Influence of Karyotype On Overall Survival in Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treated with Azacitidine or a Conventional Care Regimen.

Abstract Abstract 1755 Poster Board I-781 Background Karyotypic abnormalities are common in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and specific chromosomal abnormalities are associated with poor prognosis. The phase III AZA-001 study (Lancet Oncol, 2009) showed azacitidine (AZA) prolonged overall survival (OS) regardless of IPSS cytogenetic risk category. This analysis assessed the effects of specific cytogenetic abnormalities on OS in patient (pt) subgroups treated with AZA or a conventional care regimen (CCR). Methods Pts with higher-risk MDS (FAB RAEB, RAEB-t, or CMML and IPSS Int-2 or High) were enrolled and randomized to receive AZA or CCR. CCR comprised 3 treatments: best supportive care only, low-dose ara-C, or induction chemotherapy. Erythropoietins were prohibited. OS was determined in subgroups of pts with del 5/5q-, del 7/7q-, or trisomy 8, each as part of a non-complex karyotype (<3 cytogenetic abnormalities) or as part of a complex karyotype (≥3 cytogenetic abnormalities). OS was also analyzed in pts with combinations of del 5/5q- and/or del 7/7q- as part of non-complex or complex karyotypes (Table). Pt karyotype was determined at baseline. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results A total of 358 pts were enrolled (AZA 179, CCR 179). Of them, 153 had normal karyotypes (AZA 77, CCR 76). Median OS in pts with normal karyotypes was not reached at 21.1 months with AZA vs 17.2 months (95%CI: 15.2 – 24.1 months) with CCR; HR = 0.63 (95%CI: 0.39 – 1.03). Of remaining pts, 136 had del 5/5q-, del 7/7q-, and/or trisomy 8 as part of a non-complex or complex karyotype. AZA was associated with longer OS vs CCR in all subgroups of pts with non-complex cytogenetics, with HRs ranging from 0.20 (95%CI: 0.06 – 0.65) to 0.51 (95%CI: 0.05 – 4.74) (Table). In both the AZA and CCR treatment groups, pts in all subgroups with non-complex karyotypes had substantially longer OS than pts with complex karyotypes. Pts with complex karyotypes in some subgroups had longer OS with AZA vs CCR: median OS in pts with del 5/5q-, del 5/5q- WITHOUT del 7/7q-, or trisomy 8 as part of a complex karyotype treated with AZA survived 5.1, 8.0, and 12.4 months longer, respectively, than their counterparts who received CCR. HRs with AZA vs CCR in pts with complex cytogenetics ranged from 0.42 (95%CI: 0.10 – 1.69) to 0.55 (95%CI: 0.29 – 1.05). Conclusions These findings support earlier data showing effectiveness of AZA in higher-risk MDS pts with complex or non-complex karyotypes. Major gains in OS were obtained with AZA vs CCR (12-18 months longer OS with AZA) for the following categories: del 7/7q- (non-complex), del 7/7q- WITHOUT del 5/5q- (non-complex), and trisomy 8 (non-complex and complex). Pts with trisomy 8 treated with AZA experienced a 3-fold increase in median OS compared with similar pts who received CCR. Longer OS (AZA 15.3 vs CCR 7.3 months) was also obtained for pts with del5/5q- WITHOUT del7/7q- as part of a complex karyotype. The worse cytogenetic categories, del 7/7q- and del 5/5q- AND del 7/7q-, both with complex karyotype, were associated with the poorest OS regardless of treatment. Pt subgroups in this post hoc analysis were small and heterogeneous; confirmation of these findings in larger pt samples is warranted. Disclosures Mufti: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Epicept: Honoraria, Research Funding. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hellstrom-Lindberg:Celgene: Research Funding. Seymour:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Beach:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Backstrom:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fernando:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Azacitidine (AZA) Prolongs Overall Survival in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) with Poor Prognostic Karyotypes Compared with Conventional Care Regimens (CCR)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1638.1638 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1638-1638 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Hartmut Döhner ◽

Paresh Vyas ◽

John F. Seymour ◽

Valeria Santini ◽

Richard M. Stone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Complex Karyotype ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cytogenetic Abnormalities ◽

