High Dose Imatinib Induction Therapy (800 mg/day, 6 Months) In Pre-Treated Chronic Phase CML Patients Improves Cytogenetic and Molecular Responses but Does Not Improve Overall and Progression Free Survival – Final Results of the CELSG Phase III CML11 “ISTAHIT” Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2271-2271
Author(s):  
Andreas L Petzer ◽  
Dominic Fong ◽  
Thomas Lion ◽  
Irina Dyagil ◽  
Zvenyslava Masliak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2271 Introduction: Imatinib 400 mg/day represents the current standard treatment for de novo as well as pre-treated CML patients in chronic phase (CP). Recent randomized phase III trials revealed conflicting results concerning the potential higher efficacy of dose-increased imatinib in de novo treated CP-CML. Methods: We here present the final analyses including response data, OS, EFS and PFS of the multicenter, randomised, 2-arm phase III CELSG “ISTAHIT” trial evaluating imatinib high dose (HD) induction (800 mg/day, 6 months) followed by 400 mg/day as maintenance (experimental arm B) compared to continuous imatinib standard dose (400mg/day; arm A) in pre-treated CP CML patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0032726. Results: From a total of 243 patients screened for inclusion, 16 patients were not eligible (mainly due to non sufficient numbers of metaphases obtainable from the bone marrow before the start of the study). Of the remaining 227 patients, 113 patients were randomized into arm A and 114 patients into the experimental arm B. Subsequent data are presented as per protocol. No significant differences between treatment groups were observed regarding sex (55.5% female, 44.5% male), age (median: 46.3 years, range 18 –76), Sokal scores at diagnosis (30% low, 41% intermediate, 16% Sokal high risk, 13% unknown) and different pre-treatments, which included hydroxyurea (96%), interferon (72%), busulfan (17%) and “others” (26%; mainly Ara-C). The median observation time was 673 days. Cytogenetic responses were generally higher in the experimental arm B and revealed statistically significant differences in major cytogenetic responses (MCyR) at 3 and 6 months (month 3: 25.8% arm A, 48.3% arm B, p=0.002; month 6: 41.9% arm A, 58.8% arm B, p=0.029) as well as in complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) not only during imatinib HD therapy (month 3: 7.5% arm A, 29.9% arm B, p<0.001; month 6: 20.4% arm A, 47.4% arm B, p<0.001) but also thereafter (month 12: 31.8% arm A, 52.9% arm B, p=0.006). The primary endpoint of the study, the achievement of an improved MCyR at 12 month was, however, not significantly different (56.8% arm A, 64.4% arm B). In line with improved cytogenetic responses, major molecular response (MMRIS) rates were also significantly better at 3, 6 and even at 24 months in the HD arm B (month 3: 3.7% arm A, 15.9% arm B, p=0.003; month 6: 9.4% arm A, 34.6% arm B, p<0.001; month 24: 26.5% arm A, 42.5% arm B, p=0.034). Surprisingly, however, this impressing improvement in cytogenetic and molecular remissions in patients achieving high dose imatinib as induction therapy did not translate into a better OS and PFS, both of which were comparable in the two treatment arms (OS: p=0.25; EFS: p=0.37). Moreover, the EFS was even significantly worsened in the experimental arm B (p=0.014). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities during the first 6 months of therapy were comparable, whereas grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were significantly more common in the imatinib HD arm B. Conclusions: Although high dose imatinib induction induces more rapid and higher cytogenetic and molecular remission rates in pre-treated CP CML patients, OS as well as PFS were not improved and EFS was even worsened in the high dose induction arm B. Therefore we conclude that imatinib 400mg/day remains the standard of care for pre-treated CP-CML patients. Disclosures: Petzer: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Imatinib 800mg is not licensed as the initial therapy of chronic phase CML. Lion: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bogdanovic: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griskevicius: Novartis: Research Funding. Kwakkelstein: Celgene: Employment. Rancati: Novartis: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gastl: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wolf: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 357-357 ◽  
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.

