The Functional Activity of the OCT-1 Protein Is Predictive of Molecular Response and Survival in CP-CML Patients Treated with Imatinib: A 5 Year Update of the TIDEL Trial.

Abstract Abstract 507 The major active influx protein for imatinib into target BCR-ABL positive cells is the organic cation transporter OCT-1. We have previously demonstrated that the functional activity of the OCT-1 protein (OCT-1 activity) is predictive of molecular response in TIDEL (trial of imatinib 600 mg/day with selective dose intensification in untreated CP-CML) The OCT-1 activity (OA) is measured in mononuclear cells from untreated CML patients by calculating the intracellular concentration of 14-C imatinib less the intracellular concentration in the presence of OCT-1 inhibition. To address the question of whether OA is predicting only the rate of response, we now investigate the impact of OA on response and progression at 5 years. There is a significant difference in the achievement of MMR (p=0.007) and CMR by 60 months (p=0.032) (Table 1). Six patients developed kinase domain mutations over the course of this study. 5/6 had low OA. Significantly, for the first time addressing Event Free Survival (events defined as loss of CHR, MCR or CCR, progression to AP or BC or change of therapy due to unsatisfactory efficacy), we demonstrate that more patients with high OA are event free at 5 years when compared to patients with low OA (Table 1). To determine whether the detrimental effect of low OA on survival was more significant in those patients with OA in the lowest quartile (Q1) we compared the response of Q1 patients to all other patients (Table 2). These data demonstrate importantly, that patients in Q1 have significantly poorer outcomes, than the remainder of the patient cohort. In previous analyses we have shown that the effects of a low OA can be partially overcome by higher imatinib doses. Limiting the analyses to those patients receiving <600mg average daily dose over the first 12 months there was a significant difference in the achievement of MMR (low OA (n=11) 27%: high OA (n=12) 92% p=0.021) and EFS (36% vs 75% p=0.03). In patients receiving ≥600 mg there was no significant difference between the groups, reinforcing the importance of dose. In 45 patients we examined the expression of OCT-1 mRNA for prediction of MMR, CMR, EFS and mutation development. Dividing the patients into low and high OCT-1 expression about the median we found that the level of mRNA is not predictive of MMR (low–60% vs high 78 p=0.241) CMR (low–45% vs high 55 p=0.456) EFS (low–55% vs high 70 p=0.315) or mutation development (low–18% vs high 14% p=0.666). These data indicate that the level of OCT-1 mRNA is not sufficiently discriminating to predict response and progression. While our previous studies demonstrated that OA could predict the rate of decline in BCR-ABL over the first 12-24 months, this update demonstrates for the first time, that this assay can identify nearly all patients (>80%) who fail to achieve MMR in the long term. Most importantly OA is also strongly predictive of resistance and progression events. Functional assessment of OCT-1 Activity provides prognostic information that is more discriminating than assaying the level of OCT-1 mRNA. This long term study reinforces the notion that OA is an important predictive variable in CP-CML patients treated with IM. It provides further evidence that OA is a critical variable to consider in future trials of imatinib and a key factor to enable individualization of imatinib dose to optimize the long term outcome for CML patients. Disclosures: White: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Manley:Novartis: Employment. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

ENESTnd Update: Nilotinib (NIL) Vs Imatinib (IM) In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and The Impact Of Early Molecular Response (EMR) and Sokal Risk At Diagnosis On Long-Term Outcomes

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.92.92 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 92-92 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Richard E. Clark ◽

