Outcomes of Patients with Myelofibrosis and Favorable Karyotype

Blood ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Improved Survival of Patients with Myelofibrosis in the Last Decade

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 50-51
Author(s):  
Lucia Masarova ◽  
Prithviraj Bose ◽  
Naveen Pemmaraju ◽  
Lingsha Zhou ◽  
Sherry A. Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasm ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Fisher Exact Test ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Before And After

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Cytogenetic Stratifications in Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1763-1763
Author(s):  
Lucia Masarova ◽  
Prithviraj Bose ◽  
Naveen Pemmaraju ◽  
Zeev E. Estrov ◽  
Lingsha Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chromosome 1 ◽  
Trisomy 8 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Single Deletion ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Very High

Abstract Introduction: The revised cytogenetic risk stratification of patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) divided patients into 3 prognostic categories, with additional new category of very high risk patients (VHR). This score should enhance traditional classification incorporated in the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System-Plus (DIPPS-Plus). Objective: To evaluate the prognostic utility of cytogenetic stratifications (DIPSS-Plus and the revised cytogenetic model) in patients with PMF referred to our institution between 1984 and 2016. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 883 patients with PMF with available cytogenetic analysis at the time of referral to our institution (> 10 metaphases). Cytogenetic was reported according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Patients were classified into cytogenetic risks based on DIPSS-Plus (Gangat, JCO, 2011), and the revised cytogenetic model (Tefferi, Leukemia, 2017). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared by the log rank test. Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on OS was also evaluated by comparing them against patients with diploid karyotype using stepwise Cox regression. Results: Median age was 66 years (range, 27-88), and 64% of patients were male. The distribution of DIPSS scores was as follows: 8% low, 48% intermediate 1, 44% intermediate 2 and 14% high. OS in each DIPSS category was 53, 46, 26, 15 months (p<0.001). The JAK2, MPL and CALR mutation was present in 55% (n=486), 6% (n=50), and 7% (n=64). Overall, 563 (64%) patients had diploid karyotype. The most frequent abnormal karyotypes were single 20q- (n=68, 8%), single 13q- (n=40, 4.5%), and ≥3 abnormalities (Abn; complex karyotype, CK, n=52, 6%). Among patients with CK, 27 (52%) pts had VHR Abn. After a median follow-up of 22.4 months (range, 0.5-251); 708 (80%) of patients died. Eighty five patients (10%) developed acute leukemia, 39% of these patients had CK. According to DIPSS-plus, patients were stratified into favorable (FAV, n=758, 86%) and unfavorable (UNF, n=126, 14%) category with distinct median OS of 35 months (range, 31-39), and 17 months (range, 11.6-22), p < 0.001 (HR 1.37, [95% CI 1.11-1.7]). Three year OS was 49% and 32%, respectively (Figure 1a). The revised cytogenetic stratification classified patients into favorable (n=687, 78%), unfavorable (n=151, 17%), and VHR (n=47, 5%) with respective OS of 35, 32 and 10 months (overall p<0.001, FAV vs UNF p= 0.8; Figure 1b); similar between patients in favorable and unfavorable groups. Three year OS for each group was 49%, 46% and 12%, respectively. OS of patients with individual cytogenetics (as used in the revised classification) is depicted in Table. Patients with single deletion 13q have significantly inferior OS than the remaining patients in FAV group. Patients with sole abnormality of chromosome 1 and trisomy 9 had the longest OS within the FAV group, but without reaching a statistical significance. Similarly, patients with sole trisomy 8, sole deletion 7q/5q, and other sole Abn not included elsewhere, had inferior OS when compared to the remaining patients in UNF group (Table 1). After re-grouping patients with different OS from FAV and UNF groups, we have noticed an intermediate group of patients containing the above mentioned Abn with distinctly different OS from FAV and UNF group of 24 months (range, 14.5-33; Figure 1c). Conclusions: Results from our cohort of 883 PMF patients did not confirm better discriminatory power of revised cytogenetic stratification model when compared to the DIPSS-Plus, as it failed to differentiate different OS between favorable and unfavorable groups. In our cohort, patients with single deletion 13q, single trisomy 8, and abnormalities of 5q/7q have superior OS to very high risk patients, but inferior to all remaining patients. Because the revised cytogenetic stratification has been already incorporated into newer complex molecular prognostic models of patients with PMF (MIPSSversion2.0, GIPSS), its further validation is warranted. Table Abbr.: Chr, chromosome, del, deletion, DUP, duplication, transl, translocation, excl, excluding; ¥OTHER solo: INV(9) in [3], Abn chr. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 (mostly deletion of p/q arms, or addition) [7]; VHR = very high risk (-7; inv(3)/3q21; i(17q); 12p-/12p11.2; 11q-/11q23; autosomal trisomies excl. +8/+9). Disclosures Bose: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:plexxikon: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2271-2271 ◽  
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.

