The Role of the Rituximab Partner Chemotherapy Regimen In Young Patients with Good-Prognosis Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Results of the 6-Year Follow-up of the Mint Study of the Mabthera International Trial (MInT) Group.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2826-2826
Author(s):  
Niels Murawski ◽  
Evelyn Kuhnt ◽  
Sandra Grass ◽  
Wolfgang Hiddemann ◽  
Eva Cavallin-Stahl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 2826 Background: The addition of rituximab to CHOP-21 significantly improved clinical outcome in elderly patients with DLBCL (Coiffier et al., 2002). In young patients, the MInT trial, where young good-prognosis patients were randomized to receive a CHOP-like regimen or the same CHOP-like regimen plus rituximab, had to be stopped early because of superiority of the rituximab arm, and results were published with a median follow-up of 34 months (Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncology 2006;379–91). Objective: Because the MInT study was the first study to show a survival benefit of the addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen in young good-prognosis patients, it is important to analyze the effect of different chemotherapy regimens on long-term outcome. Methods: In a phase III intergroup study with participating cooperative groups from 18 countries, previously untreated young (18-60 years) patients with good-prognosis DLBCL (age-adjusted IPI 0 or 1, stages II-IV and stage I with bulky disease) were randomized to receive 6 cycles of a CHOP-like regimen (CHEMO) or the same chemotherapy plus rituximab 375 mg/m2, given on day 1 of each 3-weekly regimen and on days 1, 22, 43, 64, 85 and 106 of the 2-week regimens, respectively (R-CHEMO). Radiotherapy (30-40 Gy) was planned to sites of initial bulky disease and/or extranodal involvement. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) with events defined as failure to achieve complete remission, progressive disease, relapse, death or additional (unplanned) therapy. Results: Between 05/2000 and 10/2003 a total of 823 patients were recruited of whom 396 were allocated to receive CHOP-21, 361 to CHOEP-21, 34 to MACOP-B, and 32 to PMitCEBO with or without rituximab. Patients`characteristics were not different between the treatment arms with the exception that patients in the MACOP-B and R-MACOP-B arm had a more favorable prognostic profile. Toxicity, incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events in the different CHEMO and the R-CHEMO arms were not significantly different. After a median observation time of 70 (0.03-117) months, the 6-year EFS rates of patients assigned to CHEMO only were 50.4%, 60%, 41.7%, and 78.6% for CHOP-21, CHOEP-21, PMitCEBO, and MACOP-B, respectively. In an adjusted multivariate Cox regression model for EFS restricted to CHEMO patients, only the CHOEP-21 hazard ratio (HR) was significant (HR=0.73; p=0.05) compared to CHOP-21, while the hazard ratios of the different chemotherapies were not significantly different for PFS and OS (6 year PFS-rates: 60.2%, 64.8%, 67.5%, 86.2%; and 6 year OS-rates: 78.8%, 80.2%, 65.5%, and 100.0%, respectively). In patients assigned to R-CHEMO, 6-year EFS rates were 74.9%, 75%, 36.5%, and 86.7% for CHOP-21, CHOEP-21, PMitCEBO and MACOP-B, respectively. Likewise, PMitCEBO patients tended to have lower PFS (6-year rates: 79.1%, 81.9%, 58.9, and 86.7%, respectively) and OS (6-year rates: 91.9%, 89.4%, 80.0 and 94.1%, respectively). The poor outcome after R-PMitCEBO in contrast to R-CHOP was confirmed by multivariable Cox regression restricted to R-CHEMO and adjusting for aaIPI and bulky disease. Hazard ratio of PMitCEBO was significant for EFS (HR 4.35, p<0.001) and PFS (HR 3.62, p=0.002), with a strong trend for OS (HR 3.11, p=0.073). Conclusion: While the addition of rituximab to CHOP-like regimens usually results in reduced differences between chemotherapy regimens (“chemo-equalizer” effect, e.g. disappearance of the superiority of CHOEP over CHOP after the addition of rituximab), combination of rituximab with some regimens might result in an unexpectedly poor outcome. Therefore, rituximab should not be combined with regimens other than CHOP outside randomized trials. Supported by Roche, Deutsche Krebshilfe and KML. Disclosures: Jäger: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pettengell:Roche: Honoraria. Pfreundschuh:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Randomised Intergroup Trial of First line Treatment for young Low-Risk Patients (<61 years) with Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (DLBCL) with a CHOP-like Regimen with or without the Anti-CD20 Antibody Rituximab – 6-Year Follow-up of the Mint Study of the Mabthera International Trial (MInT) Group