Selective Escalation of Imatinib Therapy and Early Switching to Nilotinib In De Novo Chronic Phase CML Patients: Interim Results From the TIDEL-II Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 209-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T. Yeung ◽  
Michael Osborn ◽  
Deborah L. White ◽  
Susan Branford ◽  
Lauren Haswell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Targets ◽  
T315i Mutation

Abstract Abstract 209 Background: Although the majority of chronic phase (CP) Philadelphia positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients (pts) achieve good disease control with imatinib, some pts demonstrate suboptimal responses. Early dose escalation or switching to nilotinib, a more potent BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor, as soon as suboptimal molecular response is recognised may improve response and disease outcome. Aim: To optimise clinical and molecular outcomes in Ph+ CML using imatinib (IM) as frontline therapy with selective IM dose escalation based on pharmacokinetic (PK) results and switching to nilotinib (NIL) in case of suboptimal response, or IM-intolerance. Method: TIDEL-II is a multicentre, single arm prospective ALLG trial in de novo CP-CML pts with 2 separate sequential cohorts. In Cohort I, pts are treated with IM 600mg/d up-front, aiming for BCR-ABL RQ-PCR target values of ≤ 10%, 1%, and 0.1% IS (major molecular response, MMR) at 3, 6, and 12 months respectively. Pts who do not reach these treatment targets are classified as suboptimal responders. Dose escalation to 800mg/d or maximal tolerated dose occurs if trough IM level is <1000ng/mL at day 22, or for suboptimal response. A switch to NIL (400mg bid) is triggered if molecular targets are still not met 3 months after IM escalation, or for loss or response, or for IM intolerance (Grade III/IV or persistent Grade II non-haematological toxicity). Results: 105 pts were assessed with median follow up of 18.9 months (range: 9–33) in cohort I. For pts with a minimum of 12 months follow up (n=80), complete cytogenetic response (CCR), MMR and complete molecular response (CMR)# rates at 12 months were 92%, 66% and 11% respectively. BCR-ABL levels at 3 months were predictive of MMR at 12 months, but not for CMR due to small pt numbers (Table 1). For pts who failed to achieve BCR-ABL of ≤10% at 3 months, the 12 month MMR rate was 25% (vs 5% in TIDEL-I where pts were also started on IM 600mg/d and suboptimal responders were dose escalated to IM 800mg/d). Of the 105 pts, 16 pts dose escalated IM due to a day 22 IM blood level <1000ng/mL, after which 2/16 switched to NIL (1 suboptimal, 1 intolerant); all achieved CCR. Twelve pts dose escalated for suboptimal response, 7 subsequently switched to NIL for again failing treatment targets. In all, 21/105 pts (20%) switched to NIL: 7 for suboptimal response and 14 for intolerance. The median time to switching and the median pre-switch prescribed IM dose were 468 days & 800mg/d for the suboptimal group; and 183 days & 600mg/d for the intolerant group respectively. Of these, 20/21 achieved or remained in CCR. At the time of switching to NIL, 19/21 pts were not in MMR. With a median follow-up of 295 days post switch to NIL, 9/12 intolerant pts (75%) achieved MMR, whereas 1/7 suboptimal IM responders (14%) achieved MMR (median follow up after switching: 286 days). Only 7/105 pts (7%) discontinued treatment: 4 for non-compliance, 1 pt with a T315I mutation and 2 pts with blast crisis (BC). Progression to BC was associated with detectable mutations: 1 pt with 4 different mutations including T315I and 1 pt with H396P mutation. The progression rate to AP/BC was 2%. The overall mutation rate was 5/105 (5%). The 2 pts who progressed and the pt who discontinued when a T315I mutation was detected were among the 28 pts with BCR-ABL values >1.0% at 3 months. In contrast, no resistant mutations were detected or transformations occurred in the 49 pts with BCR-ABL values ≤1.0% at 3 months. Conclusion: A strategy of selective intensification of BCR-ABL inhibitor therapy based on molecular response and PK values resulted in a 66% MMR rate by 12 months. Despite a minority of pts (20%) requiring a switch to NIL, this has enhanced the rate of MMR by 12 months when compared to IM intensification alone as seen in TIDEL-I where the rate of MMR and CMR by 12 months was 47% and 9% respectively. The IM intolerant pts demonstrated excellent response rates after switching to NIL. To date, the results from TIDEL-II compare favourably with other frontline strategies with regards to response and transformation rates. Disclosures: Yeung: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Osborn:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. White:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Branford:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Slader:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mills:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria.

