3G8 and GMA161, Anti FcγRIII Inhibitory Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Chronic Refractory ITP. (Summary of 2 Pilot Studies).

Abstract Abstract 2404 Poster Board II-381 Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is mediated by anti-platelet antibodies causing accelerated destruction and impaired production of platelets (PLTs). The clearance of IgG- coated PLTs is by Fcγ receptor- bearing macrophages in the spleen and liver. Patients (pts) with ITP, who despite splenectomy maintain low PLT counts, exhibit significant morbidity and mortality. For these pts inhibition of the mononuclear phagocytic system was targeted as a therapeutic modality. The clinical and immunological results of 15 pts treated with mouse and humanized versions of anti FcγRIII (anti-CD16) inhibitory monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), 3G8 and GMA161, are reported here. Pts were adults with chronic refractory ITP. Baseline PLT counts were <20K/ul and <30K/ul for pts treated with 3G8 and GMA16 respectively, and all had significant bleeding histories. All pts had limited or no response to splenectomy, steroids, IVIG and multiple other treatments. 3G8, a mouse mAb was infused at an initial dose of 25mg (0.25–0.5mg/kg). Subsequent infusions of 50mg on day 3-4 and 75mg on day 6-7 were administered if no response was seen. Two pts treated with Fab fragment of 3G8 with no response received a single infusion of 25mg of intact 3G8 on day 7-8. GMA161 is a humanized version of 3G8 which also has the Fc piece denuded of carbohydrates. In the 1st 4 pts, it was infused once at 0.1mg/kg. Response was defined as a PLT increase >20K. 6/11 (55%) pts treated with 25mg of 3G8 responded. The mean peak PLT increase was 93K for all 11 pts and 160K for the 6 responders (median PLT increases were 32 and 147, respectively). The peak PLT count was seen on day 3 and was significantly above baseline on days 1-6 in responders and remained above baseline for a median of 14 days following the initial treatment. Three responders were treated again. 2/3 pts had high HAMA titers and failed to respond. Two pts (a responder and a non-responder) were treated again 4 years later, after their HAMA titer had decreased to almost baseline. Both had short-lived PLT responses >30K after re-challenge. Two pts remained stable for more than 3 years; one after receiving a 2nd infusion 4 years following the first, and the second after 3 infusions of 3G8 at 3-month intervals. There was marked transient neutropenia and decrease in NK cells activity following infusion in all pts. Pts developed significant fever-chill-vomiting reactions. Prevention required a cocktail of methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, acetaminophen and metaclopramide. One patient who suffered from significant pre-existing pulmonary disease including heart failure, bronchopneumonia and (silent) lung cancer, developed ARDS at the time of the second 3G8 infusion and unfortunately died the following day. Another patient developed GI bleeding following a methylprednisolone infusion. No abnormalities in liver, renal function tests or coagulation studies were detected. 2/4 pts treated with GMA161 responded with peak PLT counts of 108K/ul and 45K/ul. The responses to GMA161 were short-lived, lasting between 7 and 10 days. A dramatic, transient decrease in the WBC was seen with GMA161 as with 3G8. The first patient had marked chills, fever, and vomiting 2 hours after infusion which resolved with methylprednisolone. The second patient had mild-moderate nausea. The third and fourth patients received acetaminophen, diphenhydramine and ondansetron premedication and had no adverse events. Six additional patients were treated; their data is being analyzed. FcγRIII is the primary receptor implicated in the destruction of immune complexes. 3G8 an anti FcγRIII blocking antibody resulted in dramatic but transient responses in approximately 50% of heavily-pretreated, very refractory ITP pts. Certain pts did not respond which may be due to decreased PLT production or the use of other FcγR's to achieve PLT phagocytosis. However acute reactions occurred and infusions could not be repeated because of HAMA so GMA161 was created to overcome both of these issues via humanizing the antibody and denuding the Fc piece of carbohydrates. Unfortunately this was not an entirely successful approach; complete results are being collated. In summary, the redundancy of the FcγR system may limit the utility of blocking specific FcγR's; alternatively impaired PLT production may be of paramount importance in refractory patients. Disclosures: Off Label Use: 3G8 and GMA161 are Anti FcγRIII Inhibitory Monoclonal Antibodies used to treat refractory patients. The abstract presents the results of two pilot trials. . Bussel:Immunomedics: Research Funding; Sysmex: Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; Scienta: Speakers Bureau; Genzyme: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, My family owns stocks, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, My family owns stocks, Research Funding; Inc: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Risk Factors Associated with the Development of Infusion-Related Reactions in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Treated with Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies: Analysis of the CLL11 Study Dataset

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3339.3339 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3339-3339 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ciara Louise Freeman ◽

Mark Dixon ◽

Richard Houghton ◽

Kathryn Humphrey ◽

Gunter Fingerle-Rowson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Monoclonal Antibodies ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphocytic Leukaemia ◽