Hirohisa Nakamae ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Eligibility Criterion ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Vascular Events ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction Frontline NIL continues to show benefit over IM in pts with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML-CP, with higher rates of major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) and MR4.5 (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032%), lower rates of progression to accelerated phase (AP)/blast crisis (BC) and fewer new BCR-ABL mutations on treatment in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Pts (ENESTnd) trial. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up (f/u) of 4 y; updated data based on 5 y of f/u will be presented. Methods Adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP (N = 846) were randomized to NIL 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), NIL 400 mg BID (n = 281), or IM 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). Progression and overall survival (OS) events were collected prospectively during study f/u, including after discontinuation of study treatment. Efficacy in the NIL 300 mg BID and IM arms was evaluated based on achievement of EMR (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Results At 4 y, ≥ 87% of pts remained on study in each arm and 57%-69% remained on core treatment (Table). Rates of MMR and MR4.5 by 4 y were significantly higher with NIL vs IM. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on NIL vs IM (on core treatment: 0.7%, 1.1%, and 4.2%; on study: 3.2%, 2.1%, and 6.7% [NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively]). Of 17 pts across the 3 arms who progressed on core treatment, 11 (65%) had never achieved complete cytogenetic response and none had achieved MR4.5. Fewer mutations have emerged in the NIL arms vs the IM arm; in y 4, mutations emerged in 2 pts (1 pt with T315I on NIL 300 mg BID; 1 pt with F317L on IM). More pts achieved EMR in the NIL 300 mg BID arm vs the IM arm (91% vs 67%). Pts with EMR had significantly higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS at 4 y vs pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo. Among pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo, more progressions to AP/BC occurred in the IM arm (n = 14) vs the NIL 300 mg BID arm (n = 2); half of these pts progressed between 3 and 6 mo. In pts with intermediate or high Sokal risk, PFS and OS at 4 y were higher in both NIL arms vs the IM arm. No new safety signals were detected. Selected cardiac and vascular events were more common on NIL vs IM (by 4 y, peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD] in 4 [1.4%], 5 [1.8%], and 0 pts; ischemic heart disease [IHD] in 11 [3.9%], 14 [5.1%,] and 3 [1.1%] pts; and ischemic cerebrovascular events in 3 [1.1%], 5 [1.8%], and 1 [0.4%] pts in the NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively). In the NIL 300 mg BID arm, 2 of 11 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y (all 4 PAOD events occurred in the first 2 y). In the NIL 400 mg BID arm, 2 of 5 PAOD events and 3 of 14 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y. Most pts (7 of 9) with a PAOD event on NIL were at high risk due to a combination of baseline risk factors. Conclusions NIL, a standard-of-care frontline therapy option for newly diagnosed CML-CP pts, affords superior efficacy compared with IM, including higher rates of EMR (which is associated with improved long-term outcomes), higher rates of MR4.5 (a key eligibility criterion for many studies of treatment-free remission), and a lower risk of disease progression. NIL continues to show good tolerability with long-term f/u. While selected cardiac and vascular events (including PAOD) are slightly more frequent on NIL vs IM, no increase in annual incidence of these events over time has been observed. Disclosures: Saglio: ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hochhaus:Ariad: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hughes:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL: Research Funding. Clark:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, travel/ accomodations/ meeting expenses Other. Kim:BMS, Novartis,IL-Yang: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Etienne:Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Novartis: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Moiraghi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Fan:Novartis: Employment. Menssen:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Impact Of Liver Iron Overload On Myocardial T2* Response In Transfusion-Dependent Thalassemia Major Patients Treated With Deferasirox For Up To 3 Years

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.1016.1016 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 1016-1016 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

John Porter ◽

Ali T Taher ◽

Yesim Aydinok ◽

Maria D Cappellini ◽

Antonis Kattamis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Iron Overload ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Iron Removal ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Liver Iron ◽

Cardiac Iron ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Liver Iron Overload ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Patients with myocardial iron overload require effective cardiac iron removal to minimize the risk of cardiac complications. The 3 year EPIC cardiac sub-study showed that the oral iron chelator, deferasirox (DFX), effectively reduced cardiac iron overload. Previous reports demonstrate that cardiac iron removal is slow and suggest that liver iron concentration (LIC) may affect cardiac iron removal rate by chelators (Pennell et al., 2012; Blood). The objective of these analyses was to evaluate the impact of the severity of the liver iron overload on the change in myocardial T2* (mT2*) for patients receiving up to 3 years of DFX treatment in the EPIC sub-study. Methods Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been described previously (Pennell et al., 2012; Haematologica). Patients were categorized into LIC ≤15 and >15 mg Fe/g dry weight (hereafter mg/g) at baseline (BL) and by LIC <7, 7–≤15 and >15 mg/g at 12, 24, and 36 months to assess the impact of BL LIC and changes in LIC overtime on mT2*, respectively. During study, LIC and mT2* were measured every 6 months. Efficacy was assessed in per-protocol population that entered third year extension. Here, mT2* is presented as the geometric mean (Gmean) ± coefficient of variation (CV) unless otherwise specified. Statistical significance was established at α-level of 0.05 using a 2-sided paired t-test for within group comparisons and ANOVA for multiple group comparisons. All p-values were of exploratory nature for this post-hoc analysis. Results Of the 71 patients, who continued into study year 3, 68 patients considered evaluable were included in this analysis (per protocol population); 59 patients had LIC values available at end of study (EOS). Mean age was 20.5 ±7.35 years and 61.8 % of patients were female. Mean actual dose of DFX (mg/kg/day) was 32.1 ±5.5 and 35.1 ±4.9 in patients with BL LIC ≤15 and >15 mg/g, respectively. At EOS, mean actual doses were 32.9 ±5.4 (LIC <7 mg/g), 38.0 ±3.4 (LIC 7–≤15 mg/g), and 37.6 ±3.1 (LIC >15 mg/g). Overall, patients had high BL LIC (Mean, 29.0 ±10.0 mg/g); 61 patients had LIC >15 (30.8 ±8.8) mg/g, only 7 patients had LIC ≤15 (12.7 ±1.1) mg/g, and no patients had LIC <7 mg/g. After 36 months, a significant mean decrease from BL in LIC of -7.6 ±4.6 mg/g (p = 0.0049) and -16.8 ±14.0 mg/g (p <0.001) was observed in patients with LIC ≤15 and >15 mg/g, respectively. Notably, 51.9% of patients with BL LIC >15 mg/g achieved EOS LIC <7 mg/g. Overall, mean mT2* was 12.8 ±4.6 ms. The impact of BL LIC on mT2* and LIC response was as follows: in patients with LIC ≤15 mg/g (Mean BL mT2*, 14.2 ±3.6 ms) and >15 mg/g (BL mT2*, 12.7 ±4.7 ms), mT2* increased by 52% (Mean abs. change, 7.5 ±4.1 ms, p=0.0016) and 46% (7.3 ±7.3 ms, p<0.001), respectively. Patients with BL LIC ≤15 normalized mT2* in 24 months (Mean, 20.0 ±6.0 ms) versus 36 months for patients with BL LIC >15 mg/g, (20.1 ±10.6 ms) displaying a lag of nearly 12 months. The relation between post-BL LIC on mT2* response at 12, 24 and 36 months is shown in the figure. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in mT2* that had occurred in patients with LIC <7 mg/g (24% increase; mean abs. change, 3.5 ±2.3 ms), LIC 7–≤15 mg/g (19% increase; 3.4 ±5.2 ms) and those with LIC >15 mg/g (13% increase; 1.9 ±3.2 ms). However, at 24 months, there was a statistically significant difference amongst the 3 subgroups in percent increase in the mT2* that had occurred; patients with LIC <7, LIC 7-≤15 and LIC >15 mg/g had 54% (Mean abs. change, 8.3 ±7.3 ms), 33% (5.2 ±5.2 ms) and 10% (2.1 ±4.3 ms) increase (p <0.001), respectively. Similarly, at 36 months, the mT2* had increased by 71% (Mean abs. change, 10.3 ±6.6 ms) in the LIC <7 mg/g group; a 31% increase (5.3 ±5.0 ms) had occurred in the LIC 7– ≤15 mg/g group; and an 18% (3.3 ±6.0 ms) increase (p <0.001) had occurred in the LIC >15mg/g group. At all-time points, in patients who achieved an LIC <7 mg/g, a statistically significant increase in T2* from BL had occurred. Discussion Overall, DFX treatment resulted in a significant decrease in LIC and improved mT2*. A greater difference in mT2* improvement was shown to have occurred in patients who achieved lower end-of-year LIC after treated with DFX. This divergence was progressive with time, being maximal at 36 months. Thus, a therapeutic response in LIC with DFX is associated with a greater likelihood of improving mT2*. This may assist in monitoring liver and cardiac response to DFX. Prospective evaluation of this relationship is indicated. Disclosures: Porter: Novartis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Taher:Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Aydinok:Novartis Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cappellini:Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kattamis:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ApoPharma: Speakers Bureau. El-Ali:Novartis Pharma: Employment. Martin:Novartis Pharma: Employment. Pennell:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ApoPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Randomised 1 Year Study Evaluating the Impact of Vitamin C Supplementation on Systemic Iron Parameters of Iron Overload in Thalassemia Major Patients on Long-Term Treatment with Deferasirox

