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<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.

Sustained Overall Survival Benefit with Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Versus No Treatment in Patients with Smoldering Myeloma at High Risk of Progression to Myeloma: Long Term Analysis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3308-3308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Miguel-T Hernandez ◽  
Pilar Giraldo ◽  
Javier De La Rubia ◽  
Felipe De Arriba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: For patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), the standard of care is observation. However, high-risk patients may benefit from early intervention. Methods: In this phase 3 trial, 119 patients with high-risk SMM were randomized to treatment or observation. The high risk populationwas defined by the presence of both PC_ 10% and MC_ 3g/dl or ifonly one criterion was present, patients must have a proportionof aPC within the total PCBM compartment by immunophenotypingof 95% plus immunoparesis. Patients in the treatment group received nine 4-week induction cycles (lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg per day on days 1 to 21, plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg per day on days 1 to 4 and days 12 to 15), followed by maintenance (lenalidomide at a dose of 10 mg per day on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle) up to 2 years. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP) to myeloma. Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate and safety. Results: After a median follow-up of 75 months (range: 57-100), there was a 57% reduction in the risk of death for the early treatment with lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus not treatment (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.9; P=0.02). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group, but 86% and 62% of patients are alive at 6 years in the early treatment and observation arms, respectively (Figure 1). The benefit in TTP is also highly sustained (hazard ratio: 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.41; P<0.0001). Progression to MM occurred in 53 out of the 62 patients (86%) in the abstention arm while only 22 out of 57 patients (38%) in the len-dex arm. At the time of progression patients received optimized treatments: bortezomib-based combinations were administered to thirteen out of 22 patients (59%) in the len-dex arm and to 23 out of 53 patients (43%) in the observation arm; lenalidomide-based combinations to 3 out of 22 patients (14%) in the experimental and to 8 out of 53 patients (15%) in the control arm; two out of 22 patients in the len-dex arm (9%) received bortezomib plus immunomodulatory agents whilst 16 out of 53 patients (30%) in the observation group received this combination; four out of 22 patients (18%) and six out of 53 patients (11%) in the len-dex and observation groups, respectively, were treated with chemotherapy; four patients (18%) in the experimental arm and 15 (28%) in the observation groups received an ASCT. Most patients responded to rescue therapies in both arms, resulting in overall response rates of 78% (17/22) and 86% (45/53) in the experimental and control arm, respectively. We compared survival from start of subsequent therapy in the patients population who progressed to active disease; the outcome was similar in both arms: at 6 years, 62% (16/22) of the patients in the len-dex arm remain alive and 49% (31/53) in the observation arm (P=0.50; Fig. 2C). The survival benefit observed was independent of the classification model used for defining high risk SMM ( Mayo Clinic and Spanish model) Conclusion: This long term follow-up analysis confirms that early treatment with lenalidomide-dexamethasone for high-risk SMM translates into a significant benefit in TTP but also in a sustained significant prolongation of the OS. The early exposure to lenalidomide-dexamethasone does not induce more resistant relapses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mateos: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy. Paiva:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Binding Site: Research Funding. Oriol:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sequential RCHOP, Radioimmunotherapy and Rituximab Maintenance Improves Early Outcomes in Advanced Stage Follicular Lymphoma: 5 Year Outcomes from SWOG 0801