Signs And Symptoms ◽

Leukemic Cells ◽

Tumour Burden ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Anti Cd20

Abstract Background: The administration of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in patients with B-cell lympho-proliferative disorders is frequently accompanied by a constellation of signs and symptoms that have been labelled as infusion-related reactions (IRR). The pathophysiology of IRR remains poorly understood as do predictors of risk, which may relate to the mechanism of action of the anti-CD20, disease-related factors such as tumour burden or host factors such as polymorphisms of Fc gamma receptor 3A (FcγRIIIA). In the CLL11 trial (NCT01010061), patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and comorbidities were randomised to receive either rituximab (type I anti-CD20 mAb) or obinutuzumab (type II and glycoengineered anti-CD20 mAb) in combination with chlorambucil for six cycles. Obinutuzumab led to faster depletion of B cells and achieved an improvement in outcome parameters such as response and progression-free survival compared with the rituximab arm, but was also associated with a higher rate and increased severity of IRR. To better understand the profile of risk for IRR in patients with CLL, we performed an exploratory analysis on data obtained from patients treated with either one of the two antibodies given in combination with chlorambucil. Methods: Patients from the prospective, randomized Phase III CLL11 study who received a first infusion of obinutuzumab (N=331) or rituximab (N=326) were included. Baseline pre-treatment risk factors thought to play a possible role in the development of IRR were identified a priori and included patient demographics, concurrent conditions and premedications, parameters of disease burden, prognostic factors, laboratory variables and FcγR genotype. Baseline values for mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of CD20, gated on the circulating CLL clone, and MFI of CD16, gated on the natural killer (NK) cell population (CD56+16+) in peripheral blood were also available for N=510 patients. The primary outcome, development of an IRR with the first infusion, was defined as the occurrence of related signs and symptoms during or within 24 hours of administration of antibody. Due to the short-term nature of the initial IRR a multivariate logistical regression analysis was performed rather than a time to event analysis. Internal validation of this model, derived from a single dataset, was conducted using the established resampling technique of bootstrapping. This assessed the proportion of times each variable retained significance at α=0.10 when the model was fitted to bootstrapped samples of the dataset. Results: Patients that appeared to be at greater risk of developing any grade of IRR with the first infusion of rituximab or obinutuzumab were those treated with obinutuzumab, those with higher surface expression CD20 on CLL cells (MFI CD20) and greater FcγRIIIA (MFI CD16) on NK cells in peripheral blood, those with higher affinity FcγRIIIA genotype (VV), more pronounced neutropenia and splenomegaly at baseline (Table 1). Higher baseline absolute lymphocyte count and the presence of respiratory comorbidity also appeared to increase risk. All variables significant for inclusion in the model are shown in Table 1. Looking at those patients treated with obinutuzumab only, the most important determinant of risk was MFI CD20 (OR 3.6 95% CI 1.6-7.9). The impact of glucocorticoid premedication in reducing risk in obinutuzumab treated patients was not sufficient to reach significance, however, patients were not randomised to this intervention. Conclusion: This work identifies novel disease- and patient-specific biological variables that appear to play a role in the development of IRR in patients with CLL treated with anti-CD20 mAb, although the treatment received (obinutuzumab >rituximab) confers greatest risk. In addition to parameters of tumour burden, target antigen expression and gene polymorphisms of FcγR also appear to contribute to the risk of developing an IRR. Our results support the hypothesis that higher rates of IRR seen with the administration of obinutuzumab may result from stronger activation upon binding to CD20 on leukemic cells and subsequent enhanced cross-linking between CD20 expressing leukemic cells and FcγRIIIA bearing effector cells. Further studies involving obinutuzumab in this patient population will be needed to externally validate the results of this exploratory analysis. Disclosures Freeman: Roche Pharmaceuticals: clinical research fellowship supported by Roche Pharmaceuticals (secondment from Bart's) Other. Dixon:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Houghton:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Humphrey:Roche: Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Kreuzer:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Engelke:Roche: Travel grants Other. Hallek:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Goede:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel grants Other.

Download Full-text

A Phase 1/2 Multi-Center, Randomized, Open Label Dose Escalation Study to Determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose, Safety, and Efficacy of Pomalidomide Alone or in Combination with Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Who Have Received Prior Treatment That Includes Lenalidomide and Bortezomib.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.301.301 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 301-301 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Paul Richardson ◽

David Siegel ◽

Rachid Baz ◽

Susan L. Kelley ◽

Nikhil C. Munshi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Dose Escalation Study ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Dose Dependent Increase