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1288.1288 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1288-1288

Author(s):

Yesim Aydinok ◽

Metin Delebe ◽

Gunes Basol ◽

Selen Bayraktaroglu ◽

Nihal Karadas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Iron Overload ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Thalassemia Major ◽

Average Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Labile Iron ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Ascorbic acid (AA) supplementation has traditionally been used in iron overloaded patients as means to increase iron chelation efficacy and replenish AA oxidized by labile iron found in those patients. The rationale leaned on AA's ability to render stored iron accessible to chelation, as found in urinary iron excretion following deferoxamine infusion. However, as AA increases labile iron redox-cycling and ensuing toxicity, we set to assess the long term benefits versus toxicity risks of the combined chelator-AA treatment. Objectives Perform a prospective, open-label, randomized and controlled 1 year study on thalassemia patients treated with deferasirox (DFX) in order to assess the effects of AA supplementation on: a. markers of systemic iron overload in selected organs and in plasma and b. markers of plasma labile iron (LPI) as potential contributors to oxidative stress toxicity. Patients and Methods Enrolment: 22 beta thalassemia major (TM) patients ≥10 years treated >2 years with DFX. Exclusion: cardiac dysfunction/arrhythmia or mT2* MRI <6 ms. Study: patients previously unexposed to AA received once-daily DFX (up to 40 mg/kg/d) with or without 125 mg AA for 1 year. All parameters were measured at baseline (BL); serum ferritin (SF) monthly, liver iron (LIC by MRI) and cardiac iron (mT2*MRI) after 1y. e-LPI (surrogate NTBI marker) and LPI (plasma redox-active labile iron marker) were assessed at BL, mo 1 & 6 by FeROS™ (Aferrix, Ltd) and fasting plasma AA at BL and EOS (fluorimetrically). Blood samples were withdrawn on the morning of transfusion day, 24 hours after last DFX (+/- AA) administration. Safety was followed using laboratory and clinical tests. AA levels were also determined in 23 healthy individuals (age and gender matched). Results 22 TM patients were enrolled (mean age 23.5, range 10-34 y). The average dose ± SD of DFX given to all 22 patients was 38±4.5 mg/kg/d. 11 patients were randomised to receive DFX and the others with DFX supplemented with 125 mg AA (mean 2.4±0.5, range 1.9-4.2 mg/kg) for 1 year. At BL, the AA levels were significantly lower in the TM group compared to controls (2.44 ± 3.38 vs 9.60± 4.36 mg/dl respectively, p<0.000001). 11 of 22 patients had AA levels >-2SD of control group whereas the other 11 patients showed normal ranges of AA. The AA deficient patients were those that showed significantly higher SF, LIC and lower mT2* at BL (Table 1). In the DFX+AA arm, 5/11 (45%) patients had subnormal AA levels at BL but attained normal status after 1 year, as did all others on AA. Of the 5/11 (45%) DFX-treated patients that did not receive AA had normal BL AA and only 2/11 maintained normal AA status at EOS. A significant correlation was obtained between BL SF, LIC and mT2* and e-LPI (r 0.49, p 0.025; r 0.57, p 0.01; r -0.43, p 0.057 respectively) but not with LPI. The changes associated with DFX alone or with AA from BL to EOS were subtle for all parameters measured (Table 2). Importantly, eLPI and LPI remained at basal levels throughout 6 months treatment in both arms. With DFX alone, LPI were 0.34±0.30 units (mM iron) (BL) & 0.63±0.58 (6 mo); eLPI: 1.71±1.93 at BL & 2.48±3.11 (6 mo). DFX+AA: LPI were 0.33±0.46 (BL) & 0.35±0.44 (6 mo); eLPI: 2.13±1.71 (BL) & 1.78±1.51 (6 mo). Conclusions TM patients on long term DFX without AA supplementation showed subnormal, AA levels. This was most pronounced in TM patients with higher liver and heart iron. The addition of AA to DFX normalized the AA levels but did not increase the e-LPI and LPI during 6 mo, indicating no apparent risk of iatrogenic toxicity by AA to DFX. Moreover, AA may enhance the efficacy of DFX in cardiac and hepatic iron. The small rise in SF versus fall in LIC in the DFX+AA arm might need further exploration. Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients based on AA status Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients based on AA status Table 2 Changes in iron overload markers in patients treated with DFX or DFX+AA over 1 year Table 2. Changes in iron overload markers in patients treated with DFX or DFX+AA over 1 year Disclosures Aydinok: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cerus: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Cabantchik:Aferrix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hinoman: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmeceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apopharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Factors Influencing Long-Term Hematopoietic Function Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2186.2186 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2186-2186