Poor Risk ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Karyotype is the strongest independent prognostic factor for survival in AML. The randomized phase 3 AZA-AML-001 study of older patients with AML showed AZA prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with CCR (10.4 vs 6.5 months, respectively; P=0.101) (Dombret et al, Blood, 2015). In a prospective subanalysis of the study, AZA was shown to meaningfully prolong OS by 3.2 months compared with CCR (P=0.0185) in the subgroup of patients with NCCN-defined poor-risk cytogenetics (Döhner et al, Blood, 2014: Abstract 621). Aim: This analysis evaluates treatment effects of AZA vs CCR on OS in subgroups of patients with specific cytogenetic abnormalities as well as in patient subgroups defined by cytogenetic risk per modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations (not considering molecular markers) (Döhner et al, Blood, 2010). Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with newly diagnosed AML (>30% bone marrow [BM] blasts), ECOG performance status score ≤2, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics per NCCN 2009 criteria, and WBC count ≤15x109/L were randomized to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x7d/28d) or CCR: intensive chemotherapy (cytarabine 100-200mg/m2IV x7d + anthracycline IV x3d induction), low-dose ara-C (20mg SC BID x10d/28d), or best supportive care only. Karyotypes obtained from BM were reviewed centrally by an independent cytogeneticist. OS was evaluated in subgroups of patients with frequent specific abnormalities, including -5/del(5q), -7, -7/del(7q), abnormal (17p) or complex karyotype (based on specific abnormalities, patients may have been evaluated in more than one category). OS was also assessed for patients in ELN-defined karyotype risk subgroups: Intermediate (Int)-I (normal karyotype), Int-II (all abnormalities not classified as Favorable or Adverse), and Adverse karyotype. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using a weighted log-rank test. Results: Centrally reviewed cytogenetic data were available for 485/488 patients (99.4%). In all, 220 patients (45.4%; AZA n=114, CCR n=106) had Int-I karyotype, 111 patients (22.9%; AZA n=53, CCR n=58) had Int-II karyotype, and 154 patients (31.8%, AZA n=73, CCR n=81) had Adverse karyotype (Figure 1). OS was comparable between AZA and CCR in patients with Int-I karyotype (14.1 vs 10.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95%CI 0.60, 1.1; P=0.44) and patients with Int-II karyotype (8.9 vs 9.6 months; HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.79, 1.8; P=0.78). There was a significant 2.4-month median OS difference in favor of AZA in patients with Adverse karyotype (5.3 vs 2.9 months with CCR; HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51, 0.99; P=0.046; Figure 2), with 1-year survival rates of 29.1% vs 14.7% for AZA and CCR, respectively. AZA was associated with longer median OS and higher 1-year survival compared with CCR for all subgroups of patients with the specific cytogenetic abnormalities under study: -5/del(5q), -7, -7/del(7q), abnormal (17p), and complex karyotype, with HRs ranging from 0.54 to 0.69(Table). Median OS in the CCR arm was less than 3 months for each of these subgroups. Similar to what has been reported in MDS (Ravandi et al, Cancer, 2009), AML patients with chromosome 7 abnormalities responded particularly well to AZA, with an improvement in median OS of 4.1 months over CCR. Patients with complex karyotypes also had meaningful improvements in OS, with ~15% more AZA-treated patients alive at 1 year than CCR patients. Conclusions: Prognosis is dismal for older AML patients with adverse karyotypes, and is especially poor for patients with complex karyotypes. Median OS and 1-year survival in patients with ELN-defined Adverse karyotype treated with AZA were almost double those of patients treated with CCR. AZA-treated patients with the specific cytogenetic abnormalities and/or complex karyotype in this analysis had a 31-46% reduction in risk of death vs CCR, and proportions of patients alive at 1 year were 11-22% greater with AZA. These data suggest AZA should be the preferred treatment for older patients with AML and adverse karyotypes. Disclosures Seymour: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Santini:Astex: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Celator: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Al-Ali:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Morrill:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Songer:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Final Analysis of Overall Survival from the Phase 3 Panorama 1 Trial of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Placebo Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3026.3026 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3026-3026 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jesús F. San-Miguel ◽

Vania T.M. Hungria ◽

Sung-Soo Yoon ◽

Meral Beksac ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Study Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Panobinostat is a potent pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that targets key aberrations in multiple myeloma (MM) cell biology, including epigenetics and protein metabolism. In the phase 3 clinical trial PANORAMA 1, panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PAN-BTZ-Dex) led to a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in progression-free survival of approximately 4 months compared with that with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Pbo-BTZ-Dex). Further analyses of patient outcomes by prior treatment demonstrated that the magnitude of PFS benefit was greatest among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD; PAN-BTZ-Dex [n = 73]: 12.5 months [95% CI, 7.3-14.0 months]; Pbo-BTZ-Dex [n = 74]: 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.1 mo; HR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.72]). These data supported the regulatory approvals of PAN-BTZ-Dex for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Here we present the final analysis of overall survival (OS) for the entire patient population and among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Methods: The study design for the PANORAMA 1 trial was described previously (San-Miguel. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195-206). The key secondary endpoint was OS. As of June 29, 2015, the 415 events required to conduct the final analysis of OS had been observed. Kaplan-Meier estimation was utilized for OS analyses for the entire population (N = 768), the pre-specified subgroup of patients who received prior bortezomib and IMiD (n = 193), and patients who received at least 2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (n = 147). Results: The median OS of patients who received PAN-BTZ-Dex in the overall population was 40.3 months (95% CI, 35.0-44.8 months) vs 35.8 months (95% CI, 29.0-40.6 months) for the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm with HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78-1.14], P = .5435 (Fig 1A). The percentage of patients in each arm who received post-study therapy was 37.7% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 48.8% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. The median OS of patients who received at least 2 prior lines, including bortezomib and an IMiD, was 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-34.3 months) in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm vs 19.5 months (95% CI, 14.1-32.5 months) in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm (Fig. 1B). The proportion of patients in this subgroup who received post-study therapy was 35.6% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 66.2% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. Conclusion: For the overall PANORAMA 1 study population, patients in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm demonstrated an increase in median OS of 4.5 months vs patients in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm, but this result was not statistically significant (P = .5435). Median OS was also slightly longer for the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm among the more heavily pretreated subgroup of patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. A higher percentage of patients on the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm received post-study therapy vs the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm, which may have confounded the OS results. In summary, PAN-BTZ-Dex demonstrates statistically significant increases in PFS vs Pbo-BTZ-Dex in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM; however, this did not translate to a statistically significant increase in OS. Future trials will plan to focus on further optimization of dose and schedule of panobinostat and bortezomib to improve outcome, as well as novel combinations with other agents, including IMiDs and next-generation proteasome inhibitors. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Beksac: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, 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; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Jedrzejczak:Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siritanaratkul:Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Hou:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sopala:Novartis Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bengoudifa:Novartis: Employment. Corrado:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Impact of Gene Mutations on Overall Survival in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated with Azacitidine (AZA) or Conventional Care Regimens (CCR)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2859.2859 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2859-2859 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Lin Tang ◽

Anna Dolnik ◽

Kyle J. MacBeth ◽

Hervé Dombret ◽

John F. Seymour ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dna Methylation ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Gene Mutations ◽