scholarly journals MCRN¯003/MYX·1: A Single Arm Phase II Study of High-Dose Weekly Carfilzomib Plus Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma after 1-3 Prior Therapies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1984-1984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Venner ◽  
Richard Leblanc ◽  
Irwindeep Sandhu ◽  
Darrell J. White ◽  
Andrew R Belch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Dosing Strategies ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Carfilzomib, a second generation proteosome inhibitor, is effective in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Recent phase II and phase III trials have demonstrated the efficacy of weekly dosing strategies. The aim of this study was to examine high dose once weekly carfilzomib in combination with weekly dexamethasone and low dose weekly cyclophosphamide (wCCD) in RRMM. It was hypothesized that this may offer a potent yet convenient and more financially viable triplet-based treatment option than existing combinations. Methods: The MCRN-003/MYX.1 multi-centre single arm phase II clinical trial is run through the Myeloma Canada Research Network (MCRN) with support from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Patients who had at least one but not more than three prior lines of therapy and who did not have proteosome inhibitor (PI) refractory disease were eligible. Treatment consists of carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 day 1 of first cycle then escalated to 70 mg/m2 for all subsequent doses) given on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, plus weekly oral dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 capped at 500 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. Treatment continues until progression or intolerance, except for cyclophosphamide which is discontinued after 12 cycles. The total sample size of 76 patients includes a 6 patient lead-in phase where safety at 70 mg/m2 was evaluated. The primary objective was to observe an overall response rate (ORR) ≥ 80% after 4 cycles of protocol therapy. Secondary endpoints include safety, toxicity, kinetics of and maximal response depth and overall survival. This analysis is based on the locked data base of 2018 July 13. Results: Of the 76 patients accrued 1 was subsequently determined to be ineligible on the basis of bortezomib refractory disease, and 1 did not receive any protocol therapy due to a cardiac event occurring post-study registration but prior to treatment commencement. All patients who received therapy were included in the analysis as per protocol inclusive of the bortezomib exposed patient. Among these 75 patients, median age was 66 years with 33% being > 70 years of age. Thirty-seven percent were female. Thirty-nine percent received 1 prior line, 44% received 2 prior lines and 17% received 3 prior lines of therapy. High risk cytogenetics [(t4;14), t(14;16) and del P53] were identified in 32%. Twenty percent had ISS stage III disease and 11% had R-ISS stage III disease. Prior PI and immunomodulatory drug exposure was noted in 87% and 81% respectively. Within the first 4 cycles of therapy 84% (95% CI, 76-92%) of patients achieved PR or better, with ≥ VGPR achieved in 52% and ≥ CR in 9% (table 1, p = 0.0006). There was a trend toward a better ORR after 4 cycles based on the presence or absence of high-risk cytogenetics (75% vs 94% respectively, p = 0.051) not meeting statistical significance. The median duration of follow-up at the time of data analysis was 13.9 months (range 0.2 to 22.8 months). 18 patients have died with an estimated 1-year OS of 80%. The cause of death as assessed by the investigator was myeloma in 13 patients with 3 dying from a cause possibly or probably related to the study intervention. During the first 4 cycles of treatment, non-hematologic toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 33% of patients; most commonly infection (16%) and fatigue (7%). Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 17%, thrombocytopenia in 33% and neutropenia in 20%. Grade 3 or greater hypertension was seen in 4%, dyspnea in 1%, pulmonary edema in 1% and thrombotic microangiopathy in 4%; all resolved with no long-term sequelae. To date 37 (49%) patients have discontinued carfilzomib, 11 due to toxicity and 16 due to disease progression. Conclusion: This prospective phase II study demonstrates that wCCD is a safe and effective regimen in the treatment of RRMM. The study met its primary endpoint demonstrating a ≥ 80% ORR after 4 cycles of therapy. These results compare favourably to published phase III data examining weekly carfilzomib and dexamethasone as well as the established twice-weekly dosing strategies. This regimen will be a useful triplet-based option for RRMM especially in patients refractory to immunomodulatory agents who would otherwise be ineligible for the carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone combination. Disclosures Venner: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Leblanc:Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sandhu:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bioverativ: Honoraria. White:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria. Chen:Amgen: Honoraria. Louzada:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria. Hay:Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 901-901