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 614-614
Author(s):  
Paul M. Barr ◽  
Hongli Li ◽  
Richard Burack ◽  
Michael LeBlanc ◽  
Sonali M. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Secondary Malignancies ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Despite an abundance of effective therapeutic options, advanced stage follicular lymphoma (FL) remains incurable. Further, prospective trials consistently demonstrate that 20% of patients relapse within 2 years and ultimately have an inferior survival (Casulo 2015). Maintenace rituximab following chemoimmunotherapy induction is able to delay disease progression but has not demonstrated a benefit in overall survival (Salles 2011). Additionally, radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is one of the most effective single agent options in FL but is not commonly utilized as part of upfront treatment. As such, the role of both remains unclear. Based on results demonstrated with RIT consolidation in SWOG 0016 and the efficacy of rituximab maintenance, SWOG 0801 was designed as a phase 2 single arm trial, conducted to evaluate the utility of consolidative RIT and sequential maintenance rituximab following chemoimmunotherapy induction. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with treatment naïve stage III/IV or bulky stage II FL received RCHOP for 6 cycles (without rituximab for the last 2 cycles) followed by iodine-131 tositumomab and subsequent rituximab administered every 3 months for up to 4 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years. Secondary endpoints included 5-year overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: Of 87 pts registered to this study, 85 were deemed eligible following central pathologic review. One additional patient withdrew consent and received no treatment on protocol. Of the 84 evaluable patients, the median age was 52 years (range 29 - 80) ) and 18%, 40%, and 42%had low, intermediate and high risk FLIPI scores, respectively. Seventy-three pts completed RCHOP and I-131 tositumomab. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring ≥5% of pts included neutropenia (57%), leukopenia (40%), thrombocytopenia (20%), febrile neutropenia (17%), fatigue (10%), neuropathy (8%), anemia (7%) and hyperglycemia (5%). Reasons for discontinuation included refusal of tositumumab (6 pts), prolonged myelosuppression (2 pts), ascites (1pt), inability to provide tositumumab (1 pt), and an unrelated lower extremity wound (1 pt). Following induction and RIT, 59 complete responses and 23 partial responses were observed, for a ORR of 99% (95% CI: 93.5%, 99.9%) Sixty nine eligible patients registered to maintenance therapy with 42 completing the 4 year treatment plan. The only grade ≥3 AE that occurred in ≥5% of pts was leukopenia (5%). Twenty-seven pts discontinued maintenance therapy, including 11 in the first 2 years and 16 in the last 2 years, due to the following reasons: infection (8 pts), patient preference (8 pts), deaths (2 pts), treatment delay (2 pts), secondary solid tumors (2 pts), bowel perforation (1 pt), joint pain (1 pt), hepatic transaminase elevation (1 pt), insurance refusal (1 pt), and dose error (1 pt). Four additional secondary malignancies were reported following completion of therapy including solid tumors (3 pts) and AML (1 pt). To date, 9 deaths have occurred due to secondary malignancies (3 pts), unknown etiology (3 pts), cardiac arrest (2 pts) and non-alcoholic cirrhosis (1 pt). After median follow-up of 5.6 years (range 3-7 years), 17 events have occurred including 9 pts experiencing progressive FL resulting in a progression free survival of 90% (95% CI: 81.9%, 95.1%) at 3 years and 84%(95% CI: 74.5%, 90.6%) at 5 years (Figure). Three-year overall survival is 96% (95% CI: 89.3%, 98.8%) and 5-year overall survival is 94% (95% CI: 86.2%, 97.5%). Conclusions: SWOG 0801 demonstrates near universal responses following chemoimmunotherapy and RIT. This sequential therapeutic strategy appears to improve early outcomes as 94% of pts are without disease progression at 2 years, consistent with the best results ever demonstrated for FL in the National Clinical Trials Network. However, the majority of discontinuations occurred during maintenance suggesting that rituximab over a 4-year span is not feasible for many patients due to cumulative toxicity. Future studies investigating precision strategies in high-risk FL may consider an aggressive chemoimmunotherapy induction and RIT consolidation platform to overcome early FL progression given these promising outcomes. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, and in part by GlaxoSmithKline. Figure. Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival Figure. Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival Disclosures Barr: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. Smith:Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Juno: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; TGTX: Consultancy. Gopal:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Persky:Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Press:Roche / Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee.

scholarly journals Tandem Autologous-Autologous Vs. Autologous-Allogeneic Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Pooled Analysis of 1,338 Patients from Four Trials with Long-Term Follow up

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 259-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano J. Costa ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Marcelo C. Pasquini ◽  
Riddhi Modi ◽  
Luisa Giaccone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Risk Of Relapse