Molecular Heterogeneity ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: AML is characterized by molecular heterogeneity and specific mutations are prognostically important (Papaemmanuil, Gerstung et al, NEJM,2016). Mutational analysis of NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 is included in the 2010 European LeukemiaNet recommendations for AML (Döhner et al, Blood, 2010). Additional recurrently mutated genes have since been identified with potential value for prognosis and prediction of treatment (Tx) response. The phase 3 AZA-AML-001 study showed AZA prolonged median overall survival (OS) vs CCR (10.4 vs 6.5 months [mos]; P=0.101) and improved 1-year survival (46.5% vs 34.2%) in older patients (pts) with AML (Dombret et al, Blood, 2015). Aim: To investigate relationships between gene mutations and OS in the subpopulation of AZA-AML-001 pts with available baseline bone marrow (BM) for molecular analyses ("biomarker" cohort). Methods: Eligible pts were age ≥65 years with newly diagnosed AML (>30% BM blasts), ECOG performance status (PS) score 0-2, WBC count ≤15x109/L, and NCCN-defined intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics. Pts received AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x 7d/28d cycle) or a preselected CCR: intensive chemotherapy (7 + 3 regimen), low-dose ara-C, or best supportive care only. DNA was isolated from BM mononuclear cells and targeted sequencing of 39 genes was performed with Haloplex target enrichment (Agilent) on Illumina HiSeq 2500 using 2x100bp read lengths. FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) mutations were determined by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and internal tandem duplications (ITD) were determined by capillary electrophoresis sizing of PCR amplicons. Target regions varied by gene from all exons to hot-spots. Log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS score (0-1 vs 2) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate vs poor) at baseline, was used to assess OS of pts with mutations (mut) in genes detected in ≥5 pts vs OS in pts with wild-type (wt) genes within the AZA and CCR arms. Median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: The biomarker cohort comprised 156 of all 488 pts in AZA-AML-001 (32%; AZA n=83, CCR n=73). Baseline characteristics and hematologic response rates were well-matched between biomarker and non-biomarker pts. Mutations were detected in 33 of 39 sequenced genes. The most frequently mutated genes were DNMT3A (27%), TET2 (25%), IDH2 (23% [R140 15%, R172 8%]), TP53 (21%), RUNX1 (18%), NPM1 (16%), NRAS (12%), FLT3 (12% [-ITD 10%, -TKD 5%]), ASXL1 (11%), and STAG2 (10%). Stratified log-rank tests showed that median OS was significantly reduced for CCR pts with TP53mut (2.4 vs 12.5 mos with TP53wt; P=0.026) and with NRASmut (4.3 vs 10.3 mos with NRASwt; P=0.020). In the AZA arm, median OS was not significantly different between pts with TP53mutor TP53wt (7.2 vs 12 mos; P=0.40) or between pts with NRASmut or NRASwt (11.8 vs 8.9 mos; P=0.95), but was reduced in pts with FLT3mut (5.4 vs 12.0 mos with FLT3wt; P=0.017). Compared with similar pts treated with CCR, pts with TP53mut and/or NRASmut treated with AZA had nominally better median OS (7.2 vs 2.4 mos for TP53mut; 11.8 vs 4.3 mos for NRASmut), and pts with FLT3mut had nominally worse OS (5.4 vs 6.4 mos) (Table). Median OS was similar for pts with or without mutations in each of the genes known to influence DNA methylation (DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2, and TET2); however, there was a statistical difference in OS within the AZA arm for pts with TET2mut (P=0.005) despite similar median OS for pts with TET2mut vs TET2wt (9.6 vs 9.5 mos) that was not observed within the CCR arm (P=0.45). Median OS for pts with a mutation in any 1 of the DNA methylation genes listed above was similar in the AZA and CCR arms (Table). Conclusion: These exploratory analyses suggest older AML pts with TP53 or NRAS mutations have a better prognosis when treated with AZA than with CCR. Mutations in genes that regulate DNA methylation did not impact median OS with AZA Tx, although the potential negative effects of TET2mut and FLT3mut warrant further evaluation. Prognostic implications of isolated gene mutations can vary due to co-mutations; larger pt cohorts are needed to establish the influence of recurring co-mutational patterns in AZA-treated pts. Disclosures Tang: Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. MacBeth:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Seymour:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celator: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Additional Cytogenetic Abnormalities in Patients (Pts) with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and Deletion 5q from the MDS-003 and MDS-004 Studies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3270.3270 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3270-3270

Author(s):

Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽

Alan F. List ◽

Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg ◽

Ghulam J. Mufti ◽

Brigitte Schlegelberger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clinical Impact ◽

Structural Rearrangements ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cytogenetic Abnormalities ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Rbc Transfusion

