scholarly journals Ivosidenib Monotherapy Is Effective in Patients with IDH1 Mutated Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS): The Idiome Phase 2 Study By the GFM Group

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 62-62
Author(s):  
Marie Sebert ◽  
Thomas Cluzeau ◽  
Odile Beyne Rauzy ◽  
Aspasia Stamatoulas Bastard ◽  
Sophie Dimicoli-Salazar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Idh1 Mutation ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Loss Of Response ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Idh1 Mutations

Abstract Background: Ivosidenib (IVO) is an oral, targeted, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 approved in the US for adult patients with unfit or relapse/refractory AML with IDH1 mutation. Little is known on its efficacy in patients with IDH1 mutated MDS. Here we report interim results of a Phase 2 study evaluating safety and efficacy of IVO in three different cohorts of MDS patients: Higher risk MDS having failed azacytidine (AZA) (cohort A, n=29), untreated higher risk MDS without life threatening cytopenias (ie ANC < 500/mm3 or any recent severe infections and/or platelets below 30,000/mm3 and any bleeding symptom,) as a first line treatment (cohort B, with the addition of AZA in non-Responders after 3 cycles, n=29) and lower risk MDS having failed EPO (cohort C, n=10). (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03503409). Methods: Subjects enrolled in cohort A, B or C received continuous 28-day cycles of IVO - 500 mg orally QD. In cohort B, AZA (75 mg/m2/d x 7 days, SC) was added to IVO after 3 cycles, only in the absence of IWG 2006 response (absence of CR, PR or HI). The primary endpoint was overall hematological response rate (ORR) at 3 and 6 months (including CR, PR, stable disease with HI according to IWG 2006). All responders allowed to continue treatment until loss of response. Secondary endpoints included safety, duration of response, EFS, overall survival and translational project evaluating the role of biomarkers on response. We report the preliminary results on the first 26 pts enrolled. Results: At data cut off (6/15/2021), 32 patients had been enrolled, including 26 who were evaluable for the primary endpoint. 13, 11 and 2 were enrolled in cohort A, B and C respectively. Median age was 76 years and 50% were female. WHO was MDS-MLD, MDS-EB1, MDS-EB2, CMML and low blast count AML in 2, 2, 12, 1 and 9 patients respectively. IPSS-R was low, intermediate, high and very high in 2, 6, 5 and 13 resp. IDH1 mutation was p.R132C in 15 patients, p.R132H in 7, p.R132G/S in 3 and not specified in 1. The ORR was 69% (18 patients) including 12 CR (46%), 1 PR and 5 HI. Most patients achieved response after 3 cycles (17/18). Response was achieved in 7 (54%), 10 (91%) and 1 (50%) in cohort A, B and C respectively. Moreover, CR was achieved in 3, 8 and 1 in cohort A, B and C respectively. In cohort B, AZA was added to IVO in one patient after 3 cycles, without additional response. With a median follow up of 9.1 months, the median duration of response of the 18 responders was 7.4 months, 9 of them lost their response, and two had died without loss of response (from bleeding and after HSCT, respectively). IPSS-R was the only prognostic factor of response after 6 cycles. At data cut off, 12 patients had progressed (9 in cohort A, 2 in cohort B and 1 in cohort C) and 11 (42%, 10 in cohort A and 1 in cohort C) patients had died, mostly of relapse/progression (n=5/11), infection in 1, suicide in 1, hemorrhage in 1 and other unrelated causes in 3. Median overall survival was 14 months in the whole cohort, 7.7 and not reached in cohort A and B resp. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event (SAE) was differentiation syndrome (4/5), one died and three resolved without sequelae. One patient had febrile neutropenia related to IVO, resolved without sequelae. Conclusion: IVO was well tolerated in MDS patients with significant responses in all the cohorts. With a response rate of 91%, IVO was particularly effective in treatment naïve higher risk MDS patients with IDH1 mutations (cohort B). These encouraging preliminary results have to be confirm in more patients. The IDIOME study is still ongoing, and molecular monitoring results of IDH1 mutations will be presented. Disclosures Sebert: BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Cluzeau: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Astellas: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Stamatoulas Bastard: Pfizer: Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenaux: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ades: Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Elotuzumab In Combination with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone In Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: Interim Results of a Phase 2 Study

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 986-986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Andrzej J Jakubowiak ◽  
Thierry Facon ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 1 Study ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Infusion Reactions