Author(s):

Alissa Visram ◽

Natasha Kekre ◽

Christopher N. Bredeson ◽

Jason Tay ◽

Lothar B. Huebsch ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Peripheral Blood ◽

Research Funding ◽

Infection Rates ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background/Objective: Mobilized peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor cells are the most common stem cell source for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT). Successful short-term stem cell engraftment requires collection of at least 2x106 CD34+ cells/kg. The American Society of Bone Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) recommends a stem cell infusion target of 3-5 x106 cells/kg (Giralt et al. 2014). However, the number of CD34+ cells to reinfuse to ensure long-term engraftment has not been established. Plerixafor, a reversible CXCR4 antagonist, increases CD34+ cell yield at collection even in patients who are predicted poor mobilizers (PPM). Although plerixafor could be used universally for all collections, this may not be the most cost-effective strategy (Veltri et al. 2012). This study sought to determine the minimum number of CD34+ cells/kg required for adequate long-term hematopoiesis, identify factors associated with poor long-term hematopoiesis, and determine if plerixafor mobilization improved long-term peripheral blood counts. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who underwent auto-HSCT between January 2004 and September 2013 at The Ottawa Hospital, for management of hematological malignancies. Peripheral blood cell counts were collected from 1 to 5 years after auto-HSCT, or until disease relapse. Poor long-term hematopoiesis was defined as an ANC <1 x109/L, hemoglobin <100 g/L, or platelets <100 x109/L. Patients were stratified into groups based on the infused CD34+ concentration (in cells/kg), and the proportion of patients with poor long-term hematopoiesis at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years post auto-HSCT was compared with chi square tests. Long-term clinical outcomes (platelet and packed red blood cell transfusions, and post auto-HSCT infection rates) were compared between plerixafor-mobilized patients and PPM (defined as patients with pre-collection CD34+ <2 x 106 cells/kg) with standard mobilization regimens. Results: This study included 560 patients who underwent auto-HSCT, 210 with multiple myeloma and 350 with lymphoma. At 1 and 5 years post auto-HSCT 377 and 104 patients were included, respectively. A dose dependent improvement 1 year after auto-HSCT was seen in patients who received 0-2.99 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (24.4%, n= 41) compared to patients who received 5-9.99 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (11%, n=154, p=0.051) and ³10 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (4.5%, n=66, p=0.006). Though there was a trend towards lower CD34+ infusions and poorer hematopoietic function (see table 1), there was no statistically significant difference in hematopoietic function based on CD34+ infusion concentrations after 1 year post auto-HSCT. 10 patients received <2 x106 CD34+ cells/kg, of whom the rate of inadequate hematopoiesis was 33% at 1 year (n=6) and 0% (n=1) at 5 years post auto-HSCT. Factors that increased the risk of poor hematopoiesis over the course of study follow up, based on a univariate analysis, included advanced age (OR 1.189, p=0.05), multiple prior collections (OR 2.978, p=0.035), and prior treatment with more than two chemotherapy lines (OR 2.571, p=0.02). Plerixafor-mobilized patients (n=25), compared to PPM (n=197), had a significantly higher median CD34+ cell collection (4.048 x109/L and 2.996 x109/L cells/kg, respectively, p=0.005). There was no significant difference in overall cytopenias, transfusion requirements, or infection rates between plerixafor-mobilized and PPM patients over the course of the study follow up. Conclusion: Low pre-collection CD34+ counts, advanced age, multiple prior collections, and more than two prior chemotherapy treatments adversely affected long-term hematopoiesis post auto-HSCT. We support the transfusion target of 3-5 x 106 cells/kg, as proposed by the ASBMT, given that at 5 years post auto-HSCT there was no statistical or clinically significant difference in hematopoietic function with higher CD34+ infusion targets. While mobilization with plerixafor significantly increased overall CD34+ cell collection when compared with PPM, long-term hematopoietic function and clinical outcomes were not different. This finding supports the practise of limiting plerixafor use only to patients who are PPM, thereby facilitating adequate stem cell collection and early engraftment, as opposed to universal plerixafor mobilization. Disclosures Sabloff: Lundbeck: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Research Funding; Alexion: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Does Addition of Rituximab (R) to BEAM Conditioning Improve Outcomes of Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (auto-HCT)?