Abstract Introduction: Around 50% of pts with de novo MDS present with chromosomal abnormalities at diagnosis. One of the most common cytogenetic abnormalities in MDS, deletion 5q [del(5q)], occurs in ~15% of pts (Haase et al. Blood 2007;110:4385-95). The presence of cytogenetic abnormalities in addition to del(5q) may be associated with shorter overall survival (OS) and increased risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) versus del(5q) alone (Mallo et al. Leukemia 2011;25:110-20). In 2 large multicenter studies (MDS-003 and MDS-004), lenalidomide (LEN) was evaluated in RBC transfusion-dependent pts with IPSS Low/Intermediate (Int)-1-risk MDS and del(5q) (List et al. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1456-65; Fenaux et al. Blood 2011;118:3765-76). This analysis describes the prevalence and clinical impact of the most common cytogenetic abnormalities in pts with del(5q) from MDS-003 and MDS-004. Methods: Of 353 pts enrolled in MDS-003 and MDS-004, 281 pts had available cytogenetic data with ≥ 16 metaphases evaluable, and were included in the analysis. Pts received 10 mg LEN on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle; LEN 5 mg or 10 mg continuously; or placebo. In MDS-004, placebo pts could crossover to LEN 5 mg by Week (Wk) 16. Centrally reviewed cytogenetic studies were performed at baseline, and wks 24 and 48 (MDS-003); or baseline, Wk 24, and every 24 wks thereafter (MDS-004). RBC-transfusion independence (RBC-TI) ≥ 26 wks, cytogenetic response (CyR), AML progression, and OS were assessed by most common cytogenetic abnormalities in LEN-treated pts with del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality. Some pts did not fulfill the IPSS lower-risk classification after central pathologic/cytogenetic evaluation. For this analysis outcomes in the del(5q) plus ≥ 2 additional abnormalities group were not evaluated. Results: Of the 281 pts, 70.8% had isolated del(5q), 19.9% del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality, and 9.3% had del(5q) plus ≥ 2 additional abnormalities. Baseline characteristics including age, time from diagnosis, RBC transfusion burden, hemoglobin level, and platelet and absolute neutrophil counts were comparable across the cytogenetic groups. In pts with del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality at baseline, the most common numerical abnormalities were +8 (17.9%; n = 10), +21 (14.3%; n = 8), and −7 (3.6%; n = 2); the most common balanced structural rearrangements were translocation 2;11 [t(2;11)] (5.4%; n = 3) and isochromosome 21q [i(21q)] (3.6%; n = 2); and the most common unbalanced structural rearrangements were del(11q) (7.1%; n = 4), del(20q) (5.4%; n = 3), del(9q) (3.6%; n = 2), and del(12p) (3.6%; n = 2) (Figure). In the del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality group, baseline characteristics were comparable across pts with +8, +21, or other abnormalities (i.e. excluding those with +21 and +8), with the exception of age (P = 0.023). Rates of RBC-TI ≥ 26 wks and CyR did not significantly differ among LEN-treated pts with +8 (n = 9), +21 (n = 8), or other abnormalities (n = 37). Rates of RBC-TI ≥ 26 wks were 66.7%, 50.0%, and 54.1% (P = 0.839), respectively. In pts evaluable for CyR (n = 40), CyR rates were 42.9%, 42.9%, and 65.4% (P = 0.407), respectively. Median time to AML progression was shorter in LEN-treated pts with +21 (2.6 years [yrs]; 95% CI 1.2–4.8) versus +8 (4.8 yrs; 95% CI 1.6–not estimable) or other abnormalities (7.5 yrs; 95% CI 4.1–7.5) (P = 0.0143). The 5-year AML progression rates were 68.8% (95% CI 26.6–98.7), 85.7% (95% CI 53.5–99.3), and 36.3% (95% CI 19.2–61.3) in pts with +8, +21, or other abnormalities, respectively. Median OS was 4.1 yrs (95% CI 0.9–5.3), 3.0 yrs (95% CI 1.1–4.9), and 3.4 yrs (95% CI 2.6–6.5) (P = 0.423), respectively. Of the 2 pts with −7: 1 pt with Int-1-risk MDS had a 92% to 8% reduction of −7-positive metaphases at Day 84 on treatment, but no RBC-TI ≥ 26 wks, and died at Day 709 without AML; the other Int-2-risk pt progressed to AML on Day 147 with clearance of −7 from 8%, and development of new +8 and del(16q) abnormalities. Conclusions:In MDS pts with del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality from MDS-003 and MDS-004, the most common cytogenetic abnormalities were +8, +21, del(11q), del(20q), and t(2;11), which accounted for 50% of the additional abnormalities at baseline. In the del(5q) plus 1 additional abnormality population, median time to AML progression was shorter in pts with +21 versus either +8 or other abnormalities. Due to small pt numbers, larger prospective analyses are needed to confirm these observations. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Giagounidis: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Hellstrom-Lindberg:Celgene: Research Funding. Mufti:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schlegelberger:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Morrill:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Overall Survival Advantage and Acceptable Safety Profile with Fludarabine In Combination with Alemtuzumab (FluCam) In Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Stage Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.919.919 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 919-919 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Andreas Engert ◽