Abstract Abstract 986 Introduction: Elotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody directed against CS1, an antigen highly and uniformly expressed on multiple myeloma (MM) cells but with restricted expression on normal cells. Elotuzumab exhibits significant antimyeloma activity in vitro and against MM xenografts, and its antitumor activity is enhanced independently by both lenalidomide and dexamethasone. In a dose-escalation phase 1 study that evaluated the combination of elotuzumab (5, 10, and 20 mg/kg), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, and the combination showed encouraging clinical activity (82% response rate) in patients with advanced MM. The most frequent infusion-related adverse events (AEs) were headache (21%), nausea (21%), and dizziness (11%), with 7% (2/28) of patients experiencing 3 serious infusion-related AEs during cycle 1 (1 with a grade 4 hypersensitivity reaction and 1 with 2 grade 3 stridor events). Key objectives of this dose randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study in patients with relapsed MM were to select the optimum dose of elotuzumab and to evaluate an enhanced premedication regimen to minimize the occurrence of infusion reactions. Methods: Patients with confirmed relapsed and/or refractory MM who had received 1–3 prior therapies were enrolled; prior lenalidomide therapy was excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive elotuzumab either 10 or 20 mg/kg (IV infusion on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle in the first 2 cycles and then days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles), along with lenalidomide 25 mg PO daily on days 1 to 21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, if earlier. To control potential infusion reactions, patients received methylprednisolone (50 mg IV), diphenhydramine (25–50 mg PO or IV) or equivalent, ranitidine (50 mg IV) or equivalent, and acetaminophen (650–1000 mg PO) 30 to 60 minutes prior to each elotuzumab infusion. Objective responses (OR) were assessed according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Results: As of July 8, 2010, a total of 59 patients were randomized (intent to treat population); 47 patients received at least 1 dose of study medication (safety population); and 26 patients completed or progressed prior to completing 2 cycles of treatment (efficacy population). Median age was 64 years; 36 (61%) had received ≥2 prior therapies; 28 (48%) and 31 (53%) had received bortezomib or thalidomide, respectively, and 40 (68%) had undergone transplantation. Among efficacy evaluable patients, 22/26 (85%) had a confirmed or an unconfirmed response (≥ PR) including 31% VGPR/CR. The remaining 4/26 (15%) had stable disease (Table). Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 36/47 patients (77%); the most common events were fatigue (26%) and nausea (21%). Serious treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 22% of patients; 2 events, nausea and febrile neutropenia with thrombocytopenia, were considered to be related to elotuzumab and lenalidomide. The most common infusion-related AEs within 24 hours of elotuzumab infusion were dizziness (15%), nausea (15%), and headache (9%). These decreased in frequency after the first treatment cycle. There were no severe AEs associated with infusion reactions. Conclusion: The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone resulted in a high response rate in patients with advanced MM and was generally well tolerated. These results are consistent with the results previously reported from the phase 1 study. The revised premedication regimen appeared to be more effective in controlling infusion reactions, which were generally mild to moderate with no severe infusion reactions reported to date. Updated response and safety data on all patients by dose level will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide. Moreau:Celgene, Facet, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Millennium, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson Ortho-Centocor: Honoraria; Millennium, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium, Celgene, Centocor-Ortho Biotech: Speakers Bureau. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Millennium, Takeda Pharm, Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Reece:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rossi:Sanofi-Aventis, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tsao:Facet Biotech: Employment. Fry:Facet Biotech: Employment. Berman:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Singhal:Facet Biotech: Employment. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Onyx: Advisory Board, Consultancy; Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Onyx, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Updated Results of a Phase 2 Study of Bendamustine in Combination with Dexamethasone (Ben/Dex) in Patients with Previously-Treated Systemic Light-Chain (AL) Amyloidosis

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3041-3041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lentzsch ◽  
Raymond L. Comenzo ◽  
Jeffrey A Zonder ◽  
Keren Osman ◽  
Miao Susanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Nyha Class ◽  
Al Amyloidosis ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Hematologic Response ◽  
Phase 2 Study

Abstract Background: Melphalan in combination with dexamethasone is an active and the standard regimen in AL amyloidosis. Unfortunately very often patients relapse and other drugs are needed. Bendamustine is a bifunctional alkylating agent approved for the treatment of CLL, NHL, and MM in Europe and the US. But its safety and efficacy in AL amyloidosis is not known. In an effort to investigate the activity of Ben/Dex and improve the outcome of patients with relapsed AL we conduct a multi-center, Phase 2 study of Ben/Dex in AL (NCT01222260) and report data of an updated unplanned interim analysis. First data were reported at ASH 2014 (Abstr.3480). Methods: All patients had relapsed AL after a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-4). Patients with very advanced cardiac involvement (NYHA Class IIIB/IV) were excluded. Patients with NYHA Class IIIA, NT-proBNP ≥ 1800 ng/L or BNP ≥ 400 ng/L, abnormal cTnT or cTnI could be included after evaluation by cardiology to determine the risk associated with the treatment. Patients with a CrCl ³ 15 mL/min were considered for the trial if they were not in active renal failure. This Phase IIa clinical trial uses a two-stage optimal Simon design enrolling 13 patients in the first stage. Since at least three patients experienced hematologic PR or better, the trial proceeded to the second stage treating an additional 16 patients. If 9 or more patients out of the total of 29 patients evaluable for response experience a hematologic PR or better, the treatment will be considered worthy of further development. The primary objective is to determine the partial hematologic response rate (PR). Secondary objectives included overall hematologic response (OHR) rate, organ response rate (OrRR) (Palladini et al., JCO 2012), time to failure (TTF), toxicities (adverse events at least possibly related to treatment), overall survival (OS) and the assessment of expression of genes associated with ER stress. Patients were assigned to bendamustine according to CrCl: CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min: 100 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and 2 of each cycle, CrCl 59-15 mL/min: 90 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and 2 of each cycle. The option to dose escalate was available to qualifying subjects including escalating to dose level (+)1: 120 mg/m2 (if CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min at the time of inclusion into the study) and 100 mg/m2 (if CrCl 59 - 15 mL/min at the time of inclusion into the study). Dexamethasone was started at 20-40mg weekly according to the performance status of the patient. The duration of each cycle was 28 days. Results: As of 7/15/15, 26 patients have received treatment and 28 patients have been enrolled. Median age of enrolled patients was 66 (range 44-77). Enrolled patients received a median of 1.5 prior regimens (range 1-4). Twelve of the enrolled patients received prior autologous stem cell transplant. Median number of cycles for treated patients is 3.5 (range is 1-12), with 4 patients still receiving treatment. Of note, only 2 patients discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Only 9 patients discontinued treatment due to AE. Most common drug-related AEs (all grades, >25%) included fatigue (39%), nausea (35%) and Anemia (27%),. No grade ≥3 drug-related AE occured in >20% of patients. Of note, no cardiac events were observed, including any increase in NT-proBNP.Of 24 patients eligible for response evaluation, 11 (46%) have responded hematologically, including (≥PR 42%, CR 4%). The median time to best response of treatment (partial response or better) was 1.57 months (range 0.97 to 15.1 months). The CR occurred in a patient after 5 cycles suggesting that this heavily pretreated patient population needs longer treatment to achieve response. Better responses were especially observed in less heavily treated patients. With a median follow-up of 13.4 months (range 1.5 to 30.3 months) the median OS has not been reached yet (Figure 1). The median PFS is 11.5 months (95% CI,1.5-29.1months) (Figure 2). Conclusions: In our updated unplanned interim analysis we found that Bendamustine in combination with dexamethasone is feasible and effective in pretreated AL amyloidosis with impaired organ function (NYHA IIIB and creatinine clearance of 30-15 mL/min were allowed). Cardiac events related to Bendamustine were not observed. Preliminary hematologic response rates are promising in this pretreated patient population, and organ assessments are ongoing. Further study of this approach is warranted. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Lentzsch: Axiom: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Will discuss the use of Bendamustine and Dexamethasone under clinical trial NCT01222260. Comenzo:Takeda Millennium: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Takeda Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research support; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Osman:Millennium / Takeda: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Ixazomib and Daratumumab without Dexamethasone (I-Dara) in Elderly Frail RRMM Patients. a Multicenter Phase 2 Study (IFM 2018-02) of the Intergroupe Francophone Du Myélome (IFM)