Abstract Abstract 301 Background: Pomalidomide (POM) is an IMiD® derived from thalidomide with a modified chemical structure with improved potency in vitro and potential efficacy and safety benefits in vivo. Two phase (Ph) 1b, single-center, ascending dose, open-label studies in pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM; Schey et al, 2004, Streetly et al, 2008) identified maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as 2mg QD or 5mg on alternate days (28 of each 28-day cycle). High response rates of POM alone in heavily pretreated pts were encouraging. To evaluate the MTD, safety and efficacy of POM alone or with Dexamathasone (dex) on a 21/28 day schedule, a Ph 1/2, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 3×3 dose-escalation study was initiated in pts with relapsed/refractory MM after at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and lenalidomide. Methods: The study has a Ph 1 POM MTD (n=32) portion, followed by Ph 2 open-label randomized POM+ dex vs POM alone (192 pts planned). Eligible pts had documented relapsed/refractory MM. All pts received low-dose prophylactic aspirin QD and monitored for venous thromboembolic events (VTE). In Ph 1, POM was given QD on Days 1–21 of 28-day cycle: 4 dose levels of POM (2, 3, 4, 5mg) were studied with option to add dex at 40 mg/wk after 4 cycles for lack of response or progressive disease (PD). Pts enrolled in Ph 1 and discontinued either for intolerance or PD could not be enrolled in Ph 2. Toxicities and responses were assessed using CTCAE v3 and modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. Results: Results from Ph 1 of the study are reported with 32 pts enrolled to date. Fifteen pts discontinued therapy and 17 pts are ongoing for both safety and efficacy analyses. Mean age is 66.6 yrs (range 38–84), with median number of prior regimens 7 (range 2–18). MTD has not yet been reached. There were 4 dose reductions due to POM (5mg [2-neutropenia, 1-rash]; 3mg [1-neutropenia]) after 108 completed cycles. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the most common grade 3/4 toxicities, with no dose-dependent increase apparent so far: 12 serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 10 pts; drug related events included POM (VTE, syncope, 3rd degree AV block, asthenia, diarrhea, neutropenia, anemia, rash); dex (lung infection with neutropenia); POM + dex (sepsis with pharyngeal abscess). AEs such as somnolence (1) VTE (1) neuropathy (2), and constipation (4) were uncommon. There were 3 deaths on study not attributed to POM; 2 pts died of rapid PD, 1 pt died of gastrointestinal perforation due to amyloidosis. Responses were seen at each dose level (Table 1). In 20/21 (95%) evaluable pts, clinical activity (SD or better) was reported. During treatment with POM alone, overall response rate (ORR; 1 CR, 2 PR, 5 MR) was 38% (8/21), mean duration of response (DOR) was 11.1 (range 4–32) wks, mean time to progression (TTP) was 8.3 (range 2–36) wks. Median completed cycles of POM +/− dex overall was 4 (range 1–12), with 13/21 evaluable pts (62%) having dex added to their regimens at various different cycles (median cycle 3, range 2–9) for PD or lack of response. During treatment with POM+dex, ORR (2 PR, 3 MR) was 38%, mean DOR of 14.2 (range 4–32) wks, and mean TTP of 20 (range 4–52) wks. In addition, there were 9 stable diseases (SD) on POM alone with mean DOR of 7.1 (range 4–16) wks, and 6 SD on POM + dex with mean DOR of 10.7 (range 8–16) wks. In 5/13 pts (38%), responses improved after dex was added (2 PR, 2 MR, 1 SD). Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that POM alone or in combination with dex is associated with 38% MR or better, while SD was achieved in 43% (POM alone) and 46% (POM + dex), amongst heavily pretreated pts with relapsed/refractory MM. The incidence of SAEs and discontinuations decreased with increased dose of POM with no dose-dependent increase in grade 3/4 hematological toxicities. The MTD has not been reached to date. Overall, these data indicate that POM has an acceptable safety profile and is a clinically active therapeutic option for advanced refractory MM, warranting further investigation in this patient population. Disclosures: Richardson: Gentium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Keryx Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an anti-proliferative and immunomodulatory agent that is in clinical development for relapsed/refractory MM. Siegel:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene: Research Funding. Munshi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Sullivan:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Doss:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Larkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Donaldson:Celgene: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Selinexor Demonstrates Marked Synergy with Dexamethasone (Sel-Dex) in Preclinical Models and in Patients with Heavily Pretreated Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.4773.4773 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 4773-4773 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Christine I. Chen ◽

Martin Gutierrez ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

Joshua R. Richter ◽

Nina Wagner-Johnston ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Transcriptional Activation ◽

Nuclear Export ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Nuclear Retention ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: The nuclear export protein exportin 1, (XPO1) is overexpressed in a wide variety of cancers including MM and often correlate with poor prognosis. Selinexor (KPT-330) is an oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) XPO1 antagonist in Phase 1 and 2 clinical studies. Selinexor forces nuclear retention and reactivation of tumor suppressor proteins (TSPs) and reduction of many proto-oncogenes, including MDM2, MYC and Cyclin D. In addition, selinexor potently deactivates NF-κB, through forced nuclear retention of IκBα. Together these effects induce selective apoptosis in MM cells and inhibition of NF-κB dependent osteoclast activation. XPO1 is also responsible for nuclear export of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). We hypothesized that selinexor will enhance the activity of dexamethasone (DEX)-bound GR, resulting in synergistic tumor cell killing. Methods: In vitro tumor cell viability measurements were based on MTT (CellTiter 96¨/Promega) and combination indices were calculated using CalcuSyn software. For xenograft studies, utilized NOD-SCID mice with subcutaneous inoculation of MM.1s cells. GR nuclear localization was measured with immunofluorescent anti-GR (phosphor-S211) antibody and quantitative imaging. To assess GR transcriptional activation, GR binding to a GCR consensus sequence was measured in nuclear extracts using an ELISA method (GR ELISA kit/Affymetrix). Patients (pts) with heavily pretreated refractory MM were dosed with oral selinexor at doses of up to 60 mg/m2 (8-10 doses/4 wk cycle) as part of a Phase 1 program in advanced hematological malignancies. Response we defined based on the IMWG criteria. The effect of combining DEX with selinexor was analyzed in all pts who received selinexor at moderate to high doses (30-60 mg/m2). Safety and efficacy were analyzed separately in three groups: no DEX, <20 mg DEX and 20 mgs DEX. Results: In MM.1s cells Sel-Dex showed synergy for nuclear retention of the DEX activated GR (Ser211-phosphorylated) and concomitant GR transcriptional activation. Sel-Dex showed highly synergistic cytotoxicity in MM.1s cells in vitro and in vivo, with a corresponding increase in apoptosis. Selinexor alone was potently cytotoxic in the DEX resistant MM cell lines MM.1R and ANBL6, but addition of DEX provided no additional effect. Twenty-eight pts with heavily pretreated refractory MM (16 M, 12 F; median age 62; ECOG PS 0/1: 7/21; median prior regimens: 6) received selinexor at 30 – 60 mg/m2 with either 0, <20, or 20 mgs DEX. All pts have received a proteasome inhibitor and an Imid and the majority of the pts have received pomalidomide (68%) and/or carfilzomib (36%). The most common Grade 1/2 AEs for these three groups were: nausea (82%/86%/70%), fatigue (55%/86%/40%), anorexia (36%/71%/60%), and vomiting (36%/57%/10%). Of the 28 pts treated; 10 heavily pretreated refractory MM pts treated with a combination of selinexor (45 mg/m2 twice weekly) and DEX (20 mg with each selinexor dose) were found to have dramatically improved disease response (n=10, ORR 60%), with one stringent complete response (sCR, 10%), 5 partial responses (PR, 50%) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) rate of 80% (Figure 1). Treatment with ³30mg/m2 selinexor and <20 mg DEX (n=7), resulted in ORR of 14% and CBR of 86%, while treatment with selinexor (30-60 mg/m2) without DEX (n=12) showed best response of stable disease (50%). Sel-Dex was also associated with an increase in time on study relative to selinexor alone, with 7 of out 10 pts in the 20 mg DEX combo group still on study (11-25 weeks). Five additional pts were treated with selinexor at a dose of 60 mg/m2 in combination with 20 mg DEX. Response evaluation is pending. Conclusions: Sel-Dex combination is markedly synergistic in preclinical models, which is supported by the preliminary clinical data presented. One potential mechanism underlying this synergy is the amplification of GR activity due the combined effects of selinexor-induced nuclear retention of activated GR coupled with DEX-mediated GR agonism. These results provide a promising basis for the continuing study of Sel-Dex for treatment of pts with refractory MM. Phase 2 studies of Sel-Dex in pts with MM refractory to both pomalidomide and carfilzomib are planned for early 2015. Disclosures Chen: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide maintenance therapy after ASCT. Gutierrez:Senesco: PI Other. Siegel:Celgene, Millennium, Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Azmi:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Research Funding. Kashyap:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Landesman:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Marshall:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Employment. McCartney:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Employment. Norori:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Consultancy. Savona:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rashal:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Carlson:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Mirza:Karyopharm Therpeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reece:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen : Honoraria; Amgen : Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Pmd-107: Marizomib, Pomalidomide and Low Dose-Dexamethasone Combination Study in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (NCT02103335): Full Enrollment Results from a Phase-1 Multicenter, Open Label Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3326.3326 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3326-3326 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Andrew Spencer ◽