Liana Gercheva ◽

Galina Pilipenko ◽

Tadeusz Robak ◽

Jingyang Wu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Previously Treated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 919 Background: Patients (pts) with Rai Stage III/IV CLL have a shorter median survival compared to Rai Stage I/II pts. We previously reported significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with FluCam compared to single-agent fludarabine (Flu) in pts with previously treated CLL (Engert ASH 2009; EHA 2010). Here we report the efficacy and safety of FluCam and Flu in a subset of these pts with advanced stage CLL. Methods: In a Phase 3, multi-center, controlled trial, pts with relapsed/refractory CLL were randomized to receive either IV Flu 25 mg/m2 on days 1–5 every 28 days or IV alemtuzumab (Cam) in combination with IV Flu (FluCam). Prior to cycle 1, FluCam pts were required to undergo Cam escalation (3 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg); once the 30 mg dose was tolerated, pts began cyclic administration of Flu 30 mg/m2 IV and Cam 30 mg IV on days 1–3 every 28 days. Pts could receive up to 6 cycles of either therapy depending on response and toxicity. Randomization was accomplished utilizing the minimization method to ensure balance between treatment arms with respect to study center, disease status, prior therapy, Rai Stage, age, gender, and lymph node size. All pts received prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole and famciclovir until CD4+ counts were >200 cells/mcL. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS with FluCam compared to Flu. A pre-specified subgroup analysis in Rai Stage III/IV pts compared PFS, overall response rate (ORR=CR + PR), complete response rate (CR), overall survival (OS) and safety in FluCam vs Flu treated pts. Differences in PFS between the 2 treatment arms were tested using the log-rank test. Results: Of the 335 pts enrolled in this study, 123 (37%) were Rai Stage III or IV (61 FluCam pts, 62 Flu pts). For the overall study population, FluCam significantly prolonged PFS compared with Flu (24.1 months (mos) vs 15.4 mos, respectively; p = 0.002; HR: 0.618; 95% CI 0.46–0.83). Data presented herein focus on the subgroup of CLL pts with Rai Stage III/IV disease. Demographics for this subset of FluCam vs Flu treated pts include: median age (65 yrs [36-80] vs 64 yrs [46-80]); gender (70% male vs 61% male); and prior Flu exposure (10% vs 8%) respectively. Pts received a median of 6 cycles in the FluCam arm and a median of 5 cycles in the Flu arm. FluCam significantly prolonged PFS compared with Flu (24.5 mos vs 11.8 mos, respectively; p < 0.001; HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.29–0.73). Similarly, the ORR (77% vs 56%; p = 0.016) and CR (16% vs 3%; p = 0.014) improved significantly with FluCam compared to Flu. With a median follow-up of 21 mos, pts treated with FluCam had significantly improved median OS compared with those treated with Flu (not reached vs 23.5 mos, respectively, p = 0.005 HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24–0.79), representing a 56% reduction in the risk of death (Figure 1). Treatment-related adverse events (AE) occurred in 97% and 88% of Rai Stage III/IV pts receiving FluCam (n=59) and Flu (n=60) arms, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in the AE profile in pts with Rai Stage III/IV between arms. In the Rai Stage III/IV subgroup, the AEs that occurred ≥10% and more frequently in the FluCam arm relative to the Flu arm included infusion-related events and leukopenia. Reported all-cause grade 3/4 hematologic AEs in the FluCam vs Flu arms were neutropenia (47% vs 48%), leukopenia (29% vs 8%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 20%), and anemia (7% vs 23%), respectively. The total frequency of treatment-emergent infections was 42% in the FluCam arm vs 52% in the Flu arm. No CMV infections were reported in either arm in this subset of pts. All-cause serious AEs (SAE) occurred in 37% and 45% in the FluCam and Flu arms, respectively. The most commonly reported all-cause SAEs in ≥5% of pts in either arm were pyrexia (5% vs 2%), neutropenia (3% vs 5%), febrile neutropenia (2% vs 8%) and anemia (0% vs 8%) for FluCam vs Flu respectively. Deaths occurring on therapy or within 30 days after last dose were 3% on the FluCam arm vs 8% on the Flu arm. Conclusion: Data presented in this subset analysis of Rai Stage III/IV CLL pts demonstrate a survival advantage, longer PFS and improved ORR/CR in pts treated with FluCam compared to Flu. The safety profile of FluCam in pts with advanced stage was acceptable and in most respects, comparable to the Flu alone arm. Overall, FluCam is a compelling treatment option in pts with previously treated advanced CLL. Disclosures: Engert: Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Alemtuzumab (Campath, MabCampath) is indicated for the treatment of CLL. This trial examined the use of alemtuzumab in combination with fludarabine monophospate. Gercheva:Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pilipenko:Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Robak:Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wu:Genzyme: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sirard:Genzyme: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elter:Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Somatic Mutations in MDS Patients Are Associated with Clinical Features and Predict Prognosis Independent of the IPSS-R: Analysis of Combined Datasets from the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS-Molecular Committee

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.907.907 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 907-907 ◽

Cited By ~ 57

Author(s):

Rafael Bejar ◽

Elli Papaemmanuil ◽

Torsten Haferlach ◽

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Jaroslaw P. Maciejewski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Somatic Mutations ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Somatic mutations identified in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are associated with disease features and carry prognostic information independent of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and the revised IPSS (IPSS-R). Risk models that include mutation information have been proposed, but not widely adopted. In practice, there is no consensus on how to best combine clinical information with tumor sequencing data to predict prognosis. To accomplish this, we must define the relevant genes to consider and accurately measure their prognostic impact. Here we examine the relationship between mutations in MDS-associated genes and clinically relevant measures, including overall survival, in a large, multi-center analysis of MDS patient cohorts collected around the globe. Methods Data on 3392 MDS patients gathered by members of the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS-Molecular Committee were combined under the aegis of the MDS Foundation. Patients gave informed consent for collection of their data and tumor samples at their respective institutions in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Samples were examined for somatic mutations primarily by next generation sequencing. Categorical variables were compared using a chi-squared test, while continuous variables were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of the sequenced sample to the date of death and was censored at transplant or the last known follow-up time. P-values are two-sided and considered significant at the <0.001 level to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results Survival data were available for 3200 patients with a median follow up of 3.7 years and included 1671 deaths. Median survival of the cohort was 2.88 years. The 27 genes sequenced in at least half of the cohort and mutated in > 1.5% of samples were included for analysis (Figure 1). Mutations in 12 genes were strongly associated with shorter OS in univariate analyses (p<0.001 for each gene): ASXL1, CBL, EZH2, IDH2, NF1, NRAS, PTPN11, RUNX1, SRSF2, STAG2, TP53, and U2AF1. Only mutations of SF3B1 were associated with a longer OS at this significance threshold. The large size of the cohort allowed for more precise estimates of survival in less frequently mutated genes. For example, mutations of IDH2 (present in 3.4% of cases, n=103) were associated with shorter OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.05; p=0.0001) whereas IDH1 mutations (present in 2.4% of cases, n=77) were only marginal (HR 1.29, CI: 0.97-1.72; p=0.082), demonstrating the distinct impact of mutations in these highly related genes. IPSS-R risk groups could be determined for 2173 patients and were strongly associated with OS. Adjusting the hazard ratio of death for IPSS-R risk groups identified several mutated genes with independent prognostic significance: TP53 (HR 2.37, CI 1.94-2.90), CBL (HR 1.57, CI 1.22-2.03), EZH2 (HR 1.55, CI 1.22-2.03), and RUNX1 (HR 1.50, CI 1.24-1.83). Mutations of U2AF1 (HR 1.29, CI 1.06-1.58) and ASXL1 (HR 1.21, CI 1.04-1.41) retained a more modest association with shorter OS. Adjustment for IPSS-R risk groups also moderated the favorable risk associated with mutations of SF3B1 (HR 0.83, CI 0.70-0.99). Patients without mutations in any of the 6 adverse genes above represented 58% of the fully sequenced cohort and had a longer median survival than patients with adverse mutations (4.8 years vs. 1.6 years respectively, p < 0.0001; Figure 2) even after correction for IPSS-R risk groups (adjusted HR 0.59, CI 0.51-0.67). Multivariable analysis of this dataset will examine the combined contribution of mutated genes to prognosis. A mutation score based on survival risk will be proposed and internally validated. The impact of somatic mutation in patients traditionally considered lower risk will be explored. Conclusions This large study definitively validates the prognostic value of mutations in several MDS-associated genes while clarifying the significance of other, less frequently mutated ones. Mutations in several genes retain their prognostic significance after adjustment for IPSS-R risk groups, indicating that these select abnormalities could refine the prediction of prognosis when incorporated into a clinical scoring system such as the IPSS-RM. The results of this analysis will serve as the template with which to build an integrated molecular risk model for MDS. Disclosures Bejar: Alexion: Other: ad hoc advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genoptix Medical Laboratory: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: MDS prognostic gene signature. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sekeres:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kern:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shih:Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Speakers Bureau. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santini:celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Onconova: Honoraria, Research Funding. Campbell:14M genomics: Other: Co-founder and consultant. Ebert:Celgene: Consultancy; Genoptix: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties; H3 Biomedicine: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Rapid and Robust Mobilization of CD34+ HSCs without G-CSF Following Administration of Mgta-145 Alone or in Combination with Plerixafor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127523 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1961-1961