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Magaret Macro ◽  
Cyrille Touzeau ◽  
Clara Mariette ◽  
Salomon Manier ◽  
Sabine Brechignac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Frail Patients ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Frailty Score

Abstract Purpose: Frail patients with multiple myeloma have an inferior outcome, especially in the relapse setting. This adverse prognosis is mainly related to a high discontinuation rate due to treatment related adverse events. The aim of this phase 2 study is to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of Ixazomib-Daratumumab (I-Dara) without Dexamethasone in elderly frail patients with relapsed myeloma (NCT03757221). Methods: Fifty Ixa-Dara naïve RRMM patients (1-2 prior therapy) were planned to receive oral Ixa (4 mg: days 1, 8, 15), IV Dara (16 mg/kg; days 1, 8, 15, 22, cycles 1-2; days 1, 15, cycles 3-6; days 1, cycles 7+) and IV Methylprednisolone before Dara (100 mg at day 1, 8, cycle 1 and then 60 mg). They were enrolled if frailty score was ≥2 by IMWG score and FIRST proxy score (Facon T et al, Leukemia, 2020). The primary endpoint was ≥very good partial response rate at one year. Secondary endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS & toxicity according to NCI-CTCAE version 5.0. Results: Among 52 patients screened during this ongoing trial, 44 were included between 03/2018 and 05/2021. Patient were at first (n=28) or second relapse (n=16). Thirty -eight patients (86%) were previously exposed to bortezomib and 8 (18%) were previously refractory to lenalidomide. Median age was 82 (80-84). All patients had a frailty score ≥2. In 22 patients ISS was stage I (n=5), II (n=10) or III (n=7). Eleven (32%) patients harbored high-risk cytogenetic, including t(4;14) (n=3) or del17p (n=8). The median duration of Tx among 23 pts with ongoing Tx was 6 months [0-27] at data cutoff (July 19)]. The median duration of Tx among 21 pts who stopped Tx was 7 months [0-21]: 13 had progressive disease. Six patients died during the study: Daratumumab-related bronchospasm (D1C1); Ixazomib-related overdose (C2); progressive disease (C2 & C4), sepsis (C1 & C2). Regarding toxicity, 28 ≥grade 3 AE occurred amongst 24 pts (54%). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n=5), other cytopenias (n=4), infection (n=4) and gastrointestinal disorders (n=2). Fourteen out of 28 were SAE including 1 bronchospasm, 1 acute respiratory failure and 2 ixazomib overdoses. Overall response rate, including minimal response, was 86 % in pts with ongoing treatment and 71% in pts who stopped Tx; ≥VGPR rate was 33% and 6% respectively. Conclusions: These preliminary results show a favorable safety profile of ixazomib and daratumumab combination, without dexamethasone, in this specific population of very elderly frail patients with RRMM and high risk cytogenetic for almost one third of them. Efficacy results will be analyzed when the 50 patients will be enrolled in the study and evaluable for the primary endpoint. Disclosures Macro: GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding. Manier: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vincent: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Decaux: Amgen BMS Celgene Janssen Sanofi Takeda: Honoraria. Leleu: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib and Daratumumab association is not approved in NDMM or in RRMM

scholarly journals A Phase 2 Study of Futibatinib (TAS-120) in Patients with Myeloid or Lymphoid Neoplasms Harboring Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) 1 Rearrangements