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-121347 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 785-785

Author(s):

Deepa Jagadeesh ◽

Navneet S. Majhail ◽

He Yizeng ◽

Kwang Woo Ahn ◽

Carlos Litovich ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Older Age ◽

Disease Stage ◽

Karnofsky Performance Score ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Impact

Introduction: Rituximab-based high-dose therapy (HDT) is frequently prescribed to DLBCL patients (pts) undergoing auto-HCT. However data supporting the benefit of adding R to auto-HCT conditioning are not available. Herein, we report the impact of R-based conditioning on auto-HCT outcomes of DLBCL pts. Methods: Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry, 862 adult (≥18 years) DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, between 2003-2017 were included. Analysis was limited to pts receiving BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan)-based HDT, as R was infrequently used with non-BEAM conditioning regimens. All pts received R-containing chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline setting and had chemosensitive disease prior to HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure (ECitF) was defined as not achieving a complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapsing within 1 year of initial diagnosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and infectious complications within 100 days post-HCT. Results: The study cohort was divided into 2 groups; BEAM (n=667) and R-BEAM (n=195). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable including age at auto-HCT, disease stage, Karnofsky performance score, extranodal involvement, time from diagnosis to auto-HCT, number of prior therapies, remission status, and ECitF. However, significantly more R-BEAM cohort patients received R as part of last therapy line before auto-HCT (75% vs. 86%; P=0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 48 (range 1-171) and 64 (range 3-142) months in the BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts, respectively. On univariate analysis, the 4 year cumulative incidence of relapse (41% vs 44%), NRM (11% vs 9%), PFS (48% vs 47%; Figure 1) and OS (58% vs 61%; Figure 2) were similar in the R-BEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.81-1.31; P=0.83) or PFS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76-1.18; P=0.61) (Table 1) between the two cohorts. Addition of R had no impact on risk of relapse (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P=0.15) or NRM (HR 1.43; 95% CI 0.909-2.26; P=0.12). Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.81-5.13; P<0.001), not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.07; P<0.001) and presence of ECitF (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.54-3.26; P<0.001). Older age (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.48-3.45; P<0.0002) and not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.78, CI 1.47-2.14; P<0.0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in the 100-day cumulative incidence of bacterial, viral or fungal infections between the two cohorts. Disease relapse was the main cause of death in both BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts (66% vs 55%). Conclusion: In this large registry analysis of DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, adding R to BEAM conditioning had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR and ECitF were associated with inferior survival. Disclosures Majhail: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Hamadani:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (alloHCT) on the Outcome of Poor-Risk Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL): A Retrospective Intent-to-Transplant (ITT) Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128352 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3328-3328 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lorenz Selberg ◽

Peter Stadtherr ◽

Sascha Dietrich ◽

Thomas Luft ◽

Andrea Bondong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

T Cell Lymphoma ◽

The Other ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Unrelated Donors ◽

The Impact

Although alloHCT is an accepted salvage treatment in defined settings of poor-risk NHL, its potential benefit in these indications remains controversial because virtually all published studies are uncontrolled and restricted to patients who were actually able to undergo transplantation. Here, we aimed at assessing the impact of alloHCT by measuring its outcome from the time of donor search indication rather than from the time of transplant, thereby taking into account those patients who fail to proceed to allografting for any reason. Study design and patients : In a single centre retrospective analysis, course and outcome of all patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) who were considered as having an alloHCT indication according to accepted guidelines between 2004 and 2018 were recorded. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from start of donor search. A key secondary endpoint was comparison of OS from the 3-month landmark by donor availability. Accepted donors were matched related donors (MRD), 10/10 matched unrelated donors (MUD), 9/10 compatible unrelated donors (MMUD), and mismatched related donors (MMRD), with haplo donors being used at our institution only since 2014. Results : Altogether a donor search was initiated in 187 patients (DLBCL 32%, FL 17%, MCL 23%, PTCL 28%). Median age was 54 (19-69) years with 74% being male. Within a median time from diagnosis to search initiation of 1.1 (0.1-19) years, a median of 4 (1-9) treatment lines had been administered, including an autoHCT in 50%. 69% of the patients had active disease at the time of search initiation. Only 2 patients underwent donor search in 1st remission (for Richter transformation and hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma, respectively). With a median follow-up of 6.2 (0.6-15.9) years, OS at 5 years after search initiation for DLBCL, FL, MCL, and PTCL was 25%, 44%, 52%, and 50%, respectively (Fig 1). 171 patients (91%) were alive at the 3-month landmark. For these, an MRD (20%), MUD (44%), MMUD (25%), or MMRD (7%) could be identified in 96% of the cases. AlloHCT was performed in 72% of all 187 patients, and in 79% of the patients alive at the 3-month landmark, with a significantly lower rate in DLBCL (69%) compared to the other entities. In patients who were actually transplanted, 5-year OS from landmark for DLBCL, FL, MCL and PTCL was 32%, 63%, 62%, and 62%, respectively, whereas only 5 of the 36 patients (14%) alive at the 3-month landmark not undergoing alloHCT for any reason survived long term. Due to the low rate of unsuccessful searches, donor vs no-donor landmark survival analyses were not possible. Conclusions: Despite donor search now being successful in virtually all cases, 20-30% of those patients intended for alloHCT for NHL will never proceed to transplant. However, long-term OS by ITT does not seem substantially worse than alloHCT outcome observed in registry studies restricted to patients actually transplanted, with DLBCL appearing inferior to the other 3 entities. Patients surviving the 3-month landmark but not undergoing alloHCT for any reason have a poor outlook. These results may serve as benchmark for novel therapeutic options entering the NHL treatment landscape. Disclosures Luft: Neovii: Research Funding; JAZZ: Research Funding. Schmitt:MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Sponsoring of Symposia; Therakos Mallinckrodt: Other: Financial Support. Dreger:Neovii, Riemser: Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Sponsoring of Symposia; AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Superior CMR-Rates with Tolerability-Adapted Imatinib 800 Mg Vs. 400 Mg Vs. 400 Mg + IFN In CML: The Randomized German CML-Study IV