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

Blood ◽  
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&lt;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=&lt;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=&lt;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=&lt;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&lt;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 &gt; 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.

scholarly journals Prospective Comparison Study of Prognostic Value of MRD Detected By 8-Color MFC (EuroFlow-NGF) and NGS in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in ASCT Setting

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3946-3946
Author(s):  
Takeshi Yoroidaka ◽  
Hiroyuki Takamatsu ◽  
Mitsuhiro Itagaki ◽  
Satoshi Yoshihara ◽  
Kota Sato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prospective Comparison

Abstract Background: Novel agents capable of inducing deeper responses dramatically improve the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Innovative technologies such as multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) are utilized to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) for further stratification of patients who achieve a complete response (CR). EuroFlow-next-generation flow (EuroFlow-NGF) is one of the gold standard MFC methods. Recently, both NGF and NGS have been used in many clinical trials to assess MRD levels associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The present study prospectively assessed MRD levels by both NGF and NGS to elucidate the prognostic impact of both methods and clarify their characteristics in MM patients in an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) setting. Methods: We prospectively assessed the response in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed MM who underwent ASCT and lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy at multiple Japanese medical centers between September 2016 and July 2021. The diagnosis of MM and patients' responses to therapy were assessed using the IMWG criteria. Only patients with CR or stringent CR on days 100-365 post-ASCT were included, and bone marrow (BM) samples were obtained to assess MRD. Four milliliters of BM was divided equally. Cells derived from 2 mL BM were analyzed by the NGF method (Flores-Montero et al., Leukemia 2017) at Kanazawa University, and DNA extracted from the remaining 2 mL BM cells was processed by Adaptive Biotechnologies' standardized NGS-MRD assay (Seattle, WA) (Ching et al., BMC Cancer 2020) to assess MRD levels. MRD levels in BM were also monitored at 1-year (± 20 days) and 2-year (± 20 days) post-ASCT. The prognostic value of MRD levels in BM was assessed, and their correlation between NGF and NGS was compared at a cut-off value of 1×10 -5. Sustained MRD negativity was defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity in the BM for more than 6 months. BM cells were analyzed for high-risk cytogenetics (del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16)) by FISH. Results: A total of 60 patients (male = 29, female = 31) underwent bortezomib-based induction therapy, ASCT conditioned with high-dose melphalan, and lenalidomide-based maintenance. The median age was 62 years at the ASCT (range 36-71; ISS 1 [n = 13], 2 [n = 24], and 3 [n = 23]). Thirty-three percent of patients showed high-risk chromosomal abnormalities (del17p (n=11), t(4;14) (n=10), t(14;16) (n=2)), 3 patients had double hit diseases, and five patients had extramedullary diseases. With a median follow-up of 3 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 69.2% and 94.2%, respectively. In total, 148 samples were analyzed using NGF and 138 were analyzed using NGS. The rates of MRD negativity at least once using NGF and NGS were 80% and 61%, respectively. The patients who achieved at least one MRD negativity exhibited significantly better 3-year PFS (82.9% by NGF; 84.8% by NGS) than those who did not (P &lt; 0.0001, 0% by NGF; P = 0.005, 49.1% by NGS). Patients who sustained MRD negativity for more than 6 months also showed significantly better 3-year PFS (96.7% by NGF; 92.3% by NGS) compared with those without sustained MRD negativity (Figure; P &lt; 0.0001, 37.1% by NGF; P &lt; 0.01, 50.9% by NGS). The MRD levels between the NGF and NGS methods were significantly correlated with each other (r = 0.9295, P &lt; 0.0001). Among the 17 patients who developed PD after ASCT, seven cases showed discrepancies in the MRD results and two cases in which one case was MRD-positive and the other was MRD-negative by both methods progressed with extramedullary diseases. Five of the seven cases were MRD-positive by NGS and MRD-negative by NGF. Conclusions: In this prospective comparison study of MRD assessment in BM cells using EuroFlow-NGF and NGS approaches, MRD levels highly correlated with each other, and MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity were significantly associated with prolonged PFS. Multiple MRD assessments by NGF or NGS are essential for predicting durable remission and prolonged clinical outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Takamatsu: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Eisai: Honoraria; SRL: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yoshihara: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Matsumoto: Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Yamashita: Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Fuchida: Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Ltd.: Honoraria; Celgene Co., Ltd.: Honoraria. Hiragori: BML: Current Employment. Suzuki: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Nakao: Symbio: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria; Alexion Pharma: Research Funding. Durie: Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services ; Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Overall Survival and Subgroup Analysis from a Randomized Phase III Study of Intravenous Rigosertib Versus Best Supportive Care (BSC) in Patients (pts) with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (HR-MDS) after Failure of Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 163-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Pierre Fenaux ◽  
Aref Al-Kali ◽  
Maria R. Baer ◽  
Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