Simon Harrison ◽

Jacob P. Laubach ◽

Jeffrey Zonder ◽

Ashraf Z Badros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Marizomib (MRZ) is a novel, irreversible, pan subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) with preclinical evidence demonstrating in vitro and in vivo activity in multiple myeloma (MM). This study was designed to evaluate the safety and antimyeloma activity of pomalidomide (POM), MRZ and low dose dexamethasone (Lo-DEX) (PMD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty-eight heavily pretreated patients with RRMM were enrolled [dose-escalation cohort (n=14); recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) cohort (n=24)]. IV MRZ (0.3 to 0.5 mg/m2) was administered on Days (D) 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3 or 4 mg) on D1 through 21; and Lo-DEX (5 or 10 mg) on D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23 of every 28-D cycle. Patients received a median of 4 (range 1-9) prior lines of therapy; 100% received prior lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BTZ), 34% carfilzomib (CFZ), and 50% thalidomide. 53% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BTZ and 21% were refractory to LEN, BTZ, and CFZ. There were no dose limiting toxicities during the study. The most common study treatment related ≥Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (11/38 pts: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 pts 11%), anemia (4/38 pts; 11%), thrombocytopenia (4/38 pts; 11%), and febrile neutropenia (2/38 pts; 5%), with two grade 4 AEs (neutropenia related to POM and viral infection related to DEX), and one grade 5 AE (cardio-respiratory arrest from a suspected PE related to POM). Overall, MRZ was well tolerated, did not add to the incidence or severity of POM/Lo-DEX AEs and the regimen may have fewer hematological and infectious AEs compared to that observed with POM/Lo-DEX. MRZ pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that it was rapidly cleared with a short T1/2 (6.2-11mins) and a large volume of distribution (41-86L) suggesting extensive tissue distribution. Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated rapid and robust inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity in both packed whole blood (PWB) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs), reflecting the irreversible binding nature of MRZ. Evolving inhibition of trypsin-like and caspase-like proteasome activity was also observed in PWB and PBMC with continued dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) for the 36 response evaluable patients was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively (Table 1). Subpopulation analysis demonstrated an ORR of 50% (5/10) in high risk cytogenetic patients, 56% (10/18) in LEN/BTZ refractory patients, 71% (5/7) in LEN/BTZ/CFZ refractory patients and 80% (8/10) in CFZ refractory patients. These data compare favorably against POM/Lo-Dex with a near doubling of ORR in both the total patient population and the double refractory patients. Substantial activity in high-risk patients that are triple refractory and in patients that are refractory to CFZ in prior last regimen was observed. MRZ activity in RRMM patients exposed and/or refractory to multiple PIs is likely a consequence of its unique pan proteasome subunit inhibitory actions. In conclusion, MRZ in combination with POM and Lo-DEX was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pretreated, high-risk RRMM patients. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership. Khot:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacLaren:Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reich:Triphase Accelerator: Consultancy. Trikha:Encycle Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

The Novel KSP Inhibitor ARRY-520 Is Active Both with and without Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Refractory to Bortezomib and Lenalidomide: Results From a Phase 2 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.449.449 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 449-449 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Jeffrey A. Zonder ◽