Author(s):  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Giulia Benevolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those &gt;75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p&lt;0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

A Pilot Study of Acalabrutinib with Bendamustine/Rituximab Followed By Cytarabine/Rituximab (R-ABC) for Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Daniel Guy ◽  
Marcus Watkins ◽  
Fei Wan ◽  
Nancy L. Bartlett ◽  
Amanda F Cashen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stem Cell Collection

Introduction The management of younger fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) varies widely with no consensus on an optimal induction therapy. To date, the treatments with the longest progression-free survival incorporate a chemotherapy backbone that includes high dose cytarabine, followed by consolidation with an autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) (Hermine et al. Lancet 2016, Eskelund et al. Br J Haematol 2016). Recent data showed that a regimen of bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab achieved high complete response rates with high minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (Merryman RW et al. Blood Adv 2020). We hypothesized that adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib to the same chemotherapeutic backbone would be safe and increase complete response rates as well as minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity pre-transplant, and potentially improve clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a single arm, single institution pilot study registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03623373). Patients with untreated MCL, who were between ages 18-70 and were candidates for ASCT, were eligible. Patients received six 28-day cycles of treatment. Cycles 1-3 consisted of bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 and acalabrutinib 100mg BID on days 1 through 28. Cycles 4-6 consisted of rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, cytarabine 2 g/m2 (1.5 g/m2 if age&gt;60) q12 hours on days 1 and 2, and acalabrutinib 100mg BID on days 1 through 7 and 22 through 28. Restaging PET/CT and response assessment based on the Lugano classification were obtained following cycles 3 and 6. After cycle 6 patients underwent leukapheresis and stem-cell collection as preparation for ASCT. Blood for MRD status was collected after cycles 2, 4 and 6 and will be evaluated using the ClonoSeq assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). The primary objective was to determine the stem cell mobilization success rate. Secondary objectives included safety and tolerability, overall response rate (ORR), pre-transplant complete response rate (CR), and the MRD negativity rate during and after completion of therapy. Results The trial enrolled 14 patients from December 2018 to February 2020. One patient withdrew consent prior to start of treatment and another was found to have an undiagnosed adenocarcinoma shortly after starting MCL treatment. Both are excluded from the analysis. The median age was 57 years (range 52-66). 11 patients were males (92%), all patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-1. 11 patients (92%) presented with stage IV disease. The mean MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score was 6.3 (25% high-risk, 42% intermediate-risk and 33% low-risk). Of the 12 patients who began treatment, 9 completed all 6 cycles. Three patients did not complete therapy due to: insurance issues (n = 1), and thrombocytopenia (n = 2) following cycle 5 and 4. The side effect profile showed expected hematologic toxicities with grade 3-4 cytopenias in all patients, mostly during cytarabine cycles. In total, 100% of patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and 83% of patients developed grade 3-4 neutropenia. Three episodes of febrile neutropenia were observed. One patient had a grade 3 transaminase increase, and one patient had grade 3 diarrhea. No bleeding events or treatment related deaths occurred. The remainder of the side effects were low grade and the treatment was generally well tolerated. Of the 12 evaluable patients, 10 responded (ORR 83%) with 9 achieving CR (75%). One patient achieved PR prior to being removed from the study due to thrombocytopenia and then achieved CR off study. Two patients experienced PD during induction. With a median follow up of 9 months, no responding patients have relapsed. The median CD34+ stem cell collection was 3.84x106 cells/kg (range 2.77 - 5.9). MRD results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions This is the first study attempting to combine BTK inhibition with a high dose cytarabine containing regimen. The addition of acalabrutinib to a regimen of bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab appears to be safe. The R-ABC combination will be further tested in the recently activated intergroup trial EA4181. Disclosures Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Fehniger:ImmunityBio: Research Funding; HCW Biologics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Indapta: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Orca Biosystems: Consultancy; Compass Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; WuGen: Consultancy. Mehta-Shah:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech/Roche: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Corvus: Research Funding. Kahl:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Response and Outcomes to Nilotinib at 24 Months in Imatinib-Resistant Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and Accelerated Phase (CML-AP) with and without BCR-ABL Mutations.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1130-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerald P. Radich ◽  