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3656-3656
Author(s):  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Lee Stephen Rosen ◽  
Sun Young Rha ◽  
Aiwu He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract Background: Myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms (MLNs) with FGFR1 rearrangements are very rare but aggressive myeloproliferative malignancies, characterized by eosinophilia, lymphoid aggregates, and often myelofibrosis, and are recognized as a distinct disease group by the World Health Organization (WHO). In these neoplasms, FGFR1 rearrangements drive oncogenesis via dysregulation of downstream FGFR signaling. Allogenic hematological stem cell transplant (HSCT) is the recommended treatment for patients with FGFR1-rearranged MLNs, as these malignancies are often refractory to chemotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Currently, no effective molecularly targeted treatments are available for these patients. Futibatinib is an oral, highly selective, irreversible inhibitor of FGFR1-4 that has shown antitumor activity against FGFR-deregulated tumors in preclinical experiments and in phase 1 studies. Recent results from a phase 2 study demonstrated the efficacy (42% objective response rate) and manageable safety of futibatinib in patients with FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In addition to cholangiocarcinoma, futibatinib treatment resulted in objective responses across tumor types harboring various FGFR aberrations in the phase 1 study. In a separate report, a patient with an FGFR1-driven myeloid neoplasm treated with futibatinib achieved complete hematologic and cytogenetic remission. Based on these data, a multicohort phase 2 study (NCT04189445) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of futibatinib in patients with tumors harboring specific FGFR aberrations. Here, we describe the cohort of patients with MLNs harboring FGFR1 rearrangements. Study Design and Methods: In this global, open-label, multicohort phase 2 study, patients (≥18 years, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 and adequate organ function) will be enrolled into 1 of 3 cohorts by type of tumor and/or FGFR aberration. The cohort of patients with MLNs harboring FGFR1 rearrangements (as defined by WHO criteria) will include patients who are not candidates for HSCT or other therapies or who have disease progression following HSCT. Patients with clinically significant alterations in calcium-phosphorus homeostasis, ectopic mineralization/calcification, clinically significant retinal/corneal disorder, untreated or clinically/radiologically unstable brain metastases, or prior FGFR inhibitor treatment will be excluded. Approximately 20 patients will be enrolled in this cohort (sample size considerations based on differentiating a ≤10% historical control complete response [CR] rate with a 50% target CR rate with 95% power). Patients will receive futibatinib 20 mg once daily in a continuous 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criterion is met. The primary endpoint is CR rate. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, CR with incomplete hematological recovery (CRi) rate, complete or partial cytogenetic response rate, and safety. Additional secondary endpoints are duration of CR, CR+CRi, and response; as well as event-free (leukemia presentation only), progression-free, relapse-free, and overall survival. The study was initiated in August 2020, and patient enrollment is ongoing. Disclosures Kiladjian: AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Other: Personal fees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shitara: Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharm, Astellas Pharm, Medi Science, Eisai, Taiho Oncology: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho, MSD, Novartis, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Novartis, Abbvie, Yakult: Other: Speaker fee. Rosen: Taiho Oncology: Research Funding. Rha: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding. He: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding. Oh: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; AstraZeneca, Novartis, Array, Eli Lilly, Servier, BeiGene, MSD, Handok: Other: Grants or contracts from any entity; AstraZeneca, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Merck Serono, Bayer, Taiho, ASLAN, Halozyme, Zymeworks, BMS/Celgene, BeiGene, Basilea, Turning Point: Other: Participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. Melisi: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding. Iwasa: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jiang: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding. Liu: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Current Employment. Takahashi: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Current Employment. Ribrag: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Research Funding; PharmaMar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argen-X: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Time To Event Analyses in PANORAMA 2: A Phase 2 Study Of Panobinostat, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone In Patients With Relapsed and Bortezomib-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1970-1970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Robert L. Schlossman ◽  
Melissa Alsina ◽  
Donna M. Weber ◽  
Steven E. Coutre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Heavily Pretreated ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with a high unmet need for patients (pts) in the relapsed and refractory setting. The prognosis is especially worse for pts with MM refractory to both bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), who have a median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) of 5 and 9 months, respectively (Kumar, Leukemia 2012). Panobinostat is an oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that has low nanomolar activity against histone deacetylase enzymes that are implicated as potential targets in MM. In preclinical studies, panobinostat and BTZ synergistically inhibit both the aggresome and proteasome pathways. In an interim analysis of PANORAMA 2, panobinostat, in combination with BTZ and dexamethasone (Dex), demonstrated the ability to recapture responses in pts with relapsed and BTZ-refractory MM. At the time of the interim analysis, multiple pts were still receiving treatment, and median OS had not been reached. Here, we present an updated analysis of PANORAMA 2, including an evaluation of PFS and OS. Methods This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study enrolled pts with relapsed and BTZ-refractory MM (who had received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, and had progressed on or within 60 days of the last BTZ-based therapy). Pts received oral panobinostat, intravenous BTZ, and oral Dex. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (defined as ≥ partial response [PR]) as defined by the modified European Group of Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria. Secondary objectives included evaluation of minimal response (MR), time to response, duration of response, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability of the combination. Results The median age of the 55 enrolled pts was 61 years (range, 41-88), and pts were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 prior regimens (range, 2-11) including a median of 2 prior BTZ-containing regimens (range, 1-6). All pts had received at least 1 IMiD, all were BTZ refractory, and nearly half (n = 27) had BTZ in their most recent prior line of therapy. Most pts (75%) were International Staging System stage 1 or 2, and 14 pts presented with high-risk cytogenetics (del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]). All but 2 pts had discontinued from the study as of the December 4, 2012, data cutoff due to disease progression (n = 36), adverse events (n = 10), or withdrawal of consent (n = 5); 1 pt had died, and 1 pt started new therapy. One pt (2%) had a near complete response and 18 pts (33%) had a PR for an overall response rate of 35%, which met the study's primary objective of response rate > 10% (95% CI, 22-47; P < .0001). An additional 10 pts (18%) had an MR, for a clinical benefit rate of 53% (95% CI, 39-66). The median exposure was 4.6 months (range, < 1-24.1). The median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.7). The median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI, 10.8-25.2). In a post hoc analysis, the 19 pts who achieved ≥ PR had a median PFS of 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.8-9.7) and a median OS of 25.2 months (95% CI, 17.5-25.2), while the 36 pts with < PR had a median PFS of 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-4.9) and a median OS of 9.9 months (95% CI, 5.4-17.4). Similarly, the 29 pts with ≥ MR had a median PFS of 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.9-8.6) and a median OS of 22.2 months (95% CI, 17.5-25.2), and the 26 pts with < MR had a median PFS of 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) and a median OS of 7.9 months (95% CI, 4.1-12.2). No new safety signals were observed. Common grade 3/4 adverse events regardless of study drug relationship included thrombocytopenia (64%), diarrhea (20%), fatigue (20%), anemia (15%), neutropenia (15%), and pneumonia (15%). Peripheral neuropathy was observed in 27% of pts overall, with only 1 (2%) grade 3/4 event. Conclusions The combination of panobinostat, BTZ, and Dex in heavily pretreated relapsed and BTZ-refractory pts demonstrated a median PFS of 5.4 months and a median OS of 17.5 months, which relates favorably to historical controls and other active combinations in this setting (eg, pomalidomide/Dex and carfilzomib/Dex). As expected, pts who achieved ≥ PR or ≥ MR appeared to have a longer median PFS and OS than pts who did not, which is supportive of a clinical benefit for this combination in this vulnerable population with otherwise limited treatment options. The large, randomized, phase 3 study, PANORAMA 1, will further define the role of panobinostat combined with BTZ and Dex in pts with relapsed and relapsed/refractory MM. Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schlossman:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy. Alsina:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weber:Novartis: Research Funding. Coutre:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gasparetto:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mukhopadhyay:Novartis: Employment. Ondovik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Khan:Novartis: Employment. Paley:Novartis: Employment, Stock options Other. Lonial:Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Enasidenib (ENA) Is Effective in Patients with IDH2 Mutated Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) : The Ideal Phase 2 Study By the GFM Group

