by progression, or primary refractory). The primary endpoint was TTP; secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]). Results A total of 646 subjects (bortezomib+PLD: 324; bortezomib: 322) were randomized between December 2004 and March 2006. In the pre-planned interim analysis, the study met its primary and other secondary end points. The study continued for long-term survival follow-up. At the clinical cutoff of 16 May, 2014, for the final survival analysis with a median follow-up of 103 months, 79% of subjects were dead (bortezomib+PLD: 253 [78%]; bortezomib: 257 [80%]), 6% withdrew consent, 4% were lost to follow-up, and 11% were still alive. Median OS in bortezomib+PLD–treated subjects was 33.0 months (95% CI [28.9, 37.1]) versus 30.8 months (95% CI [25.2, 36.5]) in bortezomib-treated subjects (HR=1.05, 95% CI [0.88, 1.25]; p=0.6068). The types of salvage therapies utilized included dexamethasone (49.1%), thalidomide (31.0%), cyclophosphamide (28.5%), melphalan (22.9%), lenalidomide (21.8%), bortezomib (20.4%) and doxorubicin (8.0%), which were well-balanced between the two treatment groups. Conclusion Despite inducing a superior TTP, long-term follow-up revealed that PLD+bortezomib-treatment did not improve the OS compared with bortezomib alone in subjects with relapsed or refractory MM. The inability to confirm the early survival advantage may be due to the effects of subsequent lines of therapy, and underscores the need for long-term follow-up of phase III trials. Disclosures Orlowski: Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Orthobiotech;: Consultancy. Bladé:Celgene: Grant support, Grant support Other, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Grant support Other, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Hospira: Research Funding. Robak:MorphoSys AG: Research Funding. Dmoszynska:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development: Research Funding. Horvath:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sutherland:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy. Xiu:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership. Parekh:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership. Miguel:Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Over-Expression of CRLF2 By Flow Cytometry (FC) Impacts on Overall Survival (OS) in Mexican Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153309 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3367-3367

Author(s):

Emmanuel Almanza Huante ◽

Juan Rangel-Patiño ◽

Rosana Daniela Córdova-Serrano ◽

Karla Adriana Espinosa ◽

Roberta Demichelis

Keyword(s):

Flow Cytometry ◽

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Negative Group ◽

High Tendency ◽

Over Expression ◽

Treatment Naïve ◽

Mexican Patients

Abstract Introduction: "Philadelphia like" ALL has been related to poor prognosis. CRLF2 over-expression (cytokine receptor like factor-2) has been found in up to 50% of patients with Philadelphia-like ALL and its expression can be measured by Flow Cytometry (FC). CRLF2 over-expression is more common in Hispanic population (45-68%) however, there is no current recommendation in using it as a prognostic marker. Objectives: Find the prevalence of CRLF2 overexpression measured by FC, in adult Mexican patients with treatment-naïve ALL Describe the outcomes of the patients who over-expressed CRLF2 by Complete Response (CR), Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), Leukemia-Free Survivale (LFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Methodology: This is a retrospective cohort study in adults with newly diagnosed ALL from two reference centers in Mexico City. We measured CRLF2 expression by FC in fresh bone marrow samples from treatment-naïve patients at one location; to define over-expression, samples were first analyzed by two different experts who grouped the cases in over-expression or no overexpression using Mean Fluorescence Intensity (MFI) between two populations, blasts and controls (normal B cells). Outcomes were compared using chi-square test for binary variables and log-rank test for time-to-event variables with a p value <0.05 as significant. Results: From April 2018 to January 2020 46 patients with treatment-naïve B-cell ALL were evaluable; the median age was 29.5 years, 38 (82.6%) were Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA), 22 (47.8%) had leukocytosis, 15 (53.5%) of the evaluable karyotypes, were assigned to high-risk group. The median time of follow-up was 24.5 months and 19 (41.3%) patients were positive for CRLF2-overexpression. For the follow-up cohort all of the patients were evaluable for outcomes. CNS disease was detectable in 11(24.5%) patients which was higher in CRLF2-overexpresed patients (15.5% vs 8.9%, p=0.015). We found no difference in Complete Remission (CR) in CRLF2 status but a high tendency for R/R (Relapse/Refractory) disease (83.3% in CRLF2-overexpression vs 60% in CRLF2 negative group; p=0.09) and dead (63.2% in CRLF2-overexpression vs 37% in CRLF2 negative group; p=0.07). MRD1, 2 and 3 (1=after induction, 2= week 16 and 3= before maintenance) was significantly worse in patients with CRLF2 overexpression (1=15.8% vs 58.3%, p<0.01; 2=7.1% vs 52.6%, p<0.01; 3=0% vs 55.6%, p<0.05). Overall Survival was significantly worse in patients with CRLF2 overexpression (Median Not Reached vs 11.05 months; p=0.04) (Figure 1); Disease-Free Survival (DFS) had a tendency towards worse outcome in patients with CRLF2 overexpression (18.48 vs 5.82 months, p=0.07) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Survival in patients who have CRLF2 overexpression is significantly worse when measured by FC, this might be related to early high-risk markers as MRD. CRLF2 overexpression in this hispanic sample was higher (41%) than other reports. CRLF2 measured as a prognostic factor by FC needs to be further considered due to the high availability of this technique across Latin-America. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Rangel-Patiño: Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Bristol: Consultancy. Espinosa: Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Demichelis: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy; ASH: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text