scholarly journals A Systematic Review and a Survey Both Reveal Wide Heterogeneity across Trials and Investigators on Time-to-Event Endpoints Definitions in Marginal Zone Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4502-4502
Author(s):  
Côme Bommier ◽  
Emanuele Zucca ◽  
Catherine Thieblemont ◽  
Jérôme Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marginal Zone ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Marginal Zone Lymphoma ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Abstract Background: Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent and heterogeneous B-cell lymphoma. Because of its very indolent course, many time-to-endpoints are used across MZL trials without clear consensus on their definitions. Our aim was to carry out a description of the endpoints used in trials involving MZL patients and to point out the different definitions of time-to-event (TTE) endpoints, both in the literature and among the MZL experts. Methods: We searched over the last 35 years via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu for published and registered clinical trials using the keyword "marginal zone lymphoma". We excluded studies focusing on pediatric populations, cutaneous MZL and on use of allogenic stem cell transplant. Endpoints were reviewed and definitions were analyzed. Afterwards, an online questionnaire was sent to a panel of leading international experts involved in the conduct of lymphoma clinical trials. Experts were selected for their commitment in published phase 2/phase 3 indolent lymphoma trials or for their membership in international lymphoma study groups (International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group, Lymphoma Research Foundation). The questionnaire proposed 12 criteria to define Progression-free survival (PFS), Event-free survival (EFS), Time to failure (TTF), and Time to next treatment (TTNT). Results: 1192 references were identified by the initial screening. Among the 309 included references (111 published, 198 registered), 213 (69%) were phase 2, 65 (21%) phase 1/2 and 31 (10%) phase 3 trials. The majority of them were open-label (n=295, 95%) non-randomized (n=256, 83%) trials, included all subtypes of MZLs (n=239, 77%), and also non-MZL patients (n=232, 75%). Among phase 1/2 and 2 trials, Overall/complete response rate (ORR/CRR) was the most used primary endpoint (n=196, 70.5%), followed by PFS (n=28, 10.1%); in phase 3 trials PFS was the most used primary endpoint (n=18, 58.1%; ORR/CRR n=6, 19.4%, p<0.001). Overall, the most frequent secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS, n=153, 50%), PFS (n=142, 46%) and ORR/CRR (n=116, 38%). Distribution of endpoints was similar when considering trials with only MZL patients. Time-to-event endpoints definitions were inconsistent across published trials, with up to 9 different definitions of EFS and TTF, and 4 different definitions of Duration of response. A total of 60 MZL experts from 16 different countries (Europe 66%, Northern America 26%, Asia 4%, Oceania 2%, Southern America 2%) took the questionnaire. Forty-nine (82%) of them were clinicians hematologists, and the other were oncologists, radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, or radiotherapists. Eighty percent and 75% of them had already been primary investigator or coinvestigator in a prospective clinical trial including either MZL-only patients or MZL patients merged with other lymphoma patients, respectively. Among the experts' answers, a total of 23 different definitions of PFS were retrieved, 44 of EFS, 38 of TTF and TTNT. The main divergences concerned the consideration as event of: the add-on of a new therapy and the non-lymphoma related death for PFS; the treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and the add-on of a new therapy for EFS and TTF; the progression of the disease for TTNT. Conclusion: Trials involving MZL patients showed marked heterogeneity both in the choice and definitions of primary and secondary endpoints, thus hampering comparability between trials. This heterogeneity was confirmed through a survey among leading international MZL experts. If PFS and TTNT definitions have been well established by the Food Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, a consensus shall be pursued on EFS and TTF definitions within the MZL community. Disclosures Zucca: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celltrion Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead, Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: Travel Support. Thieblemont: Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses .

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Ravulizumab in Older Patients Aged >65 Years with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria in the 301 and 302 Phase 3 Extension Studies

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Regis Peffault De Latour ◽  
Jeffrey Szer ◽  
Austin Kulasekararaj ◽  
Jin Seok Kim ◽  
Caroline I. Piatek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria ◽  
Complement Inhibitor ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Background: In the two largest phase 3 studies in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), ravulizumab given every 8 weeks was noninferior to eculizumab given every 2 weeks across all efficacy endpoints. Data on efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in patients aged >65 years with PNH are limited. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in patients with PNH aged >65 years with those aged ≤65 years. Methods: The population included patients from two phase 3 studies that assessed ravulizumab vs eculizumab in complement-inhibitor-naïve (301; NCT02946463) and -experienced (302; NCT03056040) adults with PNH. In study 301, patients were aged ≥18 years with a confirmed PNH diagnosis by flow cytometry and had a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level ≥1.5x upper limit of normal (ULN; 246U/L). In study 302, patients were aged ≥18 years with a confirmed PNH diagnosis by flow cytometry, were clinically stable on eculizumab having received ≥6 months of treatment and had a LDH level ≤1.5x ULN. Patients were randomized to either ravulizumab or eculizumab for 26 weeks after which all received ravulizumab up to 52 weeks. This prespecified analysis stratified patients by age: ≤65 or >65 years. Primary endpoints included percentage change in LDH from baseline to weeks 26 and 52, percentage of patients achieving LDH-normalization (LDH-N; LDH levels: ≤1x ULN) at weeks 26 and 52 and transfusion avoidance (TA) from baseline to weeks 26 and 52. Breakthrough hemolysis (BTH), hemoglobin (Hgb) stabilization and FACIT-fatigue score were secondary endpoints. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed as an indicator of safety. Results: A total of 58 patients aged >65 years and 383 patients aged ≤65 years were included. Disposition and medical history were similar among subgroups at baseline (Table 1). Results for primary and secondary endpoints for the two subgroups were comparable across studies and efficacy was maintained through 52 weeks. A higher proportion of treatment-experienced patients (>65 years) achieved all endpoints vs -naïve patients (Table 2). The percentage change in LDH levels from baseline to 26 and 52 weeks was similar between subgroups in study 301 (-66.5 to -80.0%) whereas in study 302, LDH levels remained stable in all subgroups up to 52 weeks (-3.7 to 22%). The percentage of patients achieving LDH-N in both studies at 26 and 52 weeks differed; 43.8-63.9% of patients aged ≤65 years achieved LDH-N compared with 21.4-77.8% of patients aged >65 years. A higher proportion of older treatment-experienced patients (57.1‒77.8%) achieved LDH-N compared with older treatment-naive patients (21.4‒50.0%) at 26 and 52 weeks. In patients aged ≤65 years in both studies, 63.7‒89.4% achieved TA. In the >65 years subgroup, 14.3‒50.0% of treatment-naive patients achieved TA whereas in study 302, 54.5‒72.7% of patients achieved TA. The number of BTH events was low, with no events reported in older patients to date. Hgb stabilization was consistent in the ≤65 year subgroup between the studies; a higher proportion of older patients in study 302 (45.5‒71.4%) achieved stabilized Hgb compared with older patients in study 301 (14.3‒35.3%). A clinically significant 3-point change was seen in FACIT-fatigue scores (indicating improvements in fatigue), with higher scores observed for ravulizumab in both subgroups (Figure 1). One patient discontinued the extension of study 301 due to lung cancer onset during the 26-week period and died following discontinuation. Headache was the most frequent TEAE. The incidence of TEAEs reported during ravulizumab treatment up to 52 weeks did not increase vs the 26-week period, with few events (Table 3) and no difference between subgroups. Conclusions: We present clinical outcomes in the largest cohort of patients with PNH (>65 years) on ravulizumab in a clinical trial setting to date. Ravulizumab was associated with similar efficacy and safety in both age subgroups and showed consistent and durable efficacy through 52 weeks of treatment. A higher proportion of patients in study 302 achieved all efficacy endpoints than in study 301, which can be due to patients' prior complement inhibitor experience. This observation was more evident in older patients. There were no BTH events in the older patients to date, and the number of infections in both subgroups was low. Ravulizumab was well tolerated in older patients with no additional safety concerns compared to younger patients. Disclosures Peffault De Latour: Apellis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Szer:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Prevail Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kulasekararaj:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Piatek:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kulagin:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Wang:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Yu:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Ogawa:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Schrezenmeier:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Results of a Phase I Trial of Lenalidomide, Rituximab (R2) and Ixazomib for Frontline Treatment of High Risk Follicular and Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Brian T. Hill ◽  
Deepa Jagadeesh ◽  
Alex V. Mejia Garcia ◽  
Robert M. Dean ◽  
Omer N. Koc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marginal Zone ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Marginal Zone Lymphoma ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Frontline Treatment

INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide and Rituximab (R2) is an effective frontline treatment regimen for patients (pts) with indolent B-cell lymphoma including follicular lymphoma (FL). Recent phase III data from the RELEVANCE trial comparing R2 to traditional chemoimmunotherapy showed that this regimen is generally well-tolerated and has favorable clinical efficacy [61% overall response, 53% CR rate, 77% 3-year progression free survival (PFS) (Morschhauser, et al)]. Proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib disrupt NF-KB signaling and have shown clinical activity in indolent NHL. Although randomized trials have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit of adding bortezomib to standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen bendamustine + rituximab (BR) for frontline treatment of FL, the addition of proteasome inhibitors to lenalidomide is a mainstay of treatment for plasma cell neoplasms due to synergistic antitumor effect. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib has less potential for dose-limiting neuropathy than bortezomib, making it an attractive option to incorporate into the R2 regimen. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of the addition of ixazomib to R2 for FL and indolent B-cell NHL through a phase I clinical trial of this combination for patients with high risk disease. METHODS: Adult (age ≥ 18) pts with untreated FL or other indolent lymphoma, adequate organ function and performance status were enrolled. To be enrolled, FL patients were required to have stage 2, 3 or 4 disease, with high tumor burden by GELF criteria and/or FLIPI score of 3-5. During 3 x 3 dose escalation, ixazomib was given at a dose of 2 mg (n=3), 3 mg (n=3) or 4 mg (n=12) PO on days 1, 8, and 15 with lenalidomide 20 mg PO on days 1-21 every 28 days. Rituximab was administered at standard dosing on days 1,8,15,21 for cycle 1, once every 28 days for cycles 2-6 and then once every 2 months for cycles 7-12. Treatment was continued for 12 cycles and no maintenance therapy was specified per protocol. All pts received low dose aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and acyclovir for prevention of VZV reactivation. Response assessments by CT were performed after cycle 3 and 6 and by PET/CT at the end-of-treatment (cycle 12). RESULTS: 20 pts were enrolled and 18 were eligible for treatment [15 FL (14 grade 1-2, 1 grade 3A), 2 splenic marginal zone lymphoma and 1 nodal marginal zone lymphoma].The median age of treated pts was 61 (range 40-83) years old. 55% of patients were female. Stage at diagnosis was II (n =2), III (n = 4) and IV (n = 12). For FL pts, FLIPI scores at enrollment were low (n=2), intermediate (n = 5) and high risk (n=8) and FLIPI-2 scores were low (n=3), intermediate (n = 2) and high risk (n=10). There were no dose limiting toxicities during 3 x 3 dose escalation. Grade (G) 1/2 and G3/4 treatment-related hematologic adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (6%, 28%), thrombocytopenia (16.7%, 5.6%) and anemia (16.7%, 0%). The most common treatment-related AEs included nausea/vomiting (44% G1, 11% G2), diarrhea, (50% G1, 22% G2, 5% G3), rash (33% G1, 6% G2, 11%G3), peripheral neuropathy (22% G1, 6% G2), myalgia/arthralgia (17% G1, 17% G2), and infection (33% G2, 17% G3). There was one pulmonary embolism and no cases of febrile neutropenia. As of June, 2020, median follow-up among living pts was 21 months. 