Giovanni Martinelli ◽  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Enrico Gottardi ◽  
Simona Soverini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Philadelphia Chromosome ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Imatinib Resistant

Abstract Abstract 1130 Poster Board I-152 Background Nilotinib is a selective and potent BCR-ABL inhibitor, with in vitro activity against most BCR-ABL mutants (excluding T315I) indicated for the treatment of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) CML in CPor AP resistant or -intolerant to prior therapy, including imatinib. In a previous analysis of nilotinib in patients with BCR-ABL mutations, mutations occurring at three specific amino acid residues (E255K/V, Y253H, and F359C/V) were shown to be associated with less favorable response to nilotinib. The current analysis is based on mature data with a minimum follow-up of 24-months for all patients. Outcomes of patients at 24 months were analyzed by mutation type. Methods Imatinib-resistant CML-CP (n = 200) and CML-AP (n = 93) patients were subdivided into the following mutational subsets: no mutation, sensitive mutations (including mutations with unknown in vitro IC50). or E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations at baseline. Patients with mutations of unknown in vitro sensitivity were classified as sensitive in this analysis based on a previous finding that patients with these mutations responded similarly to nilotinib as patients with sensitive mutation. Patients with baseline T315I mutations were excluded from this analysis. Patient groups were analyzed for kinetics and durability of cytogenetic and molecular response to nilotinib, as well as event-free survival (EFS), defined as loss of hematologic or cytogenetic response, progression to AP/BC, discontinuation due to disease progression, or death, and overall survival (OS). Results In CML-CP and -AP patients with no mutation, sensitive mutations, or E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations, hematologic, cytogenetic and molecular responses are provided in the Table. Overall, patients with no mutations responded similarly to patients with sensitive mutations, whereas patients with E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations had less favorable responses. This correlation was observed in both CML-CP and CML-AP patients, respectively. Median time to CCyR was 3.3 months (range, 1.0–26.7) for CML-CP patients with no mutations, and 5.6 months (range, 0.9–22.1) for patients with sensitive mutations. At 24 months, CCyR was maintained in 74% of CML-CP patients with no mutation and in 84% of patients with sensitive mutations. One patient with CML-CP and an E255K mutation achieved CCyR at 25 months and maintained until last assessment at 30 months. Median time to MMR was similar at 5.6 months (range, 0.9–25.8) for CML-CP patients with no mutations and 5.6 months (range, 2.7–22.1) for patients with sensitive mutations. No patient with a less sensitive mutation achieved MMR. Median EFS and 24-month estimated OS rate are provided in the Table. Conclusions Imatinib-resistant CML-CP and CML-AP patients treated with nilotinib therapy with BCR-ABL mutations (excluding E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V) achieved rapid and durable cytogenetic responses, and estimated EFS and OS at 24 months similar to that of patients with no mutations, respectively. Patients with E255K/V, Y253H, or F359C/V mutations had lower and less-durable responses and shorter EFS than patients with sensitive mutations. Alternative therapies may be considered for patients with these uncommon mutations (E255K/V, Y253H, and F359C/V). Disclosures Radich: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis: Research Funding. Branford:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shou:Novartis: Employment. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Woodman:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding. Hughes:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kim: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; Wyeth: Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Maintaining Imatinib ≥600 Mg Daily in the First 12 Months of Chronic Phase CML Treatment Is Associated with Superior Event-Free Survival at 5 Years.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1125-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Osborn ◽  
Susan Branford ◽  
Deborah L White ◽  
John F Seymour ◽  
Ruth Columbus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Blast Crisis ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Event Rates