Introduction: Tandem autologous transplant (auto- auto) has been studied as a method to increase remission rates and reduce relapse in the upfront therapy of MM. The use of autologous followed by reduced intensity conditioning allogenic transplantation (auto-allo) offers the potential of long-term graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect, but with the risk of graft versus host disease and potentially higher non-relapse mortality (NRM). Trials comparing these two strategies relied on availability of HLA-matched sibling donors for arm allocation (biological "randomization") and have yielded conflicting results, in part due to trial size or limited follow up. A pooled analysis of multiple trials with extended follow up provides the best opportunity to compare these two transplant strategies. Methods: We obtained individual patient data from participants of 4 trials comparing auto-auto vs. auto-allo after brief induction therapy, namely BMT CTN 0102 (N=709), NMAM2000 (N=357), PETHEMA/GEM2000 (N=110), and the Torino consortium trial (N=162). In all 4 trials arm allocation was by biological "randomization". Patients were designated high risk if beta-2 microglobulin ≥ 4.0 mg/L at diagnosis or presence of deletion of chromosome 13 by metaphase karyotyping. Time to event outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, from the time of first autologous transplant. Main outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes analyzed were NRM and risk of relapse, treated as competing risks, and post relapse survival. Results: There were 1,338 patients included in the analysis, 899 in auto-auto and 439 in auto-allo. Median follow up of survivors is 118.5 months. Characteristics of the two arms are displayed in Table 1. Median OS was 78.0 months in auto-auto and 98.3 months in auto-allo (HR= 0.85, P=0.003, Figure 1). OS was 59.8 % vs. 62.3% at 5-years (P=0.37) and 36.4% vs. 44.1% at 10 years (P=0.01) for auto-auto and auto-allo respectively. PFS was also improved in auto-allo (HR= 0.84, P=0.004) with 5-year PFS of 23.4 vs. 30.1% (P=0.01) and 10-year PFS of 14.4% vs. 18.7% (P=0.06). For the 214 high risk patients (125 auto-auto, 89 auto-allo) there was superior 5-year and 10-year PFS with auto-allo, but no difference in OS. Risk of NRM was higher in auto-allo (10 year 8.3% vs. 19.7%, P&lt;0.001), while risk of disease progression was higher in auto-auto (10 year 77.2% vs. 61.6%, P&lt;0.001). There were 685 progressions in auto-auto and 266 in auto-allo. Median post relapse overall survival was 41.5 months in auto-auto and 62.3 months in auto-allo (HR= 0.71, P&lt;0.001, Figure 2). Five years post relapse, 37.0% of patients were alive in auto-auto vs. 51.1% in auto-allo (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Long-term follow up using a large pooled dataset of 4 trials indicates durable, long-term disease control with an auto-allo strategy. Despite higher NRM, there was a reduction in the risk of relapse and superior post relapse survival in auto-allo. This supports the hypothesis of a durable GVM effect enhancing myeloma control with subsequent therapies. Disclosures Costa: Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pasquini:Pfizer: Consultancy; Medigene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Bladé:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Irctures: Honoraria. Schonland:Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria; Medac: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giralt:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Patriarca:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stadtmauer:Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tmunity: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Krishnan:Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, BMS: Consultancy; Sutro BioPharma, zPredicta: Consultancy; Amgen, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Z Predicta: Other: Stock Ownership; Takeda: Research Funding.

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

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

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

ABVD Versus Escalated Beacopp in Advanced Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results from a Retrospective, Multicenter European Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) with Fludarabine and Melphalan (FM) Reduced Intensity Conditioning (RIC) for High-Risk AML/MDS.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 838-838
Author(s):  
B. Oran ◽  
R. Saliba ◽  
S. Giralt ◽  
D. Couriel ◽  
A. Carrasco-Yalan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Independent Effect ◽  
Donor Type