4 pts discontinued treatment due to disease progression; 2 with transformation to aggressive lymphoma. Of the transformed cases, one subject died on study due to progression disease and one developed CNS disease on study treatment but proceeded to autologous stem cell transplant. The best overall response rate was 61.2% [55.6% CR, 5.6% PR): 22.2% had stable disease and 16.7% had disease progression. 18-month Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS and overall survival were 71% and 94%, respectively (Figure). CONCLUSION: R2 can safely be combined with at the target dose of 4 mg of ixazomib for treatment-naïve indolent NHL patients. Non-hematologic AEs were generally consistent with known toxicity of each component of therapy. CR rate and PFS were was similar to the outcomes reported in the RELEVANCE trial despite enrolling high risk patient. R2 may serve as backbone for future studies of novel treatment combinations for high risk FL after thorough evaluation for occult transformation to aggressive lymphoma. Disclosures Hill: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagadeesh:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caimi:Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Smith:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib is off-label for treatment of NHL

Efficacy of Melflufen, a Peptidase Targeted Therapy, and Dexamethasone in an Ongoing Open-Label Phase 2a Study in Patients with Relapsed and Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Including an Initial Report on Progression Free Survival

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3029-3029
Author(s):  
Peter M. Voorhees ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
Torben Plesner ◽  
Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background: Melflufen is a highly potent anti-angiogenic compound that triggers rapid, robust and irreversible DNA damage and exerts its cytotoxicity through alkylation of DNA. The lipophilicity of melflufen leads to rapid and extensive distribution into tissues and cells where it binds directly to DNA or is readily metabolized by intracellular peptidases into hydrophilic alkylating metabolites. With targeted delivery of alkylating metabolites to tumor cells in vitro (such as multiple myeloma that are rich in activating peptidase), melflufen exerts a 20-100 fold higher anti-tumor potency and produces a 20 fold higher intracellular concentration of alkylating moieties compared with melphalan. Methods: Melflufen is evaluated in combination with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg weekly in an ongoing Phase 1/2a study. RRMM patients with measurable disease and at least 2 prior lines of therapy are eligible (NCT01897714). Phase 1 established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of melflufen to be 40 mg every 3 weeks in combination with low dose dex. The primary objective of Phase 2a is the overall response rate and safety of the MTD in a total of 55 patients. Response was investigator assessed at the end of each cycle by IMWG criteria. Here we present the Phase 2 data as of 14 July 2015 data-cut. Results: Thirty-one patients were dosed at the MTD. The median time from initial diagnosis to first dose of melflufen was 6 years (1-15). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-9). 97% of patients were exposed to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 90% to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 77% to melphalan, and 71% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. 58% were double refractory (IMiDs and PIs) and 42% were triple refractory (IMiDs, PIs and alkylators). In total, 121 doses of melflufen have been given (1-11 cycles). Median treatment duration was 13 weeks with 9 patients still ongoing. One patient completed therapy as planned, 15 patients discontinued due to AEs (48%) and 6 due to progression (19%). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response (protocol defined as ≥2 doses of melflufen with baseline and follow-up response assessments). One patient achieved a very good partial response and 10 patients achieved partial response (PR) (1 unconfirmed, still ongoing) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 48%. Three additional patients achieved minimal response (MR) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 61%. Time to clinical benefit and response was rapid with 93% of patients achieving ≥ MR after 1-3 cycles and 64% achieving PR after only 1-3 cycles. Eight patients maintained stable disease and 1 patient had early progressive disease. Similar ORRs were seen in PI-refractory (43%), IMiD-refractory (40%), alkylator-refractory (62%), double-refractory (38%) and triple-refractory (50%) patients. The median progression free survival (PFS) is currently at 7.6 months (95% confidence interval: 3.4 - ∞) based on 14 events in 30 patients. The most frequent adverse events (AE), all grades, occurring in >10% of patients, regardless of relationship to study drug were thrombocytopenia (94%), anemia (84%), neutropenia (61%), leukopenia (42%), pyrexia (36%), asthenia (32%), fatigue and nausea (26%), bone pain (19%), cough, diarrhea, dyspnea, mucosal inflammation and upper respiratory infection (16%) and constipation and epistaxis (13%). Treatment-related Grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported in 27 patients (87%). Those occurring in >5% of patients were thrombocytopenia (68%), neutropenia (55%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (32%) and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, pyrexia, asthenia and hyperglycemia each occurred in 6% of patients. Serious AEs occurred in 9 patients (29%), but were only assessed as related to study drug in 5 patients (16%) including 3 febrile neutropenia, 1 fever and 1 pneumonia. Cycle length has recently been increased to 28 days to improve tolerability with respect to hematologic toxicity. Conclusion: Melflufen has promising activity in heavily pretreated RRMM patients where conventional therapies have failed. The current ORR is 48% and CBR is 61%. Similar results were seen across patient populations regardless of refractory status. The median PFS is encouraging at 7.6 months. Hematologic toxicity was common, but non-hematologic AEs were infrequent. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Voorhees: Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline,Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene and Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Plesner:Roche and Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen and Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mellqvist:Celgene, Amgen, Mundipharma and Novartis: Honoraria. Byrne:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Harmenberg:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Nordstrom:Oncopeptides: Employment. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Richardson:Oncopeptides, Celgene and Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals No Engraftment Advantage after Single or Double Umbilical Cord Blood Transplant (CBT) with the Addition of a Non-HLA Matched Off-the-Shelf Expanded Cord Blood Unit Compared to Conventional CBT: Results of a Randomized Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 146-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Milano ◽  