scholarly journals Early T-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ETP-ALL) Is a High-Risk Subtype in Adults

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1418-1418
Author(s):  
Nitin Jain ◽  
Audrey Lamb ◽  
Susan M. O'Brien ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
Marina Konopleva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
T Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Who Classification ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Cell Precursor

Abstract Background: Early T-cell precursor (ETP) acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ALL) is a recently recognized high-risk T-ALL subgroup. The optimal therapeutic approaches to adult patients with ETP-ALL are poorly characterized. In this study, we compared the outcomes of adults with ETP-ALL who received treatment on frontline regimens to those of patients with other T-ALL immunophenotypic subtypes. Methods: Patients with newly-diagnosed T-ALL who received frontline chemotherapy between the years 2000 and 2014 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were identified and immunophenotypically categorized into early, thymic, and mature per the European Group for the Immunologic Classification of Leukemia (EGIL)/WHO classification. Patients with ETP-ALL were identified on the basis of the following immunophenotype: CD1a(-), CD8(-), CD5(-/dim), and positivity for one or more stem cell or myeloid antigens. Patients received frontline treatment with the following chemotherapy regimens: hyper-CVAD alone (n=43), hyper-CVAD + nelarabine (n=44) or augmented BFM regimen (n=24). Results: A total of 111 patients with T-ALL with adequate immunophenotype data were identified. There was no difference in the outcomes of patients based on the EGIL/WHO subtypes (Fig 1). A total of 19 patients (17%) had ETP-ALL. The complete remission rate (CR)/CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) rate in patients with ETP-ALL was significantly lower than that of non-ETP-ALL patients (73% vs. 91%; p=0.03). The median overall survival for patients with ETP-ALL was 20 months vs. not reached for the non-ETP-ALL patients (p = 0.008) (Fig 2). ETP-ALL remained a high-risk subgroup within the WHO 'Early' group (Fig 3). A subset of patients with early T-ALL had an immunophenotype that resembled that of ETP-ALL except for having ≥75% CD5 expression (ETP+CD5). The OS of patients with ETP+CD5 (n=19) was similar to that of non-ETP-ALL patients and differed from that of ETP-ALL patients (p=0.059). By univariate analysis, the following variables were significant for survival: age, WBC count (<50 vs. ≥50 x109 /L), platelet count (<100 vs. ≥100 x109 /L), LDH (<600 vs. ≥600 IU/L) and ETP-ALL (Table 1). By multivariate analysis, only age (HR: 2.862; 95%CI: 1.140-7.183; p=0.025) and ETP-ALL (HR: 2.275; 95%CI: 1.117-4.631; p=0.023) were significant. Conclusions: ETP-ALL represents a high-risk disease subtype of adult ALL. Allogeneic stem cell transplant in CR1 should be considered. Novel treatment strategies are needed to improve treatment outcomes in this T-ALL subset. Table 1. Univariate and multivariate analysis for survival Parameter Survival UVA MVA P P HR 95%CI Age ≥60 0.013 0.025 2.862 1.140-7.183 Gender 0.24 - - - Diagnosis (ALL vs. LBL) 0.13 - - - WBC < 50.0 (x 109 /L) 0.009 - - - Hemoglobin <10 (g/dL) 0.36 - - - Platelet <100 (x 109 /L) 0.036 - - - LDH <600 (IU/L) 0.045 - - - CNS involvement at Dx 0.18 - - - WHO classification (early, thymic, mature) 0.101 - - - ETP-ALL 0.008 0.023 2.275 1.117-4.631 Treatment received 0.43 - - - Figure 1. Overall survival of patients with T-ALL (N=111) categorized as Early, Thymic and Mature per EGIL/WHO Classification Figure 1. Overall survival of patients with T-ALL (N=111) categorized as Early, Thymic and Mature per EGIL/WHO Classification Figure 2. Overall survival of patients with ETP-ALL (N=19) compared to non-ETP ALL (N=92) Figure 2. Overall survival of patients with ETP-ALL (N=19) compared to non-ETP ALL (N=92) Figure 3. Overall survival of patients with WHO 'early' subcategorized as ETP vs. non-ETP, WHO 'thymic', and WHO 'mature' (N=111) Figure 3. Overall survival of patients with WHO 'early' subcategorized as ETP vs. non-ETP, WHO 'thymic', and WHO 'mature' (N=111) Disclosures Konopleva: Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Stemline: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Threshold: Research Funding. Cortes:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy.