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.357.357 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 357-357 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Rüdiger Hehlmann ◽

Susanne Jung-Munkwitz ◽

Michael Lauseker ◽

Martin C. Müller ◽

Armin Leitner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Randomized Study ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

High Dose ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Good Tolerability ◽

First Choice ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 357 Treatment of CML with imatinib of 400 mg can be unsatisfactory. Treatment optimization is warranted. The German CML-Study group has therefore conducted a randomized study comparing imatinib 800 mg vs 400 mg vs 400 mg + IFN. A significantly faster achievement of MMR at 12 months has been observed with imatinib 800 mg in a tolerability adapted manner and MMR by 12 months has been found to translate into better overall survival. Since stable CMR has been associated with durable off-treatment remissions we sought to analyse the impact of tolerability-adapted imatinib 800 mg on CMR and survival. Standardized determinations of molecular response and evaluation of its impact on outcome are goals of CML-Study IV. CMR4 is defined as a BCR-ABL/ABL ratio of <0,01 on the International Scale. From July 2002 – April 30, 2009 1022 newly diagnosed patients with CML in chronic phase were randomized, 1012 were evaluable (338 with imatinib 800 mg, 324 with imatinib 400 mg, 350 with imatinib plus IFN). Median observation time was 40 months. The median average daily imatinib doses were 628 mg in the 800 mg arm and 400 mg in the 400 mg based arms. The actual median daily doses in the 800 mg arm per 3-months periods were: 555 mg, 737 mg, 613 mg, 600 mg, and 600 mg thereafter, reflecting the run–in period with imatinib 400 mg for 6 weeks in the first period and the adaptation to tolerability from the third 3-months period onwards. Median daily imatinib doses in the 400 mg arms were 400 mg throughout. Adaptation of imatinib dose in the 800 mg arm according to tolerability is reflected by similar higher-grade adverse events rates (WHO grades 3 and 4) with all treatments. Significantly higher remission rates were achieved with imatinib 800 mg by 12 months. The cumulative incidences of CCR by 12 months were 63% [95%CI:56.4-67.9] with imatinib 800 mg vs 50% [95%CI:43.0-54.5] with the two 400 mg arms. The cumulative incidences of MMR by 12 months were 54.8% [95%CI:48.7-59.7] with imatinib 800 mg vs 30.8% [95%CI:26.6-36.1] with imatinib 400 mg vs 34.7% [95%CI:29.0-39.2] with imatinib + IFN. The cumulative incidences of CMR4 compared with the MMR incidences over the first 36 months are shown in Table 1. Imatinib 800 mg shows superior CMR4 rates over the entire 36 months period, CMR4 is reached significantly faster with imatinib 800 mg as compared to the 400 mg arms. The CMR4 rates reach 56.8% by 36 months [95%CI:49.4-63.5] as compared to 45.5% with imatinib 400 mg [95%CI:38.7-51.0] and 40.5% with imatinib plus IFN [95%CI:34.6-46.3]. Most patients have stable CMR4 over the entire period. Time after start of treat-ment (months) Cumulative incidences MMR(%) CMR4 (%) IM400 n=306 D IM800 n=328 D IM400 +IFN n=336 IM400 n=306 D IM800 n=328 D IM400 +IFN n=336 6 8.6 9.5 18.1 9.7 8.4 3 0.7 3.7 1.3 2.4 12 30.8 24.0 54.8 20.1 34.7 7.5 12.3 19.8 7.4 12.4 18 50.3 18.1 68.4 14.3 54.1 21.2 12.2 33.4 9.8 23.6 24 63 13.0 76.0 13.2 62.8 30.7 12.3 43 13 30.0 36 79.3 2.3 81.6 10.9 70.7 45.5 11.3 56.8 16.3 40.5 In summary, superior CMR4 rates are achieved with high-dose imatinib adapted to good tolerability, and more patients in the tolerability-adapted 800 mg arm have stable CMR4 qualifying for treatment discontinuation as compared to the 400 mg based arms. With improved application imatinib remains first choice for early CML. Disclosures: Koschmieder: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schnittger:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. German CML-Study Group:Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Essex: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Enestnd 4-Year (y) Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Vs Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1676.1676 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1676-1676 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Surapol Issaragrisil ◽