Andrew R Rezvani ◽  
Joanne Kurtzberg ◽  
Chatchada Karanes ◽  
Jonathan A Gutman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cord Blood ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Cell Dose ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Cord Blood Transplant ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Background: Based on pilot study data demonstrating safety and excellent survival [Blood 2014 124:46] in acute leukemia patients undergoing myeloablative cord blood transplant (CBT) plus infusion of an off-the-shelf non-HLA matched expanded CB unit (OTS) for bridging hematopoiesis, a randomized trial was conducted to determine whether myeloablative CBT with or without an OTS would confer more rapid neutrophil (ANC) engraftment and therefore a survival advantage. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized controlled phase II trial (RCT) with a primary endpoint of ANC engraftment defined as the first of 2 consecutive days in which neutrophil count ≥ 500 cells/μL. Secondary endpoints included platelet engraftment, overall survival (OS), disease free-survival (DFS), acute/chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), non-relapse mortality (NRM), and relapse. 160 patients were enrolled between February 2013 and June 2018. Patients were randomized to receive either a conventional single or double CBT (SOC group) (n=78) or SOC + OTS (OTS group) (n=82). Unmanipulated CB units had to be at least 4/6 HLA-matched to the patient (intermediate resolution for HLA-A, -B and allele-level for HLA-DRB1) with no HLA matching required for the OTS. Patient disease (AML=68, ALL=77, MDS=7, CML/other=8), disease risk, gender, age, race, ethnicity, CMV serology, performance score and HLA-match were balanced between the two study groups. Patients received conditioning with either FLU 75mg/m2, TBI 13.2 Gy, CY120 mg/kg or with FLU 150mg/m2, TBI 4Gy, CY 50 mg/kg and Thiotepa 10 mg/kg. Cyclosporin and MMF were used for GVHD prophylaxis in all patients (Table 1). Results: The median follow-up of surviving patients was 15 months. Approximately 30% of patients enrolled were <18 years and most patients received the high dose TBI (13.2Gy) regimen (85% in OTS group and 91% in SOC group). The median pre-cryopreserved total nucleated cell dose was 5.4 × 107/kg for both groups while the median pre-cryopreserved CD34 cell dose was 0.30 and 0.28 × 106/kg for the OTS and SOC group, respectively. Patients in the OTS group received an additional median CD34+ cell dose of 10.5x106/kg. Median time to ANC engraftment was similar between the 2 groups, at 20 days (range 7-46) in the OTS group and 19 days (13-51) in the SOC group. Five patients experienced graft failure, 2 in the OTS group and 3 in the SOC group. Similarly, no difference was seen for median time to platelet engraftment [38 days (35-43) vs. 40 days (30-42) for the OTS and the SOC group]. Peripheral blood chimerisms performed weekly (day 7-28) revealed that the initial circulating myelomonocytes present in the peripheral blood of OTS patients at day 7 were nearly all generated from the OTS product. Contribution to engraftment of the OTS graft was transient, and generally undetectable after day 21. All outcomes were similar between the two groups. OS and DFS at 2 years were 70% and 60% vs 61% and 55% for the OTS and the SOC groups, respectively. Cumulative incidence of relapse and NRM at 2 years were 18% and 21% in the OTS group and 21% and 22% in the SOC group. Grade III-IV aGVHD was 16% and 14% for the and the SOC group, respectively. The OTS product was well tolerated, and serious adverse events rates similar between the 2 groups. Patients continue to be followed through 2 years to assess cGVHD, and graft-relapse-free-survival. Conclusion: In this multi-center RCT, no significant difference was observed in the primary or secondary endpoints. Importantly, while the median time to ANC recovery in the OTS group was unchanged (20 days) from our pilot study, the observed time to neutrophil recovery in the SOC group was 7 days quicker than expected based on previously observed outcomes following myeloablative CBT (median 26 days). During the 5 years that this study was open to accrual, the criteria for CB donor selection have improved, now regularly utilizing CD34+ cell content and high-resolution HLA-typing where available, as has the quality of the CB inventory. This RCT highlights that delayed engraftment should no longer be a barrier in the consideration of SOC CBT for patients with hematological malignancies. As expected, and observed consistently following CBT, both groups demonstrated low incidence of severe acute GVHD and relapse at 2 years. Interventions in CBT should focus on improving immune reconstitution and reducing the risk of NRM but must be easily adopted into SOC in order to be adopted clinically. Disclosures Milano: ExCellThera: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Rezvani:Kaleido: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: one-time compensation from advisory boards; Nohla Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: one-time compensation from advisory boards; AbbVie: Other: Principal investigator ; U.S. Department of Justice: Other: Expert medical witness; Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Other: Brother is employed. Delaney:Nohla Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership; Biolife Solutions: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Prognostic Factors of Long-Term Outcomes In Low- or Int-1-Risk MDS with del5q Treated with Lenalidomide (LEN): Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial (MDS-004)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4027-4027
Author(s):  
Pierre Fenaux ◽  
Aristotles Giagounidis ◽  
Odile Beyne-Rauzy ◽  
Ghulam Mufti ◽  
Moshe Mittelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Lower Baseline ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Rbc Transfusion