Abstract Abstract 1125 Poster Board I-147 The Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group conducted a trial (TIDEL I) in 103 patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML, using imatinib 600 mg/day with dose escalation to 800 mg/day for suboptimal response. This was defined as failure to achieve (1) complete haematological response (CHR) at 3 months, (2) major cytogenetic response (MCR) at 6 months, (3) complete cytogenetic response (CCR) or molecular equivalent at 9 months, or (4) less than 0.01% (IS) BCR-ABL by RQ-PCR at 12 months. Here we report the outcomes with all surviving patients having been treated for at least 60 months. We aimed to determine whether the patient outcome at 60 months was predicted by the molecular response within the first 18 months of imatinib therapy. The outcomes for patients maintaining a dose of imatinib of ≥600 mg/day in the first 12 months was compared to those who were on a reduced dose for at least part of this time. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as death from any cause, accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and loss of CHR, MCR or CCR. The 103 patients included 66 males and 37 females with a median (±SD) age of 49 (±14) years. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 at enrolment. The 5-year EFS was 71%, transformation (AP/BC) free survival (TFS) was 95%, and overall survival was 87%. Of the 14 patients who died, 3 died in blast crisis, 2 from transplant-related complications, 8 from CML-unrelated causes, and the cause of death of 1 patient was unavailable. The annual rates of progression to AP/BC over 5 years were 3%, 1%, 0%, 1%, and 0%, while annual event rates were 13%, 8%, 8%, 1%, and 4%. CCR was achieved by 89% of patients by 60 months, while 72% achieved a major molecular response (MMR) by this time. In the first 12 months of treatment, 55% of patients maintained an imatinib dose of ≥600 mg/day (mean ±SD dose = 604 ±10 mg/day), while 45% were on <600 mg/day for at least part of this time (mean ±SD dose = 511 ±100 mg/day). EFS at 60 months was significantly higher in patients taking ≥600 mg/day compared with those who had been dose-reduced to <600 mg/day (89% vs 56%, P<0.001). Annual event rates for the ≥600 mg/day group were 6%, 2%, 2%, 0%, and 2%, while annual event rates for those on <600 mg/day were 14%, 16%, 16%, 8%, and 4%. By 60 months, 96% of patients who had been on ≥600 mg/day within the first 12 months had achieved CCR, while only 80% of those who had been on <600 mg/day had achieved this milestone (P<0.001). Log rank analysis of the achievement of MMR was also significant (P=0.03). Overall survival and TFS after 12 months were both similar between the dosing groups. There was no difference between the dosing groups' median age (50 vs 48 years, P=0.36) or Sokal score (1.04 vs 0.94, P=0.33) that may otherwise account for these results. The outcome was also determined for all patients dependent on the BCR-ABL levels at various assessment timepoints. Patients with a BCR-ABL level of <10% (IS) at 6 months (n=92) had an EFS of 78% at 60 months, while all of those with a level >10% (IS) (n=8) had an event (P<0.001). Patients with a level of ≤1% (IS) at 12 months (equivalent to CCR) (n=81) had an EFS of 75% compared with 25% (n=13) for those with levels >1% (IS) (P<0.001). At 18 months, a level ≤0.1% (IS) (n=58) conferred an EFS of 88%, while those who had failed to attain this depth of response (n=30) had an EFS of 60%. There was a significant difference in EFS between those who had achieved an MMR at 18 months and those who had achieved a CCR, but no MMR (88% vs 67%, P=0.03). In conclusion, our data suggest that patients maintaining a dose of ≥600mg in the first 12 months of imatinib therapy are more likely to achieve CCR and MMR, and superior EFS compared to those with a lower dose. This study also confirms that achieving an MMR by 18 months is associated with improved EFS. This emphasises the value of achieving a molecular response early in the treatment course, as well as adding weight to the evidence supporting the role of molecular monitoring in CML. Disclosures Branford: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. White:Novartis and Britol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Seymour:Bayer Schering: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel grants; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel Grants. Catalano:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel grants. Mills:Celgene Pty Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hughes:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Advisor, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Efficacy and Safety of Nilotinib in Elderly Patients with Imatinib-Resistant or -;Intolerant Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in Chronic Phase (CP): A Sub-Analysis of the ENACT (Expanding Nilotinib Access in Clinical Trials) Study.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3286-3286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp D. le Coutre ◽  
Anna Turkina ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Bernadeta Ceglarek ◽  