Adam Cohen ◽

William Bensinger ◽

Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Treatment Time ◽

Single Agent ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Ksp Inhibitor

Abstract Abstract 449 Background ARRY-520 is a kinesin spindle protein (KSP) inhibitor that arrests cells in mitosis and induces apoptosis due to degradation of the BCL2 family survival protein MCL-1. As previously reported, ARRY-520 has demonstrated single-agent activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In preclinical myeloma models, the addition of dexamethasone (Dex) increases the activity of ARRY-520, supporting clinical investigation of ARRY-520 combined with low-dose Dex (LoDex). Here, the efficacy and safety of ARRY-520 is compared in 2 Phase 2 cohorts in RRMM: as a single agent (Cohort 1) and in combination with LoDex (Cohort 2). Methods Both cohorts were designed as 2-stage single-arm Phase 2 studies. Cohort 1 evaluated the efficacy and safety of 1.5 mg/m2/d ARRY-520 administered intravenously on Days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. Eligible patients had RRMM with 2 prior lines of therapy that included both bortezomib (BTZ) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), unless refusing or ineligible for this therapy. Cohort 2 is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the same dose and schedule of ARRY-520 and G-CSF with LoDex (40 mg PO weekly). Eligible patients had RRMM with 2 prior lines of therapy, and had disease refractory to (progressed on or ≤ 60 days of treatment) their last line of therapy and that was refractory to BTZ, lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone. Data from Cohort 1 and the first stage of Cohort 2 are reported. Results At the time of data cutoff, a total of 32 patients were enrolled into Cohort 1 with a median age of 65 years (range 51–82) and a median of 6 prior regimens (range 2–19). All patients received prior IMiD, 90% received prior BTZ and 78% had prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The defined first stage of Cohort 2 has been enrolled with 18 evaluable patients. These patients had a median age of 67 years (range 53–78) and were more heavily pretreated, with a median of 10 prior therapies (range 5–13). Safety was similar for both cohorts. A possible trend for more infections in Cohort 2 was noted. The most commonly reported (20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in both cohorts included thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia and fatigue. No treatment-related events of neuropathy were observed in either cohort. The most common Gr 3/4 AEs (in Cohort 1, Cohort 2) included neutropenia (38%, 33%), thrombocytopenia (44%, 44%) anemia (28%, 50%), pneumonia (3%, 17%) and fatigue (16%, 11%). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were infrequent (9%, 11%). Of 32 patients in Cohort 1, confirmed responses (≥ Minor Response (MR)) were observed in 6 patients (19%) with 5 Partial responses (PR) (16%) per International Melanoma Working Group (IMWG) and European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. The median treatment time was 2.1 months. In the subset of patients with disease refractory to both BTZ and Len, a 15% overall response rate (ORR ≥ MR) was observed. Among the 18 evaluable patients in Cohort 2, the ORR (≥ MR) was 28% (5/18), with 4 patients ≥ PR (22%). At the time of data cutoff, the median treatment time was 3.9 months. Summary Patients with RRMM refractory to both IMiD and proteasome inhibitor therapy have a poor prognosis with median survival of as little as 6 months1. New drugs with clinically meaningful activity in this population are needed. ARRY-520 is a novel agent with a distinct mechanism of action relative to other myeloma drugs and shows promising clinical activity both alone and combined with Dex in RRMM. Notably, in patients with triple-refractory MM, ARRY-520 + LoDex has shown a preliminary 28% ORR (≥ MR), with a manageable safety profile. These data are comparable to those reported for pomalidomide or carfilzomib in less heavily pretreated patients. Both the median time on study and ORR in Cohort 2 were greater than the activity seen for Cohort 1, despite the more advanced stage of these patients and the fact that they were heavily pretreated with Dex, suggesting that LoDex may enhance ARRY-520 activity. Based on this evidence of activity, further development of ARRY-520 + LoDex is warranted in patients who have exhausted other therapeutic options. Disclosures: Shah: Array BioPharma: 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; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: ARRY-520. Zonder:Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kaufman:Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Orlowski:Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Walker:Array BioPharma: Employment. Hilder:Array BioPharma: Employment. Ptaszynski:Array BioPharma: Consultancy. Lonial:Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Ponatinib In Patients (pts) With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) and Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (Ph+ ALL) Resistant Or Intolerant To Dasatinib Or Nilotinib, Or With The T315I BCR-ABL Mutation: 2-Year Follow-Up Of The PACE Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.650.650 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 650-650 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽

Philipp D le Coutre ◽

Ronald Paquette ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Stock Options ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rates ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Advisory Boards ◽