Abstract RIC with FM has extended the use of HSCT to patients otherwise not eligible for this treatment. Longer follow-up and larger number of patients now allow for more robust evaluation of risk factors and outcomes. Herein are the results of such an evaluation. Patients and Methods: We evaluated outcomes of 112 patients with high-risk AML/MDS treated from August 1996 to December 2003 with FM (fludarabine 100–180 mg/m2 and melphalan 100–180 mg/m2) and unmanipulated HSCT. Eligibility included age &gt;54 yrs. or comorbidity precluding an ablative preparative regimen. Disease status at HSCT was relapsed/refractory (n=43, 38.4%), primary induction failure (n=32, 28.6%), untreated (n=7, 6.3%) or complete remission (CR, n=30, 26.8). Cytogenetic risk was intermediate (n=59, 53%), high (n=47, 42%), low (n=3, 2.5%) or unknown (n=3, 2.5%). Donors were HLA matched related (MRD; n=59) or unrelated (UD; n=53). GVHD prophylaxis was tacrolimus based in all but one patient. Anti-thymocyte-globulin was added in 31 UD HSCT. Stem cell sources were bone marrow (n=56) or peripheral blood (n=57). Median age was 55 (range 22–74). Evaluated were the following variables and their influence on disease progression and overall survival: - age, donor type, duration of first CR, disease status at transplant (categorized as CR, No CR with (NoCR/CB) and without circulating blasts (NoCR/NoCB)), cytogenetics, acute and chronic GVHD (time dependent variables), and blood counts on day 30 (lymphocytes, monocytes and platelets). We used a Cox’s regression analysis. Results: Median time of follow up among survivors (n=43) was 28.4 mo (3.3–88.9). CR rate at day 30 post transplant was 87% (n=97), 8 patients died early and 7 did not respond. 25 (26%) of 97 patients progressed after day 30. All but 3 patients relapsed within the first year post HSCT, and only one relapsed more than 2 years after HSCT. In a landmark analysis, disease status at transplant was the only significant risk factor for progression among these 97 patients (HR of 3.7 for the NoCR/CB group compared to the CR group). 69 of 112 patients died with a median survival of 4.6 mo. Seven deaths (10% of all deaths) were observed more than 2 yrs. after HSCT, due to GVHD (n=3), infection (n=2), relapse (n=1) and unknown causes (n=1). Two-year OS and PFS was 44% and 69% respectively. Disease status at HSCT and grade II-IV aGVHD were the only significant predictors of OS on univariate and multivariate analysis. Blood counts on day 30 were associated with disease status at transplant, donor type and aGVHD. Their independent effect on outcome could not be evaluated given sample size. Conclusion: A significant portion of older patients with high-risk AML/MDS may achieve long-term PFS, but early relapses are the major cause of treatment failure in this context. Prognostic factors for event-free and overall survival Variables Multivariate analysis for disease progression CB=circulating blasts Disease status n Events (n) HR 95% CI p 2-yr PFS CR 30 6 1.0 57% (39–72) NoCR/NoCB 41 7 1.1 0.4–3.2 0.9 46% (30–60) NoCR/CB 26 12 3.7 1.4–9.8 0.001 22% (9–38) Multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS) Disease status HR 95% CI p 2-yr OS CR 30 12 1.0 66% (48–80) NoCR/NoCB 49 29 1.8 0.9–3.5 0.06 40% (26–53) NoCR/CB 34 28 2.8 1.4–3.5 0.002 23% (11–37) gd II-IV aGVHD 2.8 1.8–4.6 &lt;0.001

Rituximab Overcomes Sex as a Strong Adverse Prognostic Factor for Treatment Outcome in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma: Analysis of Patients Treated with Rituximab/CHOP or CHOP in Randomized Trials of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG).

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3706-3706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Buske ◽  
Eva Hoster ◽  
Martin H. Dreyling ◽  
Roswitha Forstpointner ◽  
Michael Kneba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Male Sex ◽  
Lymphoma Study Group