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

Blood ◽  
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 &gt; 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, &gt; 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.

scholarly journals Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (VRD) Followed By Autologous Stem Cell Transplant for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma; The Mayo Clinic Experience

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2147-2147
Author(s):  
M Hasib Sidiqi ◽  
Mohammed A Aljama ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Eli Muchtar ◽  
Francis K. Buadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract We retrospectively reviewed all patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone induction followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) within 12 months of diagnosis for multiple myeloma at the Mayo Clinic. 243 patients treated between January 2010 and April of 2017 were included in the study. Median age was 61 (interquartile range, 55-67) with 62% of patients being male. High risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRA) were present in 34% of patients. 166 (68%) patients received some form of maintenance/other therapy post transplant (no maintenance (NM, n=77), lenalidomide maintenance (LM, n=108), bortezomib maintenance (BM, n=39) and other therapy (OT, n=19)). Overall response rate was 99% with complete response (CR) rate of 42% and 62% at day 100 and time of best response post transplant respectively. The four cohorts categorized by post transplant therapy were well matched for age, gender and ISS stage. HRA were more common amongst patients receiving bortezomib maintenance or other therapy post transplant (NM 18% vs LM 22% vs BM 68% vs OT 79%, p<0.0001). Two year and five year overall survival rates were 90% and 67% respectively with an estimated median overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of 96 months and 28 months respectively for the whole cohort. OS was not significantly different when stratified by post-transplant therapy (Median OS 96 months for NM vs not reached for LM vs 62 months for BM vs not reached for OT, p=0.61), however post-transplant therapy was predictive of PFS (median PFS 23 months for NM vs 34 months for LM vs 28 months for BM vs 76 months for OT, p=0.01). High risk cytogenetics was associated with a worse OS but not PFS when compared to patients with standard risk (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 60 months for HRA, p=0.0006; median PFS: 27 months for standard risk vs 22 months for HRA, p=0.70). In patients that did not receive maintenance therapy presence of HRA was a strong predictor of OS and PFS (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 36 months for HRA, p<0.0001; median PFS: 24 months for standard risk vs 7 months for HRA, p<0.0001). Patients receiving maintenance therapy appeared to have a similar PFS and OS irrespective of cytogenetics (median OS: not reached for standard risk vs 62 months for HRA, p=0.14; median PFS: 35 months for standard risk vs 34 months for HRA, p=0.79).On multivariable analysis ISS stage III and achieving CR/stringent CR predicted PFS whilst the only independent predictors of OS were presence of HRA and achieving CR/stringent CR. The combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by ASCT is a highly effective regimen producing deep and durable responses in many patients. Maintenance therapy in this cohort may overcome the poor prognostic impact of high risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Table Table. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: 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. Gertz:Abbvie: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document