Author(s):

John F. DiPersio ◽

Jonathan Hoggatt ◽

Steven Devine ◽

Lukasz Biernat ◽

Haley Howell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fold Change ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard of care for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). G-CSF requires 4-7 days of injections and often multiple aphereses to acquire sufficient CD34+ cells for transplant. The number of CD34+ HSCs mobilized can be variable and patients who fail to mobilize enough CD34+ cells are treated with the combination of G-CSF plus plerixafor. G-CSF use is associated with bone pain, nausea, headaches, fatigue, rare episodes of splenic rupture, and is contraindicated for patients with autoimmune and sickle cell disease. MGTA-145 (GroβT) is a CXCR2 agonist. MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 inhibitor, has the potential to rapidly and reliably mobilize robust numbers of HSCs with a single dose and same-day apheresis for transplant that is free from G-CSF. MGTA-145 plus plerixafor work synergistically to rapidly mobilize HSCs in both mice and non-human primates (Hoggatt, Cell 2018; Goncalves, Blood 2018). Based on these data, Magenta initiated a Phase 1 dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety, PK and PD of MGTA-145 as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor. Methods This study consists of four parts. In Part A, healthy volunteers were dosed with MGTA-145 (0.0075 - 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. In Part B, MGTA-145 dose levels from Part A were selected for use in combination with a clinically approved dose of plerixafor. In Part C, a single dose MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered on day 1 and day 2. In Part D, MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered followed by apheresis. Results MGTA-145 monotherapy was well tolerated in all subjects dosed (Table 1) with no significant adverse events. Some subjects experienced mild (Grade 1) transient lower back pain that dissipated within minutes. In the ongoing study, the combination of MGTA-145 with plerixafor was well tolerated, with some donors experiencing Grade 1 and 2 gastrointestinal adverse events commonly observed with plerixafor alone. Pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure and maximum plasma concentrations increased dose proportionally and were not affected by plerixafor (Fig 1A). Monotherapy of MGTA-145 resulted in an immediate increase in neutrophils (Fig 1B) and release of plasma MMP-9 (Fig 1C). Neutrophil mobilization plateaued within 1-hour post MGTA-145 at doses greater than 0.03 mg/kg. This plateau was followed by a rebound of neutrophil mobilization which correlated with re-expression of CXCR2 and presence of MGTA-145 at pharmacologically active levels. Markers of neutrophil activation were relatively unchanged (<2-fold vs baseline). A rapid and statistically significant increase in CD34+ cells occurred @ 0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg of MGTA-145 (p < 0.01) relative to placebo with peak mobilization (Fig 1D) 30 minutes post MGTA-145 (7-fold above baseline @ 0.03 mg/kg). To date, the combination of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor mobilized >20/µl CD34s in 92% (11/12) subjects compared to 50% (2/4) subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Preliminary data show that there was a significant increase in fold change relative to baseline in CD34+ cells (27x vs 13x) and phenotypic CD34+CD90+CD45RA- HSCs (38x vs 22x) mobilized by MGTA-145 with plerixafor. Mobilized CD34+ cells were detectable at 15 minutes with peak mobilization shifted 2 - 4 hours earlier for the combination vs plerixafor alone (4 - 6h vs 8 - 12h). Detailed results of single dose administration of MGTA-145 and plerixafor given on one day as well as also on two sequential days will be presented along with fully characterized graft analysis post apheresis from subjects given MGTA-145 and plerixafor. Conclusions MGTA-145 is safe and well tolerated, as a monotherapy and in combination with plerixafor and induced rapid and robust mobilization of significant numbers of HSCs with a single dose in all subjects to date. Kinetics of CD34+ cell mobilization for the combination was immediate (4x increase vs no change for plerixafor alone @ 15 min) suggesting the mechanism of action of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor is different from plerixafor alone. Preliminary data demonstrate that MGTA-145 when combined with plerixafor results in a significant increase in CD34+ fold change relative to plerixafor alone. Magenta Therapeutics intends to develop MGTA-145 as a first line mobilization product for blood cancers, autoimmune and genetic diseases and plans a Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020. Disclosures DiPersio: Magenta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Cellworks Group, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; RiverVest Venture Partners Arch Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; WUGEN: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioline Rx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hoggatt:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Biernat:Medpace, Inc.: Employment. Howell:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmelmer:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neale:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boitano:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Cooke:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Goncalves:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Raffel:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Falahee:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Morrow:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Davis:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126205 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3129-3129