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 63-63
Author(s):  
Lionel Ades ◽  
Sophie Dimicoli-Salazar ◽  
Marie Sebert ◽  
Thomas Cluzeau ◽  
Aspasia Stamatoulas Bastard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Duration Of Response

Abstract Background : ENA is a selective inhibitor of IDH2 approved in the US for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory IDH2 mutated AML. Little is known on its efficacy in patients with IDH2m myelodysplastic syndromes. Here we report the preliminary results of a Phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ENA in three different cohorts of MDS : Higher risk MDS having failed HMA (cohort A, n=29), untreated higher risk MDS without life threatening cytopenias (ie ANC &lt; 500/mm3 or any recent severe infections and/or platelets below 30,000/mm3 and any bleeding symptom, cohort B, with the addition of AZA in non-Responders after 3 cycles, n=29) and lower risk MDS having failed ESA (cohort C, n=10). (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03744390). Methods : Subjects enrolled in cohort A, B or C received continuous 28-day cycles of ENA - 100 mg PO QD. In cohort B, Azacitidine (75 mg/m2/d x 7 days, SC) was added to Enasidenib after 3 cycles, only in the absence of IWG 2006 response (absence of CR, PR or HI). The primary endpoint was Overall hematological response (including CR, PR,stable disease with HI according to IWG 2006). All patients who achieved CR, PR or HI were considered as responders and could continue treatment until loss of response. Secondary endpoints of the trial included safety,duration of response, EFS, Overall survival and translational project evaluating the role of biomarkers on response.We report interim results in the first 26 pts enrolled. Resul t s : At data cut off (6/15/2021), 45 pts were enrolled, including 26 who were evaluable for the primary endpoint. 11, 9 and 6 were enrolled in cohort A, B and C respectively. Median age was 75.5 years and 34.6% were female. WHO was MDS-MLD, MDS-RS-SLD, MDS-RS-MLD, MDS-EB1, MDS-EB2, CMML and AML (with 20-30% blast) in 1, 2, 3,4, 10, 2 and 4 pts, respectively. IPSS was low, intermediate 1, int 2 and high in 1, 7, 13, 5 resp. IPSS-R was low,intermediate, high and very high in 4, 8, 11, 3 resp. At data cut off, 10 pts were still on treatment. Most common reasons for discontinuing ENA were Treatment failure (7.7%), disease progression (23.1%), adverse events (7.7%) and death (3.8%). Three patients experienced a differentiation syndrome (1 in cohort A and 2 in cohort B) that resolved without sequelae. Other most common grade 3-4 AEs were nausea/diarrhea (n=4) and thrombocytopenia (n=5). Overall best response rate (ORR including CR, PR, and HI) was achieved in 11 pts (42 %), including 6 CR (55%), 2 PR (18%), 2 mCR with HI (18%), 1 Stable disease with HI (9%). ORR was achieved in 3 (27 %), 5 (56 %) and 3 (50%)in cohort A, B and C respectively. In cohort B, AZA wad added to ENA in 3 patients who were primarily resistant to ENA. Among them, 2/3 patients subsequently achieved a response. Moreover, CR was seen in 2, 1 and 3 in cohort A, B and C respectively. The 6 months response rate was 29.5 % [6 ;59], 53.1 % [11.7 ;83] and 50 % [7.7 ;82.9] in cohort A, B and C respectively. At the time of analysis, all responses but 2 were sustained. Responses were lower (p=0.27) among the 23 pts with IDH2 R140 (30.4%) as compared to the 3 with IDH2 R172 mutation (66.7%). With a median follow up of 8.6 months, the median OS was 17.3 months (figure 1). Six patients died during follow-up, including 4/11 in cohort A, 1/9 in cohort B and 1/6 in cohort C. The 6 months death rate observed was 8.2 % [0 ;18.4] and the 1-year OS was 55.4%, 100% and 80% in cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Four patients evolved to AML (2 and 2 in cohort A and B) with a 1y risk of AML of 19.3%. Conclusion : Results from the first 26 patients included in this study show that ENA has no limiting toxicity in patients with MDS and that it can provide responses in 42% of patients. These responses appear to be encouraging, especially in first-line (low and high risk) patients. An update of this study will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ades: JAZZ: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sebert: BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Stamatoulas Bastard: Pfizer: Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Laribi: Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees. Vey: Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; BIOKINESIS: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SERVIER: Consultancy; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Consultancy. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Fenaux: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: enasidenib is not approved for MDS