Giuliana Alimena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Imatinib Resistant ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3286 Poster Board III-1 Introduction: Nilotinib, a potent and highly selective BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogeneous leukemia (Ph+ CML) in chronic phase (CML-CP) and accelerated phase (CML-AP) who are resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib. The ENACT study is a Phase IIIb, open-label, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib in adult pts with imatinib-resistant or intolerant CML in a clinical practice setting outside of a registration program. It is the largest single source of efficacy and safety information of any available tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in CML, particularly among the elderly. Methods: The present is a sub-analysis of the ENACT study on the efficacy and safety of 400 mg twice daily nilotinib in elderly (aged =60 years) pts initiating treatment in CML-CP who were resistant and/or intolerant to imatinib. Results: Of the 1,422 CML-CP pts enrolled in the ENACT study between January 2006 and October 2008, 452 (32%) were elderly (=60 years) at study initiation and 165 (37%) of these pts were =70 years [10 (2%) were =80 years]. Countries that enrolled =20 elderly pts include France, Italy, USA, Germany, UK, Spain, Canada, and Brazil. At study initiation, elderly pts had longer median durations of CML (<60: 51.1 months; =60: 69.3; =70: 66.6) and higher proportions with CML duration >5 years (<60: 43%; =60: 56%; =70: 52%). Besides imatinib, prior CML treatments received by elderly pts included dasatinib (=60: 20%; =70: 19%), cytarabine (=60: 23%; =70: 19%), busulfan (=60: 10%; =70: 7%), and interferons (=60: 50%; =70: 42%). Elderly pts were previously treated with imatinib for longer median durations (<60: 27.4 months; =60: 32.7; =70: 29.9), with higher proportions treated for >5 years (<60: 12%; =60: 19%; =70: 18%). The proportion of imatinib-intolerant to resistant elderly pts was about 1:1, which was higher than the proportion among <60 pts at about 0.6:1, such that relatively few elderly pts had prior highest imatinib dose >800 mg (<60: 34%; =60: 26%; =70: 21%). While response rates to prior imatinib were similar, among pts who required therapy after failing imatinib, elderly pts had lower cytogenetic response rates (<60: 22%; =60: 17%; =70: 19%) to prior dasatinib. During ENACT, less than 50% of elderly pts experienced nilotinib dose interruptions (=60: 46%; =70: 41%) and reductions (=60: 7%; =70: 6%) lasting >5 days, which was consistent with the overall ENACT dataset. The median duration of dose interruptions and reductions was 15 (=70: also 15) and 41 (=70: 32) days, respectively. The main reason for dose interruptions and reductions was adverse events (AEs). The median duration of nilotinib exposure was 227 days (=70: 219) and the median dose intensity was 749 mg/day (=70: 775). Efficacy was similar among elderly pts, with 39% (=70: 35%) of pts achieving complete hematologic response (CHR), 41% (=70: 39%) achieving major cytogenetic response (MCyR) and 31% (=70: 33%) achieving complete cytogenetic response (CCyR). MCyR rate was also similar among elderly hematologic responders (=60: 64%; =70: 65%). Among elderly pts requiring nilotinib therapy after both imatinib and dasatinib, and therefore have more resistant CML, CHR rate was 39% (=70: 32%), MCyR rate was 28% (=70: 29%) and CCyR rate was 20% (=70: 16%). Safety was likewise similar among elderly pts, with grade 3/4 study drug-related AEs occurring in 56% of pts (=70: 53%). The most frequent of these AEs were thrombocytopenia (=60: 24%; =70: 21%) and neutropenia (=60: 14%; =70: 11%). The most common method of managing these AEs was brief dose interruptions and/or reductions [thrombocytopenia (=60:86/108 pts; =70: 30/35), neutropenia (=60: 42/62 pts; =70: 9/18)]. Among elderly pts with prior dasatinib, 53% (=70: 58%) experienced grade 3/4 study drug-related AEs, while 7 out of 8 pts with pleural effusion on dasatinib no longer had it on nilotinib. Conclusions: In ENACT, pts aged =60 years at study initiation appear to have longer durations of CML, be more heavily pre-treated and more intolerant to imatinib than the younger cohort. Nonetheless, nilotinib induced comparable clinical responses in CML-CP pts regardless of age. Importantly, the safety profile of nilotinib is maintained in elderly pts. Disclosures: le Coutre: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Turkina:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Kim:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding. Ceglarek:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Shen:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Smith:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Szczudlo:Novartis: Employment. Berton:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wang:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wang:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nicolini:Novartis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chemgenex: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3884-3884