Abstract Abstract 4027 Background: Transfusion dependence is a significant negative predictor of overall survival (OS) and risk of AML-progression in MDS (Malcovati L, et al. JCO 2007;25:3503-10). LEN 5 mg and 10 mg induced significant RBC-transfusion independence (TI) versus placebo (PBO) in a randomized, phase 3, multicenter, double-blind (DB) study (MDS-004) in RBC transfusion-dependent patients (pts) with Low- or Int-1-risk MDS with del5q (Fenaux P, et al. Blood 2009;114:Abstract 944). The aim of this analysis is to identify prognostic factors for AML-free survival and OS during LEN treatment in the MDS-004 study after prolonged follow-up (pts enrolled between July 8, 2005 and July 26, 2007; last pt visit June 14, 2010; final data cutoff July 9, 2010). Methods: LEN-naïve pts with RBC transfusion-dependent Low- or Int-1-risk del5q MDS were randomized to receive LEN 5 mg on days 1–28 or LEN 10 mg on days 1–21, both of every 28-day cycle, or PBO. First response was assessed at 16 wks. Responders continued DB treatment for up to 52 wks, until erythroid relapse or disease progression. Pts who completed 52 wks of therapy could enter an open label (OL) extension phase at their current LEN dose. PBO and LEN 5 mg recipients who did not respond by wk 16 or who had erythroid relapse could receive LEN 5 or 10 mg, respectively, in the OL phase. This analysis included data through completion of the OL phase for pts randomized to LEN 5 and 10 mg combined in the DB phase; pts randomized to PBO were excluded as all except 11 pts crossed-over to LEN 5 mg. LEN 5 and 10 mg dose groups were comparable, allowing data for the two groups to be combined. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate effect of potential baseline risk factors, with RBC-TI ≥ 26 wks and cytogenetic response (CyR) as time-dependent covariates on AML-free survival and OS. The full model with all covariates and the final model, based on backward model selection method, are presented. Results: All 138 pts randomized to LEN who received ≥ 1 dose were included: median age 68 y (range 36–86); 74% of pts were female; 66% had an isolated del5q abnormality and 28% had ≥ 1 additional abnormality; and 43% of pts had WHO-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) low/int risk, 32% high/very high, and 25% missing data. At baseline, median time since diagnosis was 2.7 y (range 0.2–29.2) and median RBC transfusion requirement was 6 units/8 wks (range 1–25). Duration of LEN was 12.9 mo (range 0.3–36.7); 54 of 62 responders entered the OL phase. Median follow-up for the cohort was 36 mo (range 0.4–59.4). Overall, 31 (22%) pts progressed to AML (median time to AML progression 4.01 y; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.17–4.03) and 66 (48%) died (median OS 3.68 y; 95% CI 2.93–not estimable). The cumulative 3-year AML-progression rate was 34.8% and the 3-year OS rate was 56.0%. Multivariate results are presented in the Table. Achieving RBC-TI ≥ 26 wks was associated with a 45% and 51% reduction in the risk of AML progression (P=0.022) and death (P=0.008), respectively. Lower baseline ferritin level and younger age were associated with a reduced risk of AML-progression and death. Conclusion: Achievement of RBC-TI with LEN was associated with a significantly reduced risk of AML progression and death. Other predictors for longer AML-free survival and OS were lower baseline ferritin levels and younger age. Disclosures: Fenaux: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; J&J: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Cephalon: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Giagounidis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beyne-Rauzy:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Mufti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mittelman:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Muus:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanz:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Backstrom:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hellström-Lindberg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

High Risk Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Comparison of Aggressive Subtypes Treated with Dose Adjusted Chemotherapy-the University of Texas MD Anderson Experience

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 106-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan ◽  
Yasuhiro Oki ◽  
Amir K Issa ◽  
Mohamed Amin Ahmed ◽  
Mansoor Noorani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Md Anderson

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).Nearly 50% of high-risk DLBCL patients are not cured with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (RCHOP). High risk DLBCL may be defined as double hit lymphoma (DHL, translocation of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6), double expressor lymphoma (DEL, over expression of MYC and BCL2), high risk international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5, high Ki-67, and non-germinal center subtype (non-GCB). The majority of DHL cases occur in the GCB subtype, as opposed to the majority of DEL cases which occur in non-GCB. Hence we sought to compare different high risk subsets treated with dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab (DA) EPOCH-R. In single arm phase II clinical trials, dose adjusted (DA) EPOCH-R has shown promising results, with potential greater efficacy in the GCB subtype in subset analyses (Wilson et al, Hematologica 2012). A randomized phase III study comparing RCHOP with (DA) EPOCH-R in newly diagnosed DLBCL has completed accrual, with highly anticipated results due in late 2016. Methods: We conducted a retrospective reviewof all consecutive, newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010 to 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or greater, had high-risk DLBCL as determined by the treating physician, and had available data of treatment and response. The cell of origin subtype was determined by immunohistochemistry using Hans algorithm, and MYC and BCL2 positivity were defined as BCL2 positive in at least 70% and MYC positive in at least 40% of cells. DHL was defined as rearrangement of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6 by fluorescent in situ hybridization. The objectives were to analyze demographic, prognostic, and treatment variables in comparison with clinical response and survival outcomes in three sub groups which included 1. DHL (GCB) 2. DLBCL without MYC and BCL2 expression (GCB), and 3. DEL (GCB and non GCB). Complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using standard methods. Statistical analysis was done using Fishers exact test or Chi-square test / Kruskal-Wallis test. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analysis including overall survival and progression free survival. The Log-rank test was used to evaluate the difference in time-to-event endpoints between patient groups. Results: We identified 233 high risk DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R. After filtering the data to identify patients which were included in our three groups, we identified 22 patients with DHL (GCB), 46 patients with non DEL (GCB), and 16 with DEL. The demographic features and outcomes are mentioned in the table 1 below. The DHL group had more frequent bone marrow (BM) involvement, and the DHL and DEL groups were more frequently age >60 years and high IPI in comparison to the non DEL GCB group. The CR rate, OS and PFS at 1 year were not significantly different between these three groups. Figure 1 highlights the OS (A) and PFS (B) results of each group. Conclusions: (DA) EPOCH-R is highly effective in patients with subsets of patients with high-risk DLBCL and may be able to overcome prognostic factors which have been shown to be adverse with RCHOP therapy. The results of this retrospective study suggest that OS in DHL, DEL and non DEL (GCB) are not statistically different. Hence, intensive chemotherapy with (DA) EPOCH-R could be considered as a frontline treatment option for patients with high risk DLBCL, pending further confirmation in randomized trials. Disclosures Oki: Novartis: Research Funding. Fowler:Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Westin:ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Dynamic and Time-to-Event Analyses Demonstrate Marked Reduction in Transfusion Requirements for Janus Kinase Inhibitor-Naïve Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Momelotinib Compared Head to Head with Ruxolitinib

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1663-1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben A Mesa ◽  
John Catalano ◽  
Francisco Cervantes ◽  
Timothy Devos ◽  
Jason Gotlib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Recurrent Events ◽  
Iron Homeostasis ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Baseline Characteristics

Momelotinib (MMB) is a potent, selective, orally-bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of JAK1, JAK2 and ACVR1 being developed for the treatment of intermediate and high risk myelofibrosis (MF). Systemic inflammation integral to the pathogenesis of MF leads to increased ACVR1 activity which in turn increases secretion of hepcidin, resulting in perturbed iron homeostasis and an iron-restricted anemia (Physiol Rev. 2013;93:1721-41, Am J Hematol. 2014;89:470-9). MMB's inhibition of ACVR1, unique amongst the JAK inhibitor (JAKi) class, leads to a reduction of hepcidin, restoring iron homeostasis and RBC production and alleviating anemia and transfusion dependency (TD). Chronic, progressive anemia is the key hallmark feature of MF; anemia and TD are strongly predictive of reduced survival (Am J Hematol. 2013;88:312-6). MMB is the only clinical stage JAKi to possess potent ACVR1 inhibitory activity, resulting in improvement of anemia in contrast to ruxolitinib (RUX) which results in worsening. The SIMPLIFY-1 (S1) trial, a double-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 study in which 432 patients received randomized treatment with MMB or RUX for 24 weeks was previously reported (JCO. 2017;35:3844-50). In addition to a significant reduction in splenomegaly and improvement in constitutional symptoms, the study demonstrated that patients in the MMB arm achieved nominal-statistical significance for all anemia endpoints tested, including a higher rate of transfusion independence (p<0.001) and lower rates of TD (p=0.019) at Week 24, compared to patients on RUX, consistent with MMB's pro-erythropoietic effect. Overall, a demonstrably decreased transfusion requirement was noted in patients who received MMB vs RUX. Since transfusion burden is of significant concern to clinicians and patients, to better understand the dynamics of RBC transfusions we further examined the S1 data through statistical models utilizing a variety of novel anemia benefit endpoints including time until transfusion and overall intensity of transfusions across time. The proportions of patients with 0 and 4 transfusions were calculated and time-to-event analyses examining time-to-first and time-to-fifth units transfused also conducted. Since transfusions typically comprise 2 units, the fifth unit transfused represents a de facto third transfusion event. The number of units transfused were also considered to be recurrent events and examined with and without patients' baseline characteristics as covariates. Finally, a mixture model, based on a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) distribution fit to the transfusion data, was employed to compare between the treatment groups the proportions of subjects with zero transfusion burden and the mean transfusion rates. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the proportion of patients who did not require any units transfused during the 24 week randomized treatment period were 73% and 46% for MMB and RUX respectively (p<0.0001; Figure 1), while the proportion of patients requiring 4 or fewer units were 83% and 62% (p<0.0001). When examining units transfused as recurrent events, patients receiving MMB possessed a hazard ratio of approximately one-half that for patients on RUX (HR 0.522; p<0.0001) for models both with and without patients' baseline characteristics as covariates. The ZINB covariate model demonstrated that MMB increased the odds of having zero units transfused in the first 24 weeks by a factor of 9.3 (p<0.0001) vs RUX. Taken together, the novel dynamic and time-to-event analysis methods described are relevant and informative additions to standard measures of transfusion burden in patients with MF. The results of these analyses allow more detailed description of MMB's differentiated anemia benefit as compared to RUX in a double-blind study of JAKi-naïve patients. These results when combined with additional data from the SIMPLIFY studies demonstrate that MMB is able to address the three hallmark features of MF, namely anemia, constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly, differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors. The benefit of MMB in reducing transfusion burden will be further evaluated in MOMENTUM, a future Phase 3 study of MMB in MF patients. In addition to assessment of constitutional symptoms, anemia and splenomegaly, MOMENTUM will provide opportunity to further evaluate associations between anemia benefit and patient reported measures of clinical benefit. Disclosures Mesa: Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Galena Biopharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Genotech: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; LaJolla: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria; Baxalta: Consultancy. Catalano:Celgene: Other: Travel support (ASH 2018). Cervantes:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gotlib:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Allakos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deceiphera: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. McLornan:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria. Coart:IDDI: Consultancy, Employment. D'Hollander:IDDI: Consultancy, Employment. Donahue:Sierra Oncology Inc.: Employment. Kowalski:Sierra Oncology Inc.: Employment.