Common Drug ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

History Of

Abstract Background Ponatinib is a potent, oral, pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor with activity against native and mutant forms of BCR-ABL, including the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant T315I mutant. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib (45 mg orally QD) were evaluated in the phase 2, international, open-label clinical trial (PACE) in pts with CML or Ph+ ALL. Methods 449 pts resistant or intolerant (R/I) to dasatinib or nilotinib or with the T315I mutation confirmed at entry were enrolled. Five pts (3 CP-CML, 2 AP-CML) without confirmed T315I and not R/I to dasatinib or nilotinib were treated, but not assigned to a cohort; they were included in safety analyses only. The primary endpoint was major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time within 12 mos for CP-CML, major hematologic response (MaHR) at any time within 6 mos for advanced Ph+ leukemia. Data are as of 1 April 2013, with a median follow-up of 19 (0.1-30) mos, and 18 mos minimum follow-up for pts remaining on study. Results Median age was 59 (18-94) yrs; 53% were male. Median time from diagnosis to ponatinib was 6 (0.3-28) yrs. Pts were heavily pretreated: 96% received prior imatinib, 84% dasatinib, 65% nilotinib, 7% bosutinib; 58% received ≥3 TKIs. In pts previously treated with dasatinib or nilotinib (N=427), 88% had a history of resistance, 12% were purely intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib. Best prior response to most recent dasatinib or nilotinib was 26% MCyR or better in CP-CML, 23% MaHR or better in advanced Ph+ leukemia. The most common BCR-ABL mutations at baseline were 29% T315I, 8% F317L, 4% E255K, 4% F359V, 3% G250E. No mutations were detected in 44% of pts (Sanger sequencing). At the time of analysis, 46% of pts remained on study (60% CP-CML). The most common reasons for discontinuation: progressive disease (20%), adverse events (AEs; 13%; most common was thrombocytopenia, 4%). Response rates are shown in the table. Response rates were higher in CP-CML T315I vs R/I cohorts, however, a post-hoc multivariate analysis previously showed that T315I was not an independent predictor of MCyR. Other features, especially higher dose intensity and younger age in T315I pts, may explain the higher response rates. In CP-CML, responses were deep and durable; 91%, 91%, and 75% of pts with MCyR, CCyR, or MMR, respectively, were estimated to remain in response at 12 mos; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated to be 80% (median 27 mos) and 94% at 12 mos, respectively; progression to AP/BP occurred in 3 CP-CML pts , 2 other pts with a history of AP re-entered AP. 49% of AP-CML pts with MaHR were estimated to remain in response at 12 mos (median 12 mos); PFS and OS were estimated to be 56% (median 14 mos) and 84% at 12 mos. 36% of BP-CML pts with MaHR were estimated to remain in response at 12 mos (median 5 mos); PFS and OS were estimated to be 18% (median 4 mos) and 30% (median 7 mos) at 12 mos. 8% of Ph+ ALL pts with MaHR were estimated to remain in MaHR at 12 mos (median 3 mos); PFS and OS were estimated to be 7% (median 3 mos) and 39% (median 8 mos) at 12 mos. The most common drug-related AEs (>30%) were thrombocytopenia (37%), rash (34%), and dry skin (32%). Pancreatitis was the most common drug-related serious AE (5%); it occurred early and was primarily managed with dose modification, 1 pt discontinued. Serious cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular AEs occurred in 6%, 3%, and 2% of pts (drug-related: 2%, 1%, 1%). Conclusions Ponatinib has substantial activity in these heavily pretreated Ph+ leukemia pts who have limited available treatment options, with a safety profile reflective of the population. Updated data with a minimum follow-up of 2 yrs will be presented. Disclosures: Cortes: Ariad, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy; Ariad, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Research Funding. Kim:BMS, Novartis, IL-Yang: Consultancy; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, ARIAD, IL-Yang: Research Funding; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, IL-Yang: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis, Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis, Ariad, BMS and Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding; Novatis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Paquette:ARIAD, BMS, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Chuah:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Nicolini:Novartis, Ariad, Teva, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, BMS, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, BMS, Teva, Pfizer, Ariad: Honoraria; Novartis & Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis, Ariad and Teva: Consultancy. Apperley:Novartis: Research Funding; Ariad, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding; Ariad, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeAngelo:Araid, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy. Rea:BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Ariad, Teva: Honoraria. Baccarani:Ariad, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Müller:Novartis, BMS, Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, BMS: Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer, BMS: Honoraria. Lustgarten:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment. Clackson:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Turner:ARIAD: Employment. Haluska:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Hochhaus:Ariad, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldman:Ariad: Honoraria. Shah:Ariad, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Phizer: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

COVID-19 in Patients with Lymphoma: A Grupo De Estudio Latinoamericano En Linfoproliferativos (GELL) Retrospective Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142787 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 35-36

Author(s):

Guilherme Fleury Perini ◽

Juan Alejandro Ospina Idarraga ◽

Maria Alejandra Torres Viera ◽

Brady E Beltran ◽

Denisse A. Castro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Latin America ◽

Monoclonal Antibodies ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Current Treatment ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Active Disease

Introduction: SARS-COV-2 pandemic has infected approximately 20 million people worldwide and more than 700.000 fatalities have been reported. Patients with malignant hematological diseases are at particular risk for unfavorable outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and death. There is paucity of data of the outcome of cancer patients with COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries. GELL is a collaborative network of hematological centers in 13 countries in Latin America. In this retrospective study, we aimed to look at the outcome of lymphoma patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Latin America. Methods: This is a retrospective study including patients with a diagnosis of lymphoma and COVID-19 infection. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma were excluded from the analysis. COVID-19 diagnosis was done by RT-PCR in all but 3 patients, in whom the diagnosis was done by serology. Active disease was defined as patients with detected disease in any setting (prior to therapy, relapse) or patients currently on treatment. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan Meier method. Results: A total of 117 patients were available for analysis. Median age was 60 years old, and 44% of patients had at least one comorbidity, including 32% with hypertension, 17% with obesity, 11% with cardiovascular disease and 17% with diabetes. Most patients had aggressive lymphomas (67%), including 46% of patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Follicular lymphomas was observed in 13% of patients and Hodgkin's lymphoma in 10% of patients. 84% of patients had active disease, and 70% of patients were currently on treatment. With a median follow up of 17 days from COVID-19 diagnosis, 78% were admitted to Hospital, 30% needed ICU support, and 27% needed MV. Importantly, 26% of patients died, most of them within 20 days from diagnosis (Fig. 1). There was no relation between active disease (p=0.23), current treatment (p=0.65) or use of monoclonal antibodies (p=0.24) with death. COVID-19 treatment data was available in 107 patients, and 72 of them received any treatment, being steroids, the most common treatment used (n=59). Conclusion: We confirm the dismal prognosis of patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 infection. In our cohort of Latin America patients with lymphoma and COVID-19, 26% of patients died with a median follow up of 17 days. No impact of current treatment or use of monoclonal antibodies were observed. Figure Disclosures Peña: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; BindingSite: Research Funding. Idrobo:Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Tecnofarma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Abello:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rojas:Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Castillo:Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Villela:amgen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Patient Outcomes By Prior Therapies and Depth Of Response: Analysis Of MM-003, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.686.686 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 686-686

Author(s):

Jesús F. San Miguel ◽

Katja Weisel ◽

Kevin W. Song ◽

Michel Delforge ◽

Lionel Karlin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Depth Of Response ◽