Efficacy and Safety of Retreatment with Bortezomib in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Interim Results From RETRIEVE, a Prospective International Phase 2 Study.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3866-3866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Igor W. Blau ◽  
Paolo Corradini ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Johannes Drach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bortezomib Treatment ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3866 Poster Board III-802 Bortezomib (Velcade®) retreatment has been shown to be active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) in a number of retrospective studies and a small prospective phase 4 study (EVEREST). This large, prospective, international, multi-center, open-label phase 2 study was conducted to confirm the efficacy and safety of retreatment with bortezomib in MM patients who had previously responded (at least partial response [PR]) to bortezomib-based therapy as their most recent prior treatment. Patients had to have previously tolerated bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2 alone or in combination and have had a treatment-free interval (TFI; time from last dose of initial bortezomib treatment to first dose of bortezomib retreatment) of ≥6 months. Additional eligibility criteria included progressive disease or relapse from complete response (CR) by EBMT criteria, no MM therapy (except maintenance with dexamethasone, thalidomide, or interferon) since the last dose of initial bortezomib treatment, KPS ≥60, and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function; patients with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy or neuropathic pain (as defined by NCI CTCAE v3.0) were excluded. Patients received bortezomib at the last tolerated dose (1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2) during initial treatment on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for up to eight 21-day cycles, either alone or in combination with dexamethasone at the investigator's discretion. Response was assessed by EBMT criteria every 6 weeks during treatment and then every 2 months until disease progression. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCI CTCAE v3.0. A total of 130 patients received at least 1 dose of bortezomib retreatment and were included in the safety population. Patients had a median age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 16% had KPS '70%. Median time from diagnosis of MM was 4.5 years (range 0–14 years); median number of prior therapies was 2; 15, 80, 23, and 12 patients had received 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 prior lines of therapy (excluding initial bortezomib therapy). Best response by EBMT criteria to initial bortezomib treatment was CR in 26% and PR in 74% of patients; median time to progression and TFI after initial bortezomib treatment were 17.9 months and 14.3 months, respectively. Last tolerated dose of previous bortezomib therapy was 1.3 mg/m2 and 1.0 mg/m2 for 62% and 29% of patients, respectively; 9% received another dose. Patients received a median 7.0 (range 1–8) cycles of bortezomib retreatment (23% of patients completed all 8 cycles); 72% of patients received concomitant dexamethasone. A total of 126 patients were evaluable for response. In the 126 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR; CR+PR) by best confirmed response (EBMT criteria) was 40%; in addition, 18% of patients achieved minimal response (MR), to give a CR+PR+MR rate of 58%. After a planned secondary efficacy analysis, the ORR (CR+PR) by single best response was 55% (75% ≥MR). Median time to best confirmed response (≥MR) was 2.9 months; time to first response was 1.5 months. Analysis of ORR by patient subgroups showed comparable results in patients who did versus did not receive concomitant dexamethasone (42% vs 32%), in those who received ≤1.0 mg/m2 vs 1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib (35% vs 41%), and in those aged ≤65 years vs >65 years (45% vs 36%). ORR was 67%, 39%, 33%, and 25% in patients who had received 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 prior lines of therapy (excluding initial bortezomib), respectively. Analysis of best confirmed responses according to response to initial bortezomib showed that 63% and 52% of patients who achieved a CR or PR, respectively, to initial bortezomib treatment responded to retreatment. Most (98%) patients experienced a treatment-emergent AE; 60% experienced a grade 3/4 AE, and 32% experienced a serious AE; there were 8 deaths, 2 of which (due to sepsis and stroke) were possibly treatment-related. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (35%), neutropenia (7%), diarrhea (7%), and pneumonia (5%). AEs leading to dose reductions or discontinuations were reported for 22% and 12% of patients, respectively. The incidence of neuropathy was 39%, including 9% grade 3; 4% of patients discontinued treatment due to PN; 61% of neuropathy events resolved or improved within a median 1.3 months. These results confirm that bortezomib retreatment is a well-tolerated, feasible, and active therapeutic option for heavily pretreated MM patients without evidence of cumulative toxicity. Disclosures: Petrucci: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria. Drach:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