Abstract Abstract 3706 Poster Board III-642 Sex has been recognized as an important prognostic factor for the treatment outcome of patients with lymphoma. Thus, several retrospective analyses have shown that male sex is associated with an inferior outcome in advanced stage follicular lymphoma. This was confirmed in a retrospective analyses of 1795 patients with follicular lymphoma using Cox regression analysis, in which male sex was independently associated with inferior survival (Solal-Celigny et al., Blood 2004). We now analyzed the prognostic impact of sex on treatment outcome of 1172 patients with follicular lymphoma treated first line with CHOP or R-CHOP in prospectively randomized clinical trials of the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG). From these, 616 pts were treated with CHOP, 556 pts with R-CHOP. FLIPI was equally distributed between the two treatment arms (low risk 14% vs. 14%, intermediate risk 42% vs. 41% and high risk 44% vs. 45 %, respectively). 48% of the patients were male (50% in the CHOP and 46% in the R-CHOP arm). For all patients there was a significantly inferior time to treatment failure (TTF) for male patients with a median of 43 months compared to 61 months for female patients (p=0.0035). In the patient group treated with CHOP alone the median TTF was 30 months for male vs. 40 months for female patients (p=0.0041). The observation that male sex was associated with inferior treatment outcome was seen both in the elderly (above 60 yrs of age) as well as the younger patient group (below 60 yrs of age). However, after treatment with R-CHOP sex did not affect treatment outcome anymore with virtually the same results in male vs. female patients (for the total group and for patients < 60yrs TTF median not reached in both arms, p = n.s.; for pts > 60 yrs TTF 81 vs. 84 months, respectively, p=n.s.). In multivariate analysis, also adjusting for FLIPI risk factors, male sex showed up as an independent prognostic factor for patients treated with CHOP alone (HR 1.82; 1.32 – 2.5; p=0.0002), but not for patients treated with R-CHOP (HR 1.06; 0.68 - 1.66, p = 0.79; p=0.0476 for the interaction term of sex with Rituximab). Based on this, male patients had the highest benefit when rituximab was added to CHOP (R-CHOP vs. CHOP: male pts HR 0.31,0.21 - 0.46, p<0.0001 and female pts. HR 0.53, 0.37 - 0.76, p = 0.0005). These data demonstrate that Rituximab functions as an equalizer with regard to sex as a prognostic factor and underlines that well established prognostic factors may lose their predictive power with the emergence of novel effective treatment approaches. Disclosures: Buske: Roche: Honoraria. Hoster:Roche: travel support. Dreyling:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hallek:BayerScheringAG: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hiddemann:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Unterhalt:Roche: .

Seven-Year Follow-up Data on Sequential Prospective Trials of Imatinib 400mg Vs 800mg Daily Schedule for Front-Line Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML).

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3438-3438
Author(s):  
Naveen Pemmaraju ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian ◽  
Susan O'Brien ◽  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Elias Jabbour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Annual Rate ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Cumulative Rate ◽  
Prospective Trials

Abstract Abstract 3438 Background: The standard of care for most patients (pts) with CML has been imatinib mesylate at a dose of 400mg by mouth daily. Earlier studies have suggested that there may be a benefit to pts to start treatment at a higher dose as this may result in faster and more durable responses to imatinib. It is not yet known whether long-term event-free survival (EFS), transformation-free survival (TFS), and overall survival (OS) will be impacted by the higher dosing schedule. Objectives: To determine the long term responses and clinical benefit of imatinib 800mg daily versus 400mg daily dosing when used as upfront treatment strategy in CML. Methods: We conducted sequential prospective trials using imatinib 400mg or 800mg daily as initial therapy for patients with previously untreated chronic phase CML. Results: A total of 281 pts were included in these trials: 208 treated with 800mg and 73 with 400mg. The median follow-up for each group was 79 months (range: 3–107) and 110 months (range: 2–116). The overall, cumulative rate of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) was 91% and 87%, respectively (p=0.49) for those treated with high- and standard-dose, and the cumulative rate of major molecular response (MMR) was 87% and 78%, respectively (p=0.06). Rates of CCyR at 12 months were 90% and 66%, respectively (p < 0.001), and MMR at 18 months 82% and 68%, respectively (p=0.04). A significantly better EFS (definition per IRIS criteria) was observed for the 800 mg group compared to that in the 400mg group (log-rank test, p=0.049; estimated 7-year EFS 86% vs 76% by Kaplan-Meier method). No significant differences were seen for survival free from transformation to accelerated and blast phase (p = 0.46) and overall survival (p = 0.27). For OS, thus far 19 pts in the 800mg group have died (2 probable CML-related, 3 unknown causes, 14 non CML related) compared to 13 pts (10 probable CML-related, 3 non CML-related) in the 400mg group. The table below shows the annual rate of events and transformation for each dose group. Treatment discontinuation for toxicity occurred in 16 (8%) pts treated with 800mg and 6 (8%) pts treated with 400mg. Conclusions: At 7-year follow up, pts treated with 800mg demonstrated a significantly better EFS (by IRIS criteria) compared to those treated with 400mg. There is a trend for a lower annual rate of events and transformation with the higher dose, particualry in the earlier years, but no difference in OS. These results suggest a modest benefit for patients treated with higher dose imatinib. Disclosures: Off Label Use: imatinib at dose of 800mg po daily for CML. Kantarjian:BMS, Pfizer and Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Ravandi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novarits: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document