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Suzanne Hayman ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Francis Buadi ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Toxicity Profile ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Alternating Courses of 3x CHOP and 3x DHAP Plus Rituximab Followed by a High Dose ARA-C Containing Myeloablative Regimen and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) Is Superior to 6 Courses CHOP Plus Rituximab Followed by Myeloablative Radiochemotherapy and ASCT In Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results of the MCL Younger Trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network (MCL net)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 110-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Hermine ◽  
Eva Hoster ◽  
Jan Walewski ◽  
Vincent Ribrag ◽  
Nicole Brousse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 110 Background: Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) has been characterized by poor long term prognosis with a median survival of only 3 to 4 years. However, outcome has improved during the last decades. In its first randomized trial, the MCL net demonstrated that myeloablative consolidation followed by ASCT resulted in a significant prolongation of PFS in advanced stage MCL (Dreyling et al Blood 2005). Recent phase II studies suggested that the addition of rituximab to CHOP like chemotherapy and/or high dose ARA-C may significantly improve remission rates and PFS. A French phase II trial using sequential R-CHOP/R-DHAP followed by ASCT showed an overall response rate of 95% with a CR rate of 61% translating into a median EFS of 83 months and a 75% survival rate at 5 years (Delarue et al ASH 2008). Methods: To evaluate the potential superiority of a high dose ARA-C containing regimen, the MCL net initiated a randomized trial comparing 6 courses of CHOP plus Rituximab followed by myeloablative radiochemotherapy (12 Gray TBI, 2×60mg/kg Cyclophosphamide) and ASCT (control arm A) versus alternating courses of 3x CHOP and 3x DHAP plus Rituximab followed by a high dose ARA-C containing myeloablative regimen (10 Gray TBI, 4×1,5 g/m2 Ara-C, 140mg/m2 melphalan) and ASCT (experimental arm B). Patient eligibility criteria included previously untreated MCL stage II-IV up to the age of 65 years. Histological diagnosis was confirmed by a central pathology review board. The primary end point time to treatment failure (TTF) was monitored continuously by a sequential procedure based on a one sided triangular test. Stable disease after induction, progression or death from any causes, were considered as treatment failure. Sample size was calculated to detect a hazard ratio of 52% for arm B with a power of 95%. Randomization was stopped as soon as a significant difference was observed between the two arms. Results: From July 2004 to May 2010, 497 patients were randomized in 4 countries (Germany, France, Poland, Belgium). The 391 patients evaluable for the primary analysis (19 no MCL, 87 not yet documented) displayed similar characteristics in both treatment arms: median age 55 vs 56 years, male 78% vs 79%, stage IV 85% vs 79%, B symptoms 43% vs 33%, ECOG >2 5% vs 5%, elevated LDH 37% vs 38%, and MIPI low/int/high risk 61%/25%/14% vs 62%/23%/15%, respectively. After induction overall response was similarly high in both arms (A: 90% vs B: 94%; p=0.19) and CR rate and combined CR/CRu rate were significantly higher in arm B (26% vs 39%; p=0.012 and 41% vs 60%; p=0.0003). The number of patients transplanted was similar in both arms (72% vs 73%) and after transplantation overall response and CR rates were comparable in both arms (97% vs 97% and 63% vs 65%, respectively). After a median follow up of 27 months, patients in arm B experienced a significantly longer TTF (49 months vs NR; p=0.0384, hazard ratio 0.68) mainly due to a lower number of relapses after CR/CRu/PR (20% vs 10%), whereas the rate of ASCT-related deaths in remission was similar in both arms (3% vs 4%). Although CR rate after ASCT was comparable in both arms, remission duration (RD) after ASCT was superior in Arm B (48m vs NR; p=0.047). Interestingly, for patients in CR after ASCT, RD after ASCT was also presumably superior in arm B (51 months vs NR; p=0.077). At the time of analysis overall survival was similar in both arms with medians not reached and 79% vs. 80% survival rates at 3 years (p=0.74). Safety after induction was comparable in both arms except for an increased grade 3/4 hematological toxicity (Hb 8% vs 28%, WBC 48% vs 75%, platelets 9% vs 74%, respectively), an excess of renal toxicity (creatinine grade 1/2: 8% vs 38%, grade 3/4: none vs 2%), and more frequent grade 1/2 nausea and vomiting in arm B. Toxicities of both conditioning regimen were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 mucositis (43% vs. 61%) in Arm B, and higher grade 1/2 liver toxicity and constipation in Arm A. Conclusions: High dose ARA-C in addition to R-CHOP+ASCT increases significantly complete response rates and TTF without clinically relevant increase of toxicity. Therefore, induction regimen containing high dose ARA-C followed by ASCT should become the new standard of care of MCL patients up to 65 years. Disclosures: Walewski: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer:Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Feugier:roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bosly:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisselbrecht:Roche: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document