Obinutuzumab or Rituximab Plus CHOP in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results from an Open-Label, Randomized Phase 3 Study (GOYA)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 470-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umberto Vitolo ◽  
Marek Trněný ◽  
David Belada ◽  
Angelo M Carella ◽  
Neil Chua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Rituximab (R) plus CHOP (R-CHOP) is standard-of-care treatment for previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Approximately 35-40% of patients (pts) will relapse following R-CHOP, and outcomes with salvage therapy remain poor. Obinutuzumab (GA101; GAZYVA/GAZYVARO; G) is a glycoengineered, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than R. In the Phase 2 GATHER study (NCT01414855), G plus CHOP (G-CHOP) demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising efficacy in pts with advanced untreated DLBCL. GOYA (NCT01287741) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of G-CHOP with R-CHOP in pts with previously untreated DLBCL. GOYA was sponsored by Roche with scientific support from the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥18 years and had adequate hematologic function, ≥1 bi-dimensionally measurable lesion, an ECOG performance status (PS) of ≤2 and an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of ≥2 (high, high-intermediate or low-intermediate risk). Low-risk pts with an IPI score of 1 (but not due to age alone) or with an IPI score of 0 with bulky disease (one lesion ≥7.5cm) were also eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 8 (21-day) cycles of G (1000mg i.v. on Days [D] 1, 8, and 15, Cycle [C] 1 and D1, C2-8) or R (375mg/m2 i.v. on D1, C1-8) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP (number of cycles preplanned in advance for all pts at each site). Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease. The primary endpoint was investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); for the target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, the 3-year PFS was expected to improve from 60% to 68%. Secondary endpoints included: PFS assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC); overall survival (OS); complete response (CR) and overall response rate (ORR) with or without PET (assessed by INV or IRC according to modified Cheson 2007 criteria); and safety. Results: 1418 pts were randomized to study treatment: 706 to G-CHOP and 712 to R-CHOP. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms: mean age, 62.0 years in both arms; ECOG PS ≥2, 12% vs. 14%; IPI score ≥3, 47% vs. 43%; Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76% in both arms. Cell-of-origin distribution, as assessed by gene-expression profiling (NanoString), was similar in both treatment groups (GCB: 58% [271/471] G-CHOP, 58% [269/462] R-CHOP; ABC: 27% [125/471] G-CHOP, 26% [118/462] R-CHOP; Unclassified: 15.9% [75/471] G-CHOP, 16.2% [75/462] R-CHOP). For the primary endpoint of INV-assessed PFS, there was no significant difference between G-CHOP and R-CHOP (3-year PFS, 69% vs. 66%; stratified HR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76, 1.12; p=0.3868; Table). Secondary endpoints, including PFS by IRC, OS, and end-of-treatment ORR/CR rate (with and without PET), were consistent with the primary endpoint, with no clinically meaningful differences observed between the treatment arms (Table). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of INV-assessed PFS, a stratified HR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.50, 1.01) in favor of G-CHOP over R-CHOP was determined for pts with GCB DLBCL (3-year PFS, 79% vs. 70%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 74% vs. 65%) and serious AEs (43% vs. 38%) were more common in the G-CHOP than in the R-CHOP arm. Grade ≥3 AEs of particular interest that were numerically more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP included neutropenia (57% vs. 48%), infusion-related reactions (45% vs. 32%), infections (54% vs. 44%), and thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 3%). AEs resulting in withdrawal from treatment (12% [84/704] G-CHOP; 9% [60/703] R-CHOP) and AEs with fatal outcome (6% [41/704] G-CHOP; 4% [30/703] R-CHOP) were slightly more common with G-CHOP. The most common AEs leading to death were pneumonia (5 G-CHOP; 6 R-CHOP) and sepsis/septic shock (7 G-CHOP; 3 R-CHOP). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of this study was not met: G-CHOP did not significantly improve INV-assessed PFS compared with R-CHOP in previously untreated pts with DLBCL. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Further investigation of outcomes in subgroups is planned. Disclosures Vitolo: Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures. Trněný:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. Belada:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chua:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Kim:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Millennium: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Helssin: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Burke:Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses; Millenium: Consultancy. Oestergaard:Roche: Employment. Wenger:Genentech: Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Employment. Catalani:Roche: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Sehn:roche/genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; seattle genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Phase 3 Trial of Thymoglobuline for Prevention of Chronic Gvhd in Transplantation from an HLA-Matched Sibling

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Gi June Min ◽  
Byung Sik Cho ◽  
Sung-Soo Park ◽  
Silvia Park ◽  
Seung-Ah Yahng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Acute Leukemia ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Gvhd ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Matched Sibling

Antihuman T-lymphocyte immune globulin (ATG) was shown to lower the incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) from an unrelated donor. The type, dose, and duration of ATG treatment is a matter of ongoing controversy in allo-HSCT. Furthermore, there has been no phase 3 study to explore the role of ATG-thymoglobulin for the prevention of cGVHD in allo-HSCT from matched siblings, whereas results from a recent randomized trial of ATG-Fresenius was reported (NEJM 2016). We performed a prospective, single-center, open-label, randomized trial of ATG-thymoglobulin as a part of the conditioning regimen. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence (CI) of cGVHD at a 2-year evaluation. A total of 126 patients with acute leukemia were planned to be enrolled and assigned randomly at a 1:1 ratio to receive ATG-thymoglobulin (1.25 mg/kg at three and two days before allo-HSCT) or receive no ATG-thymoglobulin stratified according to the refined Disease Risk Index and conditioning intensity. Both groups were well balanced for NCCN risk, disease type, disease status, and MRD status at HSCT. The current study finally enrolled 120 patients with a median of 560 days of follow-up (range 52 - 1257). The CI of cGVHD in the ATG group (n=60) and non-ATG (n=60) group at 2 years after allo-HSCT was 37.2% and 82.7%, respectively (p&lt;0.001). Moderate-to-severe cGVHD occurred in 11.7% of the ATG group and 47.2% of the non-ATG group (p&lt;0.001). In multivariate analysis, non-AGT group, NCCN favorable to intermediate risk, and reduced intensity conditioning remained significant risk factors for the CI of chronic GVHD. There were no significant between-group differences in the CI of infectious complications, acute GVHD, or other allo-HSCT-related adverse events. In contrast, the ATG group had a significantly increased CI of relapse (CIR) compared with the non-ATG-group (28.8% vs 11.7%, p=0.010), which remained significant in the multivariate analysis. Disease-free survival, overall survival, and GVHD and relapse free survival were similar between the ATG and non-ATG groups. In conclusion, the current study revealed that the use of ATG-thymoglobulin, even at a relatively low dose (2.5 mg/kg), decreases the occurrence of cGVHD at a cost of an increased risk for relapse in the setting of allo-HSCT from matched sibling donors for acute leukemia. The optimal dose, timing, and duration of ATG-thymoglobulin should be investigated further. Disclosures Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma.: Research Funding; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AML Global Portal: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hanmi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BL&H: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Yuhan: Consultancy, Honoraria; SL VaxiGen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Sanofi-Genzyme: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals A Phase 1/2 Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Ponatinib with Chemotherapy in Pediatric Patients with Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 47-47
Author(s):  
Yousif Matloub ◽  
Lia Gore ◽  
Mignon L. Loh ◽  
Chin-Hon Pui ◽  
Michael J. Hanley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Marketing Approval ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Introduction: Ph+ ALL accounts for 3-5% of pediatric ALL and is associated with improved outcomes when tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are added to chemotherapy, with 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of 58-60% and 70-86%, respectively. Ponatinib is a potent third-generation TKI pan-BCR-ABL1 inhibitor that is active against BCR-ABL1 and all identified single resistance mutations, including the gatekeeper alteration, T315I, which confers resistance to other TKIs. Ponatinib has marketing approval in more than 50 countries, which includes the United States and European Union, for adults with chronic-/accelerated-/blast-phase chronic myeloid leukemia or Ph+ ALL that are resistant/intolerant to other TKIs or are T315I+. Ponatinib may also overcome drug resistance in pediatric patients with relapsed or resistant Ph+ ALL. This study will assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of ponatinib in pediatric patients. Methods: This Phase 1/2, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study (NCT04501614) will enroll approximately 18 patients in Phase 1 and 68 patients in Phase 2, including those enrolled in Phase 1 at the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Patients (aged ≥1 year to ≤21 years) with Ph+ ALL, Ph+ mixed phenotype acute leukemia, or Ph-like ALL (US only) with ABL class lesions will be enrolled. Enrolled patients must have either relapsed or are resistant or intolerant to ≥1 prior therapy with a BCR-ABL1-targeted TKI or have a BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation. Patients &gt;16 years must have a Karnofsky performance status ≥50%; patients ≤16 years must have a Lansky Play Scale ≥50%. During Phase 1, prior to availability of an age-appropriate formulation (AAF), patients must weigh ≥30 kg and be able to swallow tablets. The Phase 1 study will establish the RP2D of ponatinib in combination with the chemotherapy backbone using the adult tablet formulation in patients able to swallow tablets. Patients will receive fixed doses of ponatinib based on body weight ranges. The initially selected doses are expected to achieve systemic exposures that approximately match adult exposures after a 30-mg dose. Dose selection for the AAF will be in a separate cohort and informed by the results of a relative bioavailability study in healthy adult volunteers. A rolling 6 design will be used for both cohorts; additional cohorts may be enrolled at lower or higher doses based on the emerging data. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2, patients will receive two 35-day blocks of therapy (reinduction and consolidation). Each block includes 29 days of study treatment consisting of daily ponatinib and a modified United Kingdom ALL R3 chemotherapy backbone regimen, followed by a rest period of at least 6 days with daily ponatinib only. Disease assessment will occur at the end of each block. Patients will undergo an end-of-treatment visit 25 to 30 days after the last dose of study treatment in the consolidation block, or earlier if the patient is proceeding to alternate therapy or optional ponatinib continuation therapy. For the Phase 1 study, the primary endpoint is the RP2D of ponatinib (tablet and AAF) in combination with chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints are complete response (CR) rate at the end of the reinduction block and characterization of BCR-ABL1 domain mutations prior to and following ponatinib treatment. For the Phase 2 study, the primary endpoint is the CR rate at the end of the reinduction block. Secondary endpoints will be summarized descriptively, and include the proportion of patients in continued CR or who achieve CR at the end of consolidation, the proportion with minimal residual disease-negative status &lt;0.01% at the end of each block, and the proportion who relapsed or progressed, and time-to-event estimates including EFS, progression-free survival, and OS. The study will include approximately 70 study sites in approximately 16 countries. Disclosures Matloub: Takeda: Current Employment. Gore:Amgen, Novartis, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Loh:Medisix Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Other: Institutional Research Funding. Pui:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hanley:Takeda: Current Employment. Lu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Leonard:Takeda: Current Employment. Granier:Incyte: Current Employment. Silverman:Servier: Other: advisory board; Syndax: Other: advisory board; Takeda: Other: advisory board. OffLabel Disclosure: Ponatinib has marketing approval in the United States and European Union for adult patients with chronic-/accelerated-/blast-phase chronic myeloid leukemia or Ph+ ALL that are resistant/intolerant to other TKIs or are T315I+. This trials-in-progress abstract describes a study in pediatric patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document