Richard E Clark ◽

Josy Reiffers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

The Difference ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1676 Background: Pts treated with nilotinib in the ENESTnd phase 3 trial achieved higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular responses (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 1, 2, and 3 y. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 3 y; efficacy and safety data based on longer follow-up of 4 y will be presented to further assess the impact of nilotinib vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Methods: Adult pts (N = 846) with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 by 3 y were achieved in nilotinib- vs imatinib-treated pts (Table). Nilotinib led to the achievement of higher rates of molecular responses regardless of Sokal risk group or age. The difference in the rates of both MR4 and MR4.5 continued to be significantly higher for nilotinib, with the difference in favor of nilotinib increasing from 1 to 3 y (MR4: 9%-14% difference by 1 y, 18%-24% difference by 3 y; MR4.5: 6%-10% difference by 1 y, 13%-17% difference by 3 y). Among patients who achieved MMR, more pts achieved MR4 or MR4.5 on nilotinib 300 mg BID (68%) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (62%) compared with imatinib (49%). No pt in any arm progressed after achieving MR4.5. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). No new progressions occurred on core treatment between the 2-y and 3-y analyses. When events occurring after treatment discontinuation were included, the rates of progression to AP/BC were also significantly lower with nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Nearly twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 21) vs either nilotinib arm (n = 11 in each arm), with 5 pts overall developing mutations between 2 and 3 y. OS remained similar in all groups at 3 y, but fewer CML-related deaths occurred in both the nilotinib 300 mg BID (n = 5) and 400 mg BID (n = 4) arms vs imatinib (n = 14). Both drugs were well tolerated. Few new adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were observed between 2 and 3 y. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 10%, 14%, and 11% in the nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID, and imatinib arms, respectively. Conclusions: Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib, yielding faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. Results of ENESTnd support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP and should be considered to replace imatinib as the standard-of-care frontline therapy for patients with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding; II-Yang: Research Funding. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reiffers:BMS: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other; Novartis: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses, Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Hochhaus:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kemp:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Fan:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Waltzman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Differences in Presentation and Survival Outcomes for African American Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-119948 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 5647-5647 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nisha Joseph ◽

Vikas A. Gupta ◽

Craig C Hofmeister ◽

Charise Gleason ◽

Leonard Heffner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

African American ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Entire Cohort ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background : Though the incidence of MM is two- to threefold higher in the African American (AA) population compared to Caucasians, reported long term outcomes are less favorable presumably due to inequities in access to healthcare. Little is known about the biology or disease presentation among AAs. We have conducted a retrospective analysis of our institutional data of 1000 patients treated with RVD induction therapy, specifically assessing differences in presentation, disease biology, and outcomes in AA patients. Methods: A total of 1000 newly diagnosed MM patients were treated with RVD induction therapy [R - 25 mg/day (days 1-14), V - 1.3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4 8, 11) and D - 40 mg once/twice weekly as tolerated every 21 days] from January 1st 2005 until August 31st 2016. Dose-adjustments were made based on the treating physician's discretion and patient tolerability. Demographic and outcomes data for the patients were obtained from our IRB approved myeloma database and responses were evaluated per IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Results: Of the 1000 patients included in the analysis, 564 (56.4%) of patients were white (W), and 339 (33.9%) were AA, consistent with the demographic representation of the state of GA and our institutional referral population. Median age of this cohort was 61 years (range 16-83), 57 for AA patients (range, 24-83) compared to 62 (range, 16-81) in white patients, suggesting the onset is earlier among AA which has been previously reported in population based studies. Other notable characteristics include: 42.5%M/57.5% F for AA cohort and 61.7%M/38.3%F for white cohort. In regard to stage, AA: 73.9% stage I/II, 26.1% stage III; W: 77.1% stage I/II, 22.9% stage III, showing no difference in prognostic staging at presentation. There was no statistically significant difference in the presenting labs between AA and whites except for hemoglobin, with more AA patients presenting with Hgb≤9.9 g/dL (45.7% AA vs 32.5% W, p <.0001). In terms of prevalence of high-risk cytogenetics, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts in: complex karyotype 16% white/14.4% AA; t(14;16) 2.4% W/2.8% AA; t(4;14) 4.7% W/5.0% AA; t(11;14) 11.7% W/15.9% AA; or del1p 6.5%W/7.8%AA. However, there were significant differences found in the rates of: amp 1q 19.2% W/10.6% AA, (p<.0001), del13 28.3% W/19.6% AA (p=.003), and del17p 11.7% W/7.2% AA (p=.019), all three significantly less frequent in AAs. Median time to transplant for the entire cohort was 5 months (range, 1-124), and median time to best response was 3 months (range, 0-39). There was no significant difference in the number of patients who underwent ASCT (84% W vs 82% AA, p=.241), nor in ≥VGPR rates post-induction and 100 days post-ASCT: 69.9% W vs 64.5% AA (p=.056) and 88.1% W vs 86.7% in AA patients (p=.317), respectively. Median PFS for the entire cohort was 63 months, 62 months (54-69.9) for white patients versus 65 months (53-76.9) for AA patients (p=0.403). At a median follow up of 38 months, median OS has not yet been reached. Conclusions: This is the largest reported cohort of myeloma patients treated with RVD induction, with one-third of the patients representing the AA population. In our dataset, AAs are diagnosed 5 years younger, with lower hemoglobin at presentation and lower rates of amp1q, del13 and del17p when compared to whites. When offered the same induction regimen and opportunity for ASCT, AAs tend to experience the same survival benefits as their white counterparts. The lack of significant difference in PFS or OS suggests standardization and improved access to care could lead to better long-term outcomes in the AA population. Disclosures Hofmeister: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Heffner:Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Boise:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy. Kaufman:BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Nooka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ropeginterferon Alfa-2b in Patients with Polycythemia Vera — Final Phase I/II Peginvera Study Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-118584 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3030-3030 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Heinz Gisslinger ◽

Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch ◽

Josef Thaler ◽

Ernst Forjan ◽

Ella Willenbacher ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

First Year ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Dosing Regimen ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Hematological Response

Abstract Background: Ropeginterferon alfa-2b (Ropeg) is a novel long-acting monopegylated IFN-alpha-2b. Due to reduced dosing frequencies, better tolerability and improved compliance, Ropeg may be a favorable treatment option for long-term therapy in patients with polycythemia vera (PV). Study design: PEGINVERA phase I/II (NCT: 2010-018768-18), a prospective, open-label, multicenter study, investigated the efficacy and safety of Ropeg for long-term treatment in 51 patients aged ≥18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of PV, regardless of prior cytoreductive therapy. Following ≥1 year of 2-weekly treatment, patients who responded well to Ropeg were permitted to switch to a 4-weekly dosing regimen. Results: Baseline characteristics of the study cohort and interim safety and efficacy data were presented previously (Gisslinger et al., Blood, 2015). Fifty-one patients were treated: Median exposure to Ropeg was approximately 5.1 years (61 months; range: 0 to 87 months). Patients were treated for a median of approximately 2 years (98.9 weeks; (Q1-Q3: 69.0 - 117.4 weeks) on the 2-weekly regimen and 4 years (207.1 weeks; Q1-Q3: 158.6 - 242.0 weeks) on the 4-weekly regimen. The best observed individual hematological response for patients in the efficacy analysis set (FAS) was a complete hematological response for 27/42 (64.3%) and a partial response for 14/42 (33.3%) patients. Patients required a median of 34 weeks (Q1-Q3: 10-96 weeks) treatment to achieve a complete hematological response, and 10 weeks (Q1-Q3: 10-20 weeks) to achieve any hematological response. Switch from 2 to 4-week dosing regimen had no apparent effect on maintenance of response. With respect to JAK-2 allele burden, the best observed individual molecular response was a complete response for 12/42 (28.6%) patients and a partial response for 19/42 (45.2%) patients. Lowest JAK-2 values relative to baseline are presented by patient in Figure 1. Patients required a median of 82 weeks (Q1-Q3: 44-115 weeks) treatment to achieve a complete molecular response and 34 weeks (Q1-Q3: 18-55 weeks) treatment to achieve any molecular response. Irrespective of dosing regimen, molecular responses tended to increase over time. Most patients reported at least one adverse reaction (AR) to treatment (409 ARs in 48/51 [94.1%]); however, the majority (296 in 44 [86.3%] patients) were mild; 102 (in 34 [66.7%] patients) were moderate and 11 (in 10 [19.6%] patients) were severe. The most frequently reported ARs (frequency >20%) were arthralgia, influenza-like illness and fatigue. Twelve serious treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) reported by 8/51 patients (15.7%) were considered to be treatment related: 2 events of depression, 2 of positive anti-thyroid antibodies, and one each of acute stress disorder, increased antinuclear antibodies, arthralgia, atrial fibrillation, fatigue, influenza-like illness, pyrexia, and increased transaminases. 25 patients completed the trial. The majority of discontinuation due to TEAE (13/21 patients) occurred in the first year, when the recommended slow up-titration of Ropeg could not be applied because of the maximum-tolerated-dose design. After the first year, only 8 additional patients discontinued because of TEAE. Conclusions: The final results of this phase I/II study of Ropeg in patients with PV support the findings of the pivotal phase III clinical trial (Gisslinger et al., Blood 2015) with respect to safety and efficacy as determined by hematological, clinical and molecular parameters. In addition, these data provide evidence that treatment with Ropeginterferon alfa-2b for up to 7 years is efficacious, well-tolerated and disease-modifying at both the 2 week and 4 week maintenance treatment regimens. Disclosures Gisslinger: AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kralovics:MyeloPro Diagnostics and Research GmbH: Equity Ownership. Krauth:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil:MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zoerer:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Empson:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Grohmann-Izay:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Employment. Klade:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Employment.

Download Full-text