Author(s):

Hans C. Lee ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Robert M. Rifkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Causes Of Death ◽

Age Groups ◽

Treatment Patterns ◽

Age Group ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is common among the elderly, with 35% of patients (pts) diagnosed being aged ≥75 years (y). With increasing overall life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM patients ≥80 y is expected to increase over time. Because elderly pts are often excluded from clinical trials, data focused on their treatment patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) designed to examine real-world diagnostic patterns, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life patient-reported outcomes. This analysis reviews treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly pts from the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts enrolled in the Connect MM registry at 250 community, academic, and government sites were included in this analysis. Eligible pts were adults aged ≥18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤2 months before enrollment, as defined by International Myeloma Working Group criteria; no exclusion criteria were applied. For this analysis, pts were categorized into 4 age groups: <65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 y. Pts were followed from time of enrollment to the earliest of disease progression (or death), loss to follow-up, or data cutoff date of February 7, 2019. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression. Time to progression (TTP) analysis excluded causes of death not related to MM. Results: Of 3011 pts enrolled (median age 67 y), 132 (4%) were aged ≥85 y, and 615 (20%) were aged 75-84 y at baseline. More pts aged ≥85 y had poor prognostic factors such as ISS stage III disease and reduced hemoglobin (<10 g/dL or >2 g/dL <LLN) compared with other age groups, although no notable differences between creatinine and calcium levels were observed across age groups (Table). A lower proportion of elderly pts (75-84 and ≥85 y) received triplet regimens as frontline therapy. More elderly pts received a single novel agent, whereas use of 2 novel agents was more common in younger pts (Table). The most common frontline regimens among elderly pts were bortezomib (V) + dexamethasone (D), followed by lenalidomide (R) + D, whereas those among younger pts included RVD, followed by VD and CyBorD (Table). No pt aged ≥85 y, and 4% of pts aged 75-84 y received high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (vs 61% in the <65 y and 37% in the 65-74 y age group). The most common maintenance therapy was RD in pts ≥85 y (although the use was low) and R alone in other age groups (Table). In the ≥85 y group, 27%, 10%, and 4% of pts entered 2L, 3L, and 4L treatments respectively, vs 43%, 23%, and 13% in the <65 y group. Progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y age group vs the 75-84 y age group (P=0.003), 65-74 y age group (P<0.001), and <65 y age group (P<0.001; Fig.1). TTP was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the <65 y group (P=0.020); however, TTP was similar among the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts (Fig. 2). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the 75-84 y, 65-74 y, and <65 y groups (all P<0.001; Fig. 3). The mortality rate was lowest (46%) during first-line treatment (1L) in pts aged ≥85 y (mainly attributed to MM progression) and increased in 2L and 3L (47% and 54%, respectively); a similar trend was observed in the younger age groups. The main cause of death was MM progression (29% in the ≥85 y vs 16% in the <65 y group). Other notable causes of death in the ≥85 y group included cardiac failure (5% vs 2% in <65 y group) and pneumonia (5% vs 1% in <65 y group). Conclusions: In this analysis, elderly pts received similar types of frontline and maintenance regimens as younger pts, although proportions varied with decreased use of triplet regimens with age. Considering similarities in TTP across the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts, these real-world data support active treatment and aggressive supportive care of elderly symptomatic pts, including with novel agents. Additionally, further clinical studies specific to elderly patients with MM should be explored. Disclosures Lee: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline plc: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Jagannath:AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Celgene: Honoraria; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Cancer Society: Other: Section editor, Cancer journal. Omel:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Other: Patient Advisory Committees. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:TechData: Consultancy. Dhalla:Celgene: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Impact of Modified Thalidomide Dosing in Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Dexamethasone for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Who Are Transplant-Eligible: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122775 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4739-4739

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽

Adrián Alegre ◽

Thierry Facon ◽

Cyrille Hulin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Indirect Comparison ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Post Transplant ◽

Post Induction ◽

Adjusted Indirect Comparison ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are transplant-eligible, bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTd) is a standard of care (SoC) for induction and consolidation therapy. Clinical practice has evolved to use a modified VTd dose (VTd-mod; 100 mg thalidomide daily), which is reflected in recent treatment guidelines. As VTd-mod has become a real-world SoC, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the VTd-mod dose from recent clinical trials versus the dose included in the label (VTd-label; ramp up to 200 mg thalidomide daily) was performed to understand the effect on efficacy of modified VTd dosing for patients with NDMM who are transplant-eligible. Methods: For each outcome (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], overall response rates [ORR] post-induction and post-transplant, and rate of peripheral neuropathy), a naïve comparison and a MAIC were performed. Data for VTd-label were obtained from the phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study (Rosiñol L, et al. Blood. 2012;120[8]:1589-1596). Data for VTd-mod were pooled from the phase 3 CASSIOPEIA study (Moreau P, et al. Lancet. 2019;394[10192]:29-38) and the phase 2 NCT00531453 study (Ludwig H, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31[2]:247-255). Patient-level data for PETHEMA/GEM and CASSIOPEIA were used to generate outcomes of interest and were validated against their respective clinical study reports; aggregate data for NCT00531453 were extracted from the primary publication. Matched baseline characteristics were age, sex, ECOG performance status, myeloma type, International Staging System (ISS) stage, baseline creatinine clearance, hemoglobin level, and platelet count. Results: Patients received VTd-mod (n = 591) or VTd-label (n = 130). After matching, baseline characteristics were similar across groups. For OS, the naïve comparison and the MAIC showed that VTd-mod was non-inferior to VTd-label (MAIC HR, 0.640 [95% CI: 0.363-1.129], P = 0.121; Figure 1A). VTd-mod significantly improved PFS versus VTd-label in the naïve comparison and MAIC (MAIC HR, 0.672 [95% CI: 0.467-0.966], P = 0.031; Figure 1B). Post-induction ORR was non-inferior for VTd-mod versus VTd-label (MAIC odds ratio, 1.781 [95% CI: 1.004-3.16], P = 0.065). Post-transplant, VTd-mod demonstrated superior ORR in both the naïve comparison and MAIC (MAIC odds ratio, 2.661 [95% CI: 1.579-4.484], P = 0.001). For rates of grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy, the naïve comparison and MAIC both demonstrated that VTd-mod was non-inferior to VTd-label (MAIC rate difference, 2.4 [⁻1.7-6.49], P = 0.409). Conclusions: As naïve, indirect comparisons are prone to bias due to patient heterogeneity between studies, a MAIC can provide useful insights for clinicians and reimbursement decision-makers regarding the relative efficacy and safety of different treatments. In this MAIC, non-inferiority of VTd-mod versus VTd-label was demonstrated for OS, post-induction ORR, and peripheral neuropathy. This analysis also showed that VTd-mod significantly improved PFS and ORR post-transplant compared with VTd-label for patients with NDMM who are transplant-eligible. A limitation of this analysis is that unreported or unobserved confounding factors could not be adjusted for. Disclosures Sonneveld: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mateos:Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Adaptive: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biotech Inc, Mundipharma EDO, PharmaMar, Roche Laboratories Inc, Takeda Oncology: Other: Advisory Committee; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, Abbvie, EDO, Pharmar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Takeda Oncology.: Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc: Other: Data and Monitoring Committee. Alegre:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hulin:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Hashim:Ingress-Health: Employment. Vincken:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kampfenkel:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cote:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase I Trial of Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibition with INCB039110 in Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease (aGVHD)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.390.390 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 390-390 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Mark A. Schroeder ◽

H. Jean Khoury ◽

Madan Jagasia ◽

Haris Ali ◽

Gary J. Schiller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Janus Kinase ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Daily Dose ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Steroid Refractory

Abstract Background: Corticosteroids are considered standard first-line systemic therapy for patients with aGVHD, but this approach is effective in only approximately half of all cases. For patients who progress or do not respond to corticosteroids, no specific agent has been identified as standard, and regimens are typically selected based on investigator experience and patient co-morbidities. In preclinical models, JAK inhibition has been shown to impair production of cytokines as well as the differentiation and trafficking of T cells implicated in the pathogenesis of aGVHD. Retrospective studies have suggested that JAK1/JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib treatment provides clinical benefit in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD (Zeiser et al, Leukemia 2015;29:2062-2068). Herein, we report preliminary safety results from a prospective randomized, parallel-cohort, open-label phase 1 trial evaluating the potent and selective JAK 1 inhibitor INCB039110 in patients with aGVHD. Methods: Male or female patients 18 years or older who underwent their first allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from any donor source and developed grades IIB-IVD aGVHD were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a 200 or 300 mg oral daily dose of INCB039110 in combination with corticosteroids, and were stratified based on prior treatment status (treatment-naive [TN] versus steroid-refractory [SR]). The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints included overall response rate at Days 14, 28, 56, and 100, non-relapse mortality, and pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluations. Patients were assessed through Day 28 for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and response. A Bayesian approach was used for continuous monitoring of DLTs from Days 1-28. Treatment continued until GVHD progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Acute GVHD was graded according to MN-CIBMTR criteria; adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCICTCAE v 4.03. Results: Between January and June 2016, 31 patients (TN, n=14; SR, n= 17) were randomized. As of July 25, 2016, data were available from 30 patients who received an oral daily dose of 200 mg (n=14) or 300 mg (n=16) INCB039110 in combination with 2 mg/kg methylprednisolone (or equivalent dose of prednisone). The median durations of treatment were 60.8 days and 56.5 days for patients receiving a daily dose of 200 mg and 300 mg INCB039110, respectively. One DLT of Grade 3 thrombocytopenia was reported. The most frequently reported AEs included thrombocytopenia/platelet count decrease (26.7%), diarrhea (23.3%), peripheral edema (20%), fatigue (16.7%), and hyperglycemia (16.7%). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 77% of patients and with similar frequency across dose groups and included cytomegalovirus infections (n=3), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n=3), and sepsis (n=3). Five patients had AEs leading to a fatal outcome, including multi-organ failure (n=2), sepsis (n=1), disease progression (n=1), and bibasilar atelectasis, cardiopulmonary arrest, and respiratory distress (n=1); none of the fatal events was attributed to INCB039110. Efficacy and PK evaluations are ongoing and will be updated at the time of presentation. Conclusion: The oral, selective JAK1 inhibitor INCB039110 can be given safely to steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD patients. The safety profile was generally consistent in both dose groups. Biomarker evaluation, PK, and cellular phenotyping studies are ongoing. The recommended phase 2 dose will be selected and reported based on PK studies and final safety data. Disclosures Schroeder: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Khoury:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Arbushites:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Delaite:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yan:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rhein:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Perales:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. DiPersio:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

Download Full-text