The Us ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Protein Reduction

Abstract Background Patient (pt) survival after becoming refractory/intolerant to novel agent treatment (Tx) is short (Kumar 2012). Depth of response has been shown to predict favorable outcomes (Harousseau, 2010). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with 3 primary activities: direct anti-myeloma activity, stromal cell-support inhibition, and immune modulation (Quach, 2010). POM has been approved by the US FDA for RRMM pts with ≥ 2 prior Tx, including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. The randomized phase 3 trial MM-003 demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an acceptable tolerability profile for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in pts with RRMM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). Methods Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (PD during Tx or within 60 days) and exhausted BORT and LEN after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1-21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1-4, 9-12, and 17-20. HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage Tx for heavily pretreated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response [PR]), and safety. The current analysis describes pt outcomes by prior Tx history and depth of response. Results 302 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX and 153 pts to HiDEX. Pt characteristics were well balanced between Tx arms. The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range, 2-17). Most pts (75%) were refractory to both BORT and LEN. POM + LoDEX significantly prolonged PFS vs HiDEX regardless of type or number of prior Tx (Table). OS favored POM + LoDEX for all subgroups analyzed. Importantly, significant OS benefits were observed in pts with ≤ 3 prior Tx and in pts who were refractory to LEN as last prior Tx. The ORR was consistently and significantly higher for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX. The TTP for POM + LoDEX pts was similar in this trial vs that seen with their last prior LEN-based line of Tx (4.8 vs 6.2 months; P =.11). Additionally, LEN as the last prior Tx did not negatively impact PFS, OS, or ORR when compared with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the POM + LoDEX arm, a total of 17 pts (6%) achieved a very good partial response or better, and 78 pts (26%) achieved PR as best response. Baseline characteristics were generally similar regardless of the degree of M-protein reduction. Analyses of the correlation between M-protein reduction and PFS and OS are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions In this heavily pretreated population, POM + LoDEX provided consistent efficacy regardless of number of prior Tx or prior Tx type. Significant OS benefits were observed for pts who received POM + LoDEX earlier in Tx and immediately following the development of LEN-refractory disease. Importantly, LEN as last prior Tx did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall ITT population. POM + LoDEX should be considered a standard Tx option in RRMM pts. Disclosures: San Miguel: Onyx: 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; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Karlin:Celgene: Export board committee Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Celgene: 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. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Renner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Travel support Other. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Teasdale:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

ACY-1215, a Selective Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) 6 Inhibitor: Interim Results Of Combination Therapy With Bortezomib In Patients With Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.759.759 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 759-759 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Noopur Raje ◽

Dan T. Vogl ◽

Parameswaran N. Hari ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Simon S Jones ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Grade ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Acetylated Tubulin ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Elevated Creatinine ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background Although non-selective HDAC inhibitors are active in MM, combination therapy is limited by significant adverse effects (AEs) including severe fatigue, gastrointestinal toxicity, and myelosuppression. ACY-1215 is the first-in-class selective oral HDAC6 inhibitor that inhibits the aggresome/autophagy pathway, an alternate pathway to proteasome clearance of misfolded proteins. ACY-1215 has demonstrated potent synergy with bortezomib preclinically in cell and animal models of MM (Santo, Blood, 119(1):2527). Methods ACY-100 is a three part single arm, open label study with cohort dose escalation in a standard 3+3 design as monotherapy (1a) and in combination with bortezomib (1b) followed by a phase 2 extension. Eligible patients (pts) for the phase 1a and 1b portions had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM, previously received at least two lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, had either progressed after or were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, and had adequate bone marrow reserve, hepatic function and creatinine clearance of >30 mg/mL/min. ACY-1215 was given orally days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 21 day cycle, and bortezomib days 1,4,8,11 and dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12. Peripheral blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), assessment of acetylated tubulin (HDAC6 inhibition) and acetylated histones (Class 1 HDAC inhibition). Toxicity was assessed using CTCv4.0 and responses were evaluated by modified EMBT and Uniform Criteria. Results The monotherapy portion of ACY-100 has been previously presented (Raje, Blood, V20(21):4061). Fifteen heavily pretreated pts received ACY-1215 monotherapy at doses of 40 mg to 360 mg. Most AEs were low grade and not related to ACY-1215. Two pts had grade 3 AEs, anemia and neutropenia, considered possibly related to ACY-1215. No dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Stable disease (SD) was the best response in 6 patients. Sixteen patients as of June 28, 2013 have received ACY-1215 at doses of 40 mg to 160 mg in combination with bortezomib (1.0 mg/m2 first cohort and 1.3 mg/m2 thereafter) and dexamethasone. Median age was 60, and 16 patients had previously received up to 11 lines of therapy. The first combination cohort was expanded due to a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of asymptomatic increase in amylase. No other DLTs have been observed. Treatment emergent adverse events were predominantly low grade. Those occurring in >25% of patients were elevated creatinine, thrombocytopenia, anemia, fatigue, elevated ALT, AST and amylase, hypokalemia, cough, decreased appetite, dyspnea, hypoalbuminemia and peripheral neuropathy; most were not considered related to ACY-1215. Grade 3-4 AEs possibly related to ACY-1215 included asymptomatic elevated amylase (2), thrombocytopenia (3), anemia (1), stomach cramps (1) and elevated creatinine (1). Of 16 patients evaluable for response, VGPR (1), PR (2), MR (1) were seen, with 5 pts achieving SD. Responding patients were on study from 2 to 17 cycles. Eleven pts were refractory to bortezomib prior to study entry. Of those the best outcome was MR (1) and SD (4), with the remaining having either progressive disease (5) or not evaluable (1). PK and PD data is available from 16 patients including the 160 mg dose level. PK for ACY-1215 is similar to the same dose levels in phase 1a monotherapy suggesting coadministration of bortezomib does not impact the PK of ACY-1215. Maximal levels were ≥ 1µM at ≥ 80 mg correlating with measurable increases >2x in acetylated tubulin with a minimal increase in acetylated histones. Conclusions ACY-1215 was well-tolerated when administered in combination with bortezomib and encouraging disease responses were observed in this heavily pretreated patient population. Future cohorts in phase 1b will explore twice daily dosing prior to start of phase 2. Disclosures: Raje: Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Vogl:Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria. Jones:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Supko:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding. Leone:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wheeler:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Resverlogix: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Versus Investigator’s Choice in Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.628.628 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 628-628 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Myron S. Czuczman ◽