An Open-Label Phase 2 Study Of Ofatumumab In Combination With a Novel AKT Inhibitor (Afuresertib) In Previously Treated Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4175-4175
Author(s):  
Christine I. Chen ◽  
Susi Snitzler ◽  
Trina Wang ◽  
Harminder Paul ◽  
Lisa W Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Akt Inhibitor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Ofatumumab is a novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody which led to impressive single-agent responses of 47-58% in a phase 2 study of CLL patients (pts) with refractory disease (Wierda et al 2010). Unfortunately, response durations were short (median 5.6-7.1 mos). In order to improve upon these results, we combined ofatumumab with a novel pan-AKT kinase inhibitor, afuresertib (GSK2110183). The AKT pathway plays a centralized role in tumor differentiation, migration, proliferation and survival and is frequently aberrantly activated in CLL (Longo et al 2007). Single agent afuresertib is very well-tolerated with minimal myelotoxicity in relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies (Spencer et al ASH 2011). We present an interim analysis of the initial 19 of 31 planned pts in an ongoing trial of ofatumumab and afuresertib in relapsed/refractory CLL. Methods Previously treated CLL pts who have received at least one prior fludarabine-containing regimen with disease progression are eligible. During the initial 6 month Treatment Phase, ofatumumab 2000mg IV is administered weekly for 8 doses, then once every 4 week cycle for 4 doses (dose/schedule identical to the pivotal phase 2 trial) with afuresertib 125mg orally daily. An initial 10 day Lead-in Phase with afuresertib alone allows for evaluation of pharmacodynamic (PD) changes in phosphoproteins and pharmacokinetic (PK) studies. Pts are assessed for safety and response on day 1 of each cycle. Pts achieving SD, PR or CR by the end of the Treatment Phase proceed to the Maintenance Phase with single-agent afuresertib for a maximum of 12 mos (12 cycles). Results Demographics: To date, 19 pts have been enrolled. Median age is 65 yrs (range 43-76), baseline median Hb 108g/L (range 80-145), absolute lymphocytes 29.7 x109/L (range 1.0-464.9), β2M 4.42mg/L (range 1.42-3.21), bulky nodes ≥5cm in 5 pts (32%), organomegaly in 8 pts (42%), del17p/del11q on FISH in 9 pts (47%), and ZAP70+ in 13 pts (68%). Eight pts (42%) were fludarabine-refractory; only 2 pts had received prior alemtuzumab. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). Toxicity: Hematologic: 4 pts (21%) developed Gr 3-4 neutropenia during at least 1 cycle; 1 pt (5%) had a febrile neutropenia event. Only 2 pts (10.5%) have developed Gr 3-4 thrombocytopenia, without bleeding. Nonhematologic toxicity: Most common related grade 3-4 toxicities were GI: dyspepsia (53%), diarrhea (37%), nausea (21%), temporally related to oral afuresertib and easily managed symptomatically. Infusion reactions to ofatumumab were frequent (12 pts; 63%) with grade 3 reactions in 3 pts. Five pts (26%) developed non-infectious pneumonitis, with 3 pts requiring hospitalization. Two pts with preexisting atrial arrhythmias sustained exacerbation with weekly ofatumumab infusions. Most infections were mild, with only 1 grade 3 cellulitis. Efficacy: Of the 19 response-evaluable pts receiving a median of 6 cycles (range 1-9), 8 pts (42%) have achieved a PR, 11 SD (58%), and no CR. Response onset was rapid at a median 0.9 mos (range 0.8-2.8). At a median follow-up of 6.8 mos (range 0.3-12.9 mos), 5 pts (26%) have progressed and one patient has died after cycle 1 on therapy due to progressive CLL. PD Studies: CD19+ cells are assayed for phosphorylated AKT and its downstream targets RAS40 and GSK3 in addition to phospho-proteins of alternative pathways including ERK and pS6 by multiplexed phospho-flow cytometry. Peripheral blood samples are collected at screening and on cycle 1 day 10, after dosing with afuresertib. Of the 7 patients evaluated thus far, 5 demonstrated constitutive AKT phosphorylation at baseline. Partial inhibition of AKT signaling evidenced by increased phosphorylation of AKT and inhibition of GSK3 and/or RAS40 phosphorylation in response to BCR stimulation was observed post-treatment, indicating target engagement by afuresertib. PK Studies: Afuresertib exposure (Cmax and AUC) was similar when afuresertib was administered alone or in combination with ofatumumab. Conclusion Preliminary results from this phase 2 study suggests that a combination of ofatumumab plus a novel oral AKT inhibitor, afuresertib, has activity in previously treated CLL and is generally well-tolerated with minimal myelotoxicity. Response data are encouraging but whether durable responses can be achieved requires more mature follow-up. Disclosures: Chen: Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Off-label use of ofatumumab and afuresertib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory CLL. Smith:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Johnston:Roche: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals A Prospective Phase 2 Study of Venetoclax and Low Dose Ara-C (VALDAC) to Target Rising Molecular Measurable Residual Disease and Early Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1261-1261
Author(s):  
Ing S Tiong ◽  
Sun Loo ◽  
Emad Uddin Abro ◽  
Devendra Hiwase ◽  
Shaun Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Early Relapse ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Measurable Residual Disease ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Introduction Rising molecular measurable residual disease (MRD) is an arbiter of clinical relapse in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Venetoclax (VEN) is active against IDH and NPM1 mutant (mt) AML as monotherapy (Konopleva et al, 2016 and Chua et al, 2020) and can yield MRD negative remission when combined with low dose ara-C (LDAC) in patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy (DiNardo and Tiong et al, 2020). In a retrospective study, we showed that VEN in combination with hypomethylating agents or LDAC could erase rising NPM1mt MRD in 6/7 cases (Tiong et al, 2020). We now present a prospective phase 2 study of VEN and LDAC in patients with molecular MRD failure or oligoblastic AML relapse. Methods This multicenter phase 2 study stratified patients into oligoblastic relapse (marrow blasts 5-15%; Group A), or molecular MRD failure (Group B) as defined by the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations (failure confirmed by 2 interval samples) (Schuurhuis et al, 2018). Patients received VEN 600 mg (days 1-28) and LDAC 20 mg/m 2 (days 1-10). Primary objectives were morphologic or MRD response (≥1 log reduction) in groups A and B, respectively. Key secondary objectives were allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) realization and relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The study had Alfred Health ethics approval (196/19). NPM1mt and other fusion transcript levels (per 10 5 ABL) from bone marrow were analyzed by RT-qPCR, IDH1 and IDH2 by Bio-Rad TM droplet digital PCR. Results The study enrolled 32 patients, with 29 evaluable (cut-off date 15/7/21). The median age of the study population was 62 years; 79% had intermediate cytogenetic risk, 66% NPM1mt, 11% FLT3-ITD and 37% IDH1/IDH2 mt. Most received prior intensive chemotherapy (93%) and 2 (7%) allo-HCT in first remission. Median interval from AML diagnosis to study entry was 12.6 months (Table 1). After a median follow-up of 7.9 months, patients had received a median of 3 cycles (range 1-14) of VEN-LDAC, with 13 patients ongoing. The main reasons for treatment cessation were allo-HCT (n=10; 34%) or donor lymphocyte infusion (n=2; 7%), treatment failure (n=3) or an adverse event (n=1). Hematologic complete/incomplete response (CR/CRi) among 11 patients with oligoblastic relapse (group A) was 73% and included: CR (n=5, 45%) or CRi (n=3, 27%), with an additional patient with morphologic leukemia-free state and 2 patients with stable disease. Overall, across both groups, median RFS and OS were not reached, estimated at 78% and 91% at 1 year, respectively. Among 18 patients with molecular MRD failure (group B) treated with VEN+LDAC, molecular response (≥1 log reduction) was achieved in 72%, and the RFS and OS were estimated at 83% and 87% at 1 year, respectively. Analysis of a sub-group of patients with NPM1mt (n=18); 6 and 12 from Groups A and B, respectively revealed the median NPM1mt transcript level at study entry to be 8985 copies (IQR 826, 94,431). A molecular response was achieved in 14 (78%) patients, including 9 (50%) with complete molecular remission (CR MRD-), with most responses achieved within 2 cycles of therapy (Figure B). Treatment with VEN-LDAC was generally well tolerated, with 15 serious adverse events reported within the first 2 cycles, including infection (n=6; 19%) and febrile neutropenia (n=3; 9%). Only one subject discontinued treatment due to stroke. Conclusions In this prospective study, in patients with first oligoblastic relapse or MRD failure, VEN in combination with LDAC induced a high rate of molecular MRD remission that was rapidly achieved, resulting in a high rate of survival at 12-months (&gt;90%) and with low toxicity. Follow-up is ongoing to determine the durability of response. Treatment of patients with MRD or early clinical failure may represent an attractive clinical trial setting for investigation of novel, non-intensive AML therapies. This approach will be investigated in a future multi-arm, precision-based platform trial called INTERCEPT (Investigating Novel Therapy to Target Early Relapse and Clonal Evolution as Pre-emptive Therapy in AML). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tiong: Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hiwase: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fleming: Amgen Inc: Research Funding. Bajel: Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer: Honoraria. Fong: Amgen, BMS: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Astellas: Honoraria. Wei: Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: This presentation will discuss the use of venetoclax in targeting measurable residual disease and early relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.