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 111-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pfreundschuh ◽  
Evelyn Kuhnt ◽  
Lorenz Trümper ◽  
Anders Osterborg ◽  
Marek Trneny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 111 Background: The addition of rituximab to CHOP-21 significantly improved clinical outcome in elderly patients with DLBCL (Coiffier et al., 2002). The MInT trial, randomized young good-prognosis patients to receive a CHOP-like regimen or the same CHOP-like regimen plus rituximab, and was stopped early because of superiority of the rituximab arm, and results were published with a median follow-up of 34 months (Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncology 2006; 379-91). Objective: Because the MInT study was the first study to show a survival benefit with the addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen in young good-prognosis patients, extended follow-up is important to determine whether the survival benefit is maintained over time and whether a definitive effect on cure rates can be shown. Methods: In a phase III intergroup study with participating cooperative groups from 18 countries, previously untreated patients (18-60 years) with low-risk DLBCL (age-adjusted IPI 0 or 1, stages II-IV and stage I with bulky disease) were randomized to receive 6 cycles of a CHOP-like regimen (CHEMO) or the same chemotherapy plus rituximab 375 mg/m2, given on day 1 of each 3-week regimen and on days 1, 22, 43, 64, 85 and 106 of the 2-week regimens, respectively (R-CHEMO). Radiotherapy (30-40 Gy) was planned to sites of initial bulky disease and/or extranodal involvement. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) with events defined as failure to achieve complete remission, progressive disease, relapse, death or additional therapy. The trial was powered to show a 10% difference in EFS rate after 3 years. Results: Between 05/2000 and 10/2003 a total of 823 patients were recruited of whom 396 were allocated to receive CHOP-21, 361 to CHOEP-21, 34 to MACOP-B, and 32 to PMitCEBO with or without rituximab. Toxicity, incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events in the CHEMO and the R-CHEMO arms were not significantly different. After a median follow-up of 70 (0.03-117) months, patients assigned to chemotherapy and rituximab had increased 6-year event-free survival compared with those assigned to chemotherapy alone (74.0% [95% CI 69.0–78.3] vs 55.7% [50.3-60.8]; log-rank p<0·0001), increased 6-year progression-free survival (79.9% [75.1 - 83.8%] vs 63.8% [58.2-68.8]; log-rank p<0.001) and increased overall survival (89.8% [86.0-92.6] vs 80.0% [75.3-83.9; log rank p=0.001). In a multivariate analysis event-free survival was affected by the addition of rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, p< 0.001), age-adjusted IPI (HR 1.73, p<0.001), and bulky disease (HR 1.43, p=0.004). Similar effects were observed for OS, while PFS was affected by treatment arm (HR 0.49, p<0.001) and age-adjusted IPI (HR 1.8, p<0.001). As a consequence, a very favorable subgroup (aaIPI=0, no bulky) can be distinguished from a less favorable subgroup (aaIPI=1 and/or bulky disease) among good-prognosis patients treated with rituximab. There were 10 late (>60 months) events after CHEMO (61.4 to 96.1 months), including 4 in the very favorable subgroup, while all 8 late events (67.5 to 105.7 months) after R-CHEMO occurred in the less favorable subgroup only, and none in the very favorable subgroup. Conclusion: Addition of rituximab to a CHOP-like regimen leads to a significant improvement of the outcome in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with significant survival benefit maintained during a 6-year follow-up. However, except in the very favorable subgroup after R-CHEMO, late relapses after 5 years occur. While reduction of treatment in a randomized study like the FLYER trial of the DSHNHL is justified, further progress, e.g. by dose densification (UNFOLDER trial of the DSHNHL) and/ or dose escalation is still warranted for the less favorable subgroup. Supported by Roche, Deutsche Krebshilfe and KML. Disclosures: Pfreundschuh: Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trneny:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Walewski:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pettengell:Roche: Honoraria. Jäger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lopez-Guillermo:Roche: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Excellent Outcome of Young Patients (18-60 years) with Favourable-Prognosis Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Treated with 4 Cycles CHOP Plus 6 Applications of Rituximab: Results of the 592 Patients of the Flyer Trial of the Dshnhl/GLA