Andrew Davies ◽

Kim M Linton ◽

Nina Wagner-Johnston ◽

Randy D. Gascoyne ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Single Agent ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

P Value ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Stage 1

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) comprising 3 molecular subtypes: germinal center B-cell (GCB), activated B-cell (ABC) and class III. ABC patients (pts) have a poor prognosis. The immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (Len) produces durable responses in pts with aggressive NHL (Witzig 2011), with preferential activity reported in non-GCB DLBCL (Hernandez-Ilizaliturri 2011). Methods: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of single-agent Len vs single-agent investigator’s choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory DLBCL pts who received ≥2 prior therapies, or were ineligible for stem cell transplantation or further combination chemotherapy. DLBCL subtype (GCB vs non-GCB) was determined by a central pathology lab using immunohistochemistry (IHC) per the Hans method (Hans 2004). Pts were stratified by subtype, then randomized 1:1 to receive Len (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin) until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. In the event of radiologically confirmed PD, pts in the IC arm were allowed to cross over to Len. The primary endpoint for Stage 1 was overall response rate (ORR), as determined by an Independent Response Assessment Committee. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and subtype analysis using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Concordance of GEP and IHC was evaluated from 3 separate laboratories. Results: IHC subtyping agreement rate among the 3 laboratories ranged from 87.5%-97.9%, and sensitivity of IHC to detect ABC or GCB subtypes vs GEP ranged from 92.3%-100.0%. By IHC, 102 DLBCL pts (GCB, n=48; non-GCB, n=54) were treated with ≥1 dose of Len or IC (modified intent-to-treat population) in Stage 1. In this heavily pretreated population, >90.0% of pts received ≥2 prior systemic chemotherapies; 25 pts in Len and 32 pts in IC received ≥3 prior systemic chemotherapy regimens. Median age was 65 y in the IC arm vs 69 y in the Len arm. Twenty-nine pts crossed over from IC to Len after confirmed PD. All pts, regardless of subtype or therapy group, experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, with neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia being the most common. Efficacy data are presented in the Table. Pts with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (per IHC) treated with Len had similar ORR, but the data suggested greater improvements in PFS and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB pts. In an exploratory analysis of pts subtyped by GEP, ABC pts treated with Len vs IC-treated showed greater improvements in ORR, PFS, and OS compared with GCB pts. Prespecified criterion to advance to Stage 2 was a 2-sided 15% significance level in ORR in favor of Len based on IHC-defined subtype. The data did not fulfill this requirement, and Stage 2 was not opened. Conclusion: Len monotherapy showed clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts with DLBCL. The data suggest improved ORR, PFS, and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB population as defined by IHC, and the difference appears to be more pronounced in the ABC population as defined by GEP. Subtyping by GEP is warranted in further studies of Len in DLBCL. Abstract 628. Table 1.Table. Efficacy DataBy IHCBy GEPOverallGCBNon-GCBGCBABCLen(n=51)IC(n=51)Len(n=23)IC(n=25)Len(n=28)IC(n=26)Len(n=14)IC(n=16)Len(n=11)IC(n=16)ORR, % (95% CI)27.5 (15.9-41.7)11.8 (4.4-23.9) 26.1 (10.2-48.4)12.0 (2.5-31.2)28.6 (13.2-48.7)11.5 (2.4-30.2)21.4 (4.7-50.8)12.5 (1.6-38.3)45.5 (16.7-76.6)18.8 (4.0-45.6)P Value .079 .279 .179 .642 .206PFS, med wk (95% CI)13.6 (8.6-17.7)7.9 (6.3-9.0) 10.1 (8.3-22.3)29.0 (6.3-20.6)15.1 (8.3-24.1)7.1 (5.3-8.4)13.2 (8.3-24.9)7.1 (6.0-20.6)82.0 (7.3-NA)6.2 (4.3-10.1)P Value .041 .550 .021 .506 .105HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.41-0.99) 0.82 (0.43-1.57) 0.50 (0.27-0.92) 0.77 (0.35-1.68) 0.44 (0.15-1.23)OS, med wk (95% CI)31.0 (16.6-41.3)24.6 (12.7-33.9) 30.0 (14.9-44.4)24.9 (13.7-58.3)32.3 (15.9-48.1)20.4 (10.3-33.9)30.0 (18.0-34.6)20.1 (13.7-36.9)108.4 (9.6-108.4)18.6 (6.6-48.0)P Value .673 .526 .253 .767 .144HR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.59-1.41) 1.23 (0.65-2.34) 0.70 (0.38-1.30) 1.12 (0.52-2.42) 0.47 (0.17-1.33) Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; med, median; NA, not applicable/not available. Disclosures Czuczman: Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: This abstract describes a clinical trial of lenalidomide, which is an orally-available immunomodulatory agent under investigation for treating patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.. Davies:GlaxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:Celgene: Research Funding. Gascoyne:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Salles:Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Millennium Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wright:Celgene: Research Funding. Staudt:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Repici:Celgene: Employment. Song:Celgene: Employment. Manzke:Celgene: Employment.

Download Full-text