scholarly journals Phase 2 Study of Nilotinib 400 Mg Twice Daily in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Accelerated Phase of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Results after 5.7 Years of Follow-up

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3011-3011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Masarova ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Keyur P. Patel ◽  
Susan M. O'Brien ◽  
Graciela M. Nogueras González ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract OBJECTIVES Nilotinib is a potent, second generation inhibitor of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase (TKI) and represent a standard of care for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including accelerated phase (AP-CML). In 2005, we initiated a phase 2 study of nilotinib 400 mg twice daily as a frontline therapy in patients with AP-CML, and herein present the efficacy and safety data after a median follow-up of 68.4 months (range, 0.3-124.8). METHODS This was a prospective, single institution, phase 2 study in patients of age ≥18 years with a newly diagnosed, untreated AP-CML (except for <1 month of previous imatinib) defined according to MD Anderson criteria (Kantarjian, 1988). Patients were treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (BID). Data are presented on an intention to treat analysis with a cutoff date of June 30st, 2018. Response criteria are standard. Fisher exact test and χ2 were used for analysis of categorical variables; and survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time to events (e.g., overall survival, event free survival) was calculated from the date of treatment to the date of an event or to last follow-up as previously reported (Cortes et al, 2010). RESULTS Twenty two patients of a median age of 53.7 years (range, 26-79.7) were enrolled. Table 1 summarizes clinical characteristics of all patients. The median treatment duration was 47.3 months (range; 0.3-124.4), and the median follow-up 68.4 months (range, 0.3-124.8). All patients discontinued study as of January 2017 due to planned study closure; but 11 patients (50%) continued on nilotinib off protocol at data cut-off (400 mg BID [3]; 300 mg BID [2]; and 200 mg BID [6]). Median time to treatment discontinuation in the remaining 11 patients was 12.9 months (range, 0.3-112); reason for discontinuation was: inadequate response [3], toxicity [2], non-compliance/financial [4]; elective discontinuation after sustained MR4.5 >2 years [1]; and death due to stroke [1]. Sixteen patients (73%) achieved complete hematologic response (CHR). Overall rates of CCyR, MMR, MR4.5 and CMR (undetectable transcripts with at least 100,000 ABL copies) were 73%, 73%, 55%, and 41%, respectively. Median times to CCyR, MMR, and MR4.5 were 2.9 months (range, 2.7-6.4), 5.7 months (range, 2.7-99.2) and 6.0 months (range, 2.7-36), respectively. Seven patients (32%) achieved sustained MR4.5 >2 years. In total, 4 patients lost their best achieved response (CHR [1], CCyR [2] and MR4.5 [1]) while on study. All events were associated with acquired ABL domain mutation; Y253H [2], T315I [1], and F359I [1] with a median time to detection of 16.7 months (range, 7-40). During the study conduct, one patient progressed to blast phase after 2 months on nilotinib. Two patients died while on study, one due to stroke and one due to unrelated medical condition, after being on therapy for 3 and 0.4 months, respectively. One patient electively discontinued nilotinib after being in sustained MR4.5 for 107 months, and remains in MR4.5 after 6 months off therapy. Estimated overall survival and event free survival at 5 years were 84% and 70%, respectively (Figures 1a & 1b). On univariate analysis, age >55 years was associated with lower rate of MMR (p = 0.034; HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12-0.92); MR4 (p = 0.013; HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.75); and MR4.5 (p = 0.01; HR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.63). Overall survival was inferior in patients older than 55 years (p = 0.014; HR 2.4; 95% CI 2.36-not estimated); and in those with > 1 AP-CML defining abnormality (p = 0.018; HR 9.53; 95% CI 0.98-92). The most frequent non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were hyperbilirubinemia (63% of patients), rash (63%), hypertension (59%), and transaminitis (50%). Grade ≥3 AEs observed in more than one patient were hyperbilirubinemia (n=2), and transaminitis (=2). Two patients developed arterio-thrombotic AEs: stroke and myocardial infarction (one each). Hematologic AEs included (all grades; grade ≥3): anemia (36%; 9%), thrombocytopenia (32%; 14%) and neutropenia (14%; 9%). Two patients (9%) discontinued therapy due to nilotinib related AE, one for G3 peripheral neuropathy and one for G3 hyperbilirubinemia with G2 thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION Nilotinib is safe and highly effective in patients with AP-CML, and induces fast and durable responses. More than 50% of patients can achieve MR4.5. Clinical trial.gov: NCT00129740. Disclosures Cortes: novartis: Research Funding. O'Brien:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences Inc.: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kadia:Celgene: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Orsenix: Honoraria; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document