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 781-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viola Poeschel ◽  
Gerhard Held ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Mathias Witzens-Harig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
Favourable Prognosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background: 6 cycles CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab (6x R-CHOP) are the standard treatment for young patients with DLBCL. The MInT trial established a subgroup with favourable prognosis as defined as aaIPI=0 and no bulky disease [Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 379-391] with a 3-year EFS of 89%, PFS of 95% and OS of 98%. We hypothesized that 4 cycles of CHOP plus 6 applications of rituximab are non-inferior to the standard treatment of 6x R-CHOP in this population. Patients and Methods: 18 to 60 year-old patients, aaIPI =0 without bulky (≥7.5 cm) disease were randomized to receive 6x R-CHOP or 4x R-CHOP+2xR at 21-day cycles. Radiotherapy was not planned to be given except for prophylactic radiotherapy of the contralateral testis in patients with testicular lymphoma. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) with events defined as progressive disease, relapse or death. Assuming a 93% 3-years PFS for the 6x R-CHOP arm, it was planned to tolerate an impairment of 5.5% by reducing the number of courses to 4x R-CHOP+2xR to prove non-inferiority with a power of 80% and an alpha-error of 5% (one-sided). Results: Between 12/2005 and 10/2016, 592 patients were randomized in the international multi-center FLYER trial and 588 patients were evaluable for this final analysis. 295 patients were assigned to receive 6x R-CHOP and 293 were assigned to receive 4x R-CHOP+2xR. There were no relevant differences in demographics (median age: 48 years, 99% aaIPI=0, 1% aaIPI=1, 0.3% bulky disease), protocol adherence and toxicity between the two arms. PFS, EFS and OS after 4x R-CHOP+2xR were as good as after 6x R-CHOP. After 66 months median observation, the 3-year PFS rate of the patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR was 96% vs. 94% of patients receiving 6x R-CHOP (p=0.760). The lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference between treatment arms was 0% and excludes -5.5% demonstrating the non-inferiority. The 3-year EFS was identical (89%) in both treatment arms. The 3-years OS was 99% in patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR and 98% in patients receiving 6x R-CHOP. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for strata (stage and E-involvement), the hazard ratio of 4x R-CHOP+2xR compared to 6x R-CHOP was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.7-1.6; p=0.896) for EFS, 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5-1.6; p=0.797) for PFS, and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.9; p=0.671) for OS. With respect to relapse rate there was also no significant difference between the two treatment arms. 4% (95% CI 2-7%) of the patients in the 4x R-CHOP+2xR arm relapsed vs. 5% (95% CI 3-8%) of the patients in the 6x R-CHOP arm. 33% of relapses occurred in the first two years after study inclusion but continue to be seen with longer follow-up in both arms. Conclusion: In young patients with favourable prognosis DLBCL outcome after 4x R-CHOP+ 2xR is non-inferior compared to the previous standard 6x R-CHOP. Thus, chemotherapy can be spared without compromising prognosis in this population. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe Figure. Figure. Disclosures Poeschel: Roche: Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Held:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding. Holte:Roche, Norway: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Borchmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Keller:Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Schmidt:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants. Marks:Merck: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Stilgenbauer:Boehringer-Ingelheim: 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; Genentech: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmcyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schmitz:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants; Roche: Honoraria. Murawski:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Travel grants.

Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients Treated With Lenalidomide Induction and Maintenance Show a Low Incidence Of Second Primary Malignancies (SPMs)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2074-2074
Author(s):  
Annamaria Brioli ◽  
Charlotte Pawlyn ◽  
Walter Gregory ◽  
Samantha Hinsley ◽  
Samantha Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction New drugs have significantly improved the outcome of MM patients (pts) increasing both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Among new drugs lenalidomide (LEN) due to its oral availability and favourable toxicity profile is an attractive option both as an induction and as a maintenance treatment, with different studies demonstrating its effectiveness. Long term therapy with LEN, however, has been associated with an increased risk of developing SPMs. Aims We are conducting a large phase III study to evaluate the use of LEN as induction and/or as maintenance therapy. The primary end points of the study are OS and PFS. Secondary end points are response and toxicity. Methods Pts are treated following an intensive or a non intensive pathway based on their eligibility for high dose Melphalan (HDM) and stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and are randomised to receive induction therapy with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone combined with either LEN (CRD) or thalidomide (CTD). Pts failing to achieve an optimal response are randomised to receive additional therapy with cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone and bortezomib (CVD) or no extra therapy. Pts with minimal or no response will automatically receive further therapy with CVD. A randomisation between LEN maintenance and no maintenance is also performed. Data on the occurrence of SPMs are being routinely collected as part of safety assessment during all protocol phases and follow up. Analyses were performed on treatment actually received. Results As per cut off of the 23rd July, 2371 pts have undergone the induction randomisation, of which 2368 are eligible for the safety analysis; 794 pts entered maintenance randomisation. The median follow up is 1.36 years from initiation of the study and 1.06 years from maintenance randomisation. Localised skin cancer other than melanoma were considered as non-invasive SPMs. At the time of the present analysis 17 SPMs have been reported with a cumulative incidence rate of 0.7% (cumulative rate of 0.6% for invasive SPMs and 0.1% for non-invasive SPMs); four additional patients, reported as having a SPM, were excluded, after central review of the data, either due to a previous history of malignancy or because of the evidence of a pre-existing tumour other than MM at the time of study entry. The median age at the time of SPMs development is 72 years (range 61-92), and the median time from trial entry to development of SPMs is 11 months (range 2.1-27.0). The most common SPMs reported were squamous cell carcinoma (4 pts, 2 invasive and 2 non invasive), breast cancer (3 pts), colon cancer (2 pts) and prostate cancer (2 pts). No haematological SPM has so far been reported. One patient, treated according to the intensive arm with LEN both as induction and maintenance, was reported as having a suspect myelodysplasia (MDS) due to anaemia and thrombocytopenia 2.7 months after entering the maintenance randomisation. No clear histological sign of MDS was found and the values improved after stopping maintenance treatment; these data fit with treatment related toxicity and not with the development of a MDS, and the patient was excluded from this analysis. Ten out of 17 SPMs developed during maintenance treatment or follow up phase, with 7 patients having received LEN maintenance. Median time from maintenance randomisation to SPMs development is 7 months (range 2-20.6 months). The remaining 7 were diagnosed during or immediately after induction. About half of the patients (8/17) were randomised to receive LEN induction; 3 patients received LEN both as induction and as maintenance. Interestingly only one of those 3 pts had been treated according to the intensive arm. With a median follow up of 1.36 years the estimated incidence rate at 1 and 2 years are 0.70% (95% CI .40-1.22)and 1.17% (95% CI .70-1.96) respectively (Figure 1). Conclusions Our data do not confirm previous findings of an excess risk of SPMs in association with the use of LEN and HDM in presenting patients, with 12/17 pts developing SPMs treated on the non intensive pathway that does not contain HDM. Most importantly only 0.4% of the patients enrolled within the intensive pathway developed a SPM, with only 2 of them receiving LEN maintenance. Longer follow up will help to further elucidate the risk of LEN associated SPMs. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-Oncology subgroup Disclosures: Brioli: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: The presentation include the use of Lenalidomide as induction and as maintenance treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Cook:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 763-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Adam Zdenek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Gene Mutations and Treatment Outcome in CLL Patients Treated with Chlorambucil (Chl) or Ofatumumab-Chl (O-Chl): Results from the Phase III Study COMPLEMENT1 (OMB110911)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1992-1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Tausch ◽  
Christina Galler ◽  
Richard Schlenk ◽  
Peter Hillmen ◽  
Fritz Offner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract BACKGROUND: Genomic aberrations and IGHV mutation status are established prognostic factors in CLL. With TP53, NOTCH1, SF3B1, ATM, MYD88, FBXW7, BIRC3 and POT1 recurrently mutated genes were found in CLL and were discussed to associate with disease characteristics and to affect therapy efficacy and outcome. METHODS: We assessed the incidence and impact of gene mutations in the COMPLEMENT1 trial (1st line Chl vs. O-Chl). Pretreatment samples were available from 376 patients (84.1%) and this cohort was representative of the full trial population. Mutations were analyzed by amplicon-based targeted NGS using Illumina Miseq for all coding exons (TP53, ATM, MYD88, FBXW7, BIRC3 and POT1) or hotspot exons (NOTCH1, SF3B1). Additionally, the exact variant frequency was determined. RESULTS: The incidences of gene mutations were: TP53 8.2%, NOTCH1 14.9%, SF3B1 14.1%, ATM 10.9%, MYD88 2.7%, FBXW7 3.5%, POT1 7.7%, and BIRC3 2.7%. Regarding baseline characteristics, we found significant associations: TP53mut with high ß2MG (p=0.01), 17p- (p<0.01), and unmutated IGHV (p=0.01); ATMmut with high WBC (p=0.02), and 11q- (p<0.01); MYD88mut with mutated IGHV (p=0.02); FBXW7mut with 17p- (p=0.02), and +12q (p<0.01). BIRC3mut was only present in IGHV unmutated cases (p<0.01), was more frequent in 11q- (p<0.01), +12q (p=0.05), and in cases with NOTCH1mut (p=0.05). POT1mut was more frequent in NOTCH1mut cases (p=0.02) without associations with any other baseline parameter. Regarding response to treatment, TP53mut was significantly associated with reduced ORR rate (p<0.01). CR rate was not correlated with mutations in the covered genes. At a median follow-up of 31.7 months, there were 249 (66%) events for PFS and 63 (16.8%) events for OS. O-Chl as compared to Chl resulted in significantly improved PFS (median 22.4 vs. 13.1 months, HR 0.54, p<0.01). In univariate analyses, TP53mut (HR 2.07, p<0.01), NOTCH1mut (HR 1.50, p=0.01) and SF3B1mut (HR 1.66, p=0.01) were associated with shorter PFS, whereas ATM and other candidate genes showed no association (ATMmut: HR 1.40, p=0.07). Analyzing both treatment arms separately, TP53mut had an impact on PFS with Chl and O-Chl treatment (HR 1.92, p=0.04 and HR 2.49, p<0.01). Notably, NOTCH1mut was associated with outcome in O-Chl only (HR 2.01, p<0.01 vs. HR 1.14, p=0.59) resulting in a reduced beneficial effect from the addition of Ofatumumab to Chlorambucil treatment. ATMmut and BIRC3mut mutations were only adverse prognostic factors with Chl monotherapy (ATMmut: HR 1.69, p=0.05 vs. HR 1.35, p=0.27; BIRC3mut: HR 2.84, p=0.04 vs. HR 0.99, p=0.99). OS was reduced significantly only in TP53mut cases (HR 3.69, p<0.01). Of note, none of the MYD88mut cases (n=10) had died within the follow-up period. To identify genomic factors of independent prognostic impact, we performed multivariable Cox regression analyses for PFS and OS including treatment arms, 11q-, +12q, 17p-, IGHV and all candidate gene mutations. For PFS, the following independent prognostic factors were identified: O-Chl (HR 0.46, p<0.01), 17p- (HR 3.14, p<0.01), 11q- (HR 1.57, p=0.01), unmutated IGHV (HR 1.43, p=0.02), TP53mut (HR 1.81, p=0.03), NOTCH1mut (HR 1.63, p<0.01) and SF3B1mut (HR 1.54, p=0.02). Regarding OS, only 17p- (HR 4.07, p<0.01), and unmutated IGHV (HR 1.81, p=0.05) were identified as independent adverse prognostic factors with TP53mut showing a trend (HR 2.14, p=0.10). CONCLUSION: We performed mutational analyses for the 8 most frequent mutated genes in CLL in the COMPLEMENT1 trial evaluating 1st line O-Chl against Chl. An independent prognostic impact was identified for TP53mut, NOTCH1mutand SF3B1mut regarding PFS. Notably, NOTCH1mut affected outcome mainly with O-Chl treatment, whereas ATMmut and BIRC3mut were associated with outcome with Chl monotherapy. In multivariate analysis for OS, none of the gene mutations, but the established parameters IGHV and 17p- had independent prognostic impact. Disclosures Tausch: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding, Travel support Other. Hillmen:GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding. Offner:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Janssens:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Glaxo: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Panagiotidis:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. McKeown:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Gupta:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Stilgenbauer:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Excellent Outcome and Good Tolerability of Long-Term Imatinib in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2794-2794
Author(s):  
Simone Claudiani ◽  
Nikhita Gupta ◽  
Ji Soo Baik ◽  
Simona Deplano ◽  
Renuka Palanicawander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Optimal Response ◽  
Time Points ◽  
The Future ◽  
Sokal Score

Abstract Introduction: The introduction of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) into clinical practice in the late 1990s has considerably improved both survival and quality of life for patients with CML. Imatinib was the only TKI available for several years with no useful drug treatment for patients with resistance and/or intolerance. Despite the lack of alternative agents the 8-year follow-up of the IRIS trialshowed that only 55% of patients were still on imatinib. The majority of those who discontinued did so for lack or loss of response rather than intolerance, suggesting that imatinib is very well tolerated in the long-term. This is particularly pertinent today as controversy persists as to the best agent for newly diagnosed patients. There is not only increasing evidence that the second and third generation TKIs are associated with more severe adverse events, but generic imatinib is now available in many countries at considerably less expense. We report our experience of treating 45 patients with continuous imatinib for more than 10 years. Methods: We interrogated our single centre database of all patients treated with TKIs for CML at our centre from June 2000 to March 2015. From a total of 832 patients we identified 188 CML who had received only imatinib. Of these, 45 patients had received treatment for more than 10 years. Results: The median duration of imatinib therapy was 6 years in the total cohort of imatinib only patients and 11 years (range 10-14.7) in the study group. All 45 patients were in chronic phase at diagnosis: the median age was 45.4 years (range 26-72). Forty patients were evaluable for Sokal scoring, with 19, 13 and 8 identified as low, intermediate and high risk respectively. The median imatinib starting dose was 400 mg daily. The proportions of patients who achieved optimal responses (OR), as defined by the ELN at 3, 6 and 12 months from start of imatinib, were 88.2%, 78.8 and 56.1% respectively. At 10 years the probabilities of CCyR, MR3, MR4, MR4,5 and MR5 were 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 75.6% respectively. The 10 year probability of obtaining a sustained (at least 2 years) molecular response was 100%, 64.4%, 35.6% and 15.6% for MR3, MR4, MR4.5 and MR5 respectively. In patients who were not optimal responders at one or more time points (n=21), the median dose of imatinib was ≥400 mg in the first 12 months of treatment; for 13/21 higher dosages (range 600-800 mg daily) were prescribed. We found a significant correlation between a low or intermediate Sokal score at diagnosis and OR at 3 months (p=0.012). No correlation was found between Sokal score and OR at 6 or 12 months. No statistically significant association was found between an optimal response at 6 or 12 months and the future depth of responses. In fact, the overall rates of sustained MR4.5 for patients optimal responders at 6 and 12 months were 52% and 52% versus 41.6% and 50% for non optimal responders at the same time points. Grade 4 toxicities and secondary malignancies were not observed during the follow-up. Seven pts (15.5%) experienced grade 3 events, including 1 each of supraventricular tachycardia and anemia, and neutropenia, fatigue and hypophosphataemia were each seen in 2 patients. The most frequent adverse event of any grade was fatigue (36% of pts), followed by anemia (27%) and neutropenia (18%). The cumulative probability of common side effects increased over the time. Cardiovascular events were mostly grade 1-2 palpitations and hypertension. At last follow-up, all pts were alive. Conclusions: Our patient cohort analysis confirms long term safety and tolerability of imatinib after 10 years of therapy. The majority of side effects were grade 1-2 and some increased in incidence over the time. The most frequent adverse events were hematological. Imatinib continues to provide an excellent therapeutic outcome granting deep molecular responses even in some patients deemed to be poor risk at diagnosis. ELN optimal response status at 6 and 12 months was not associated with prediction of the future depth of response, in this very good risk population (majority of patients in optimal response at 3 months). Disclosures Milojkovic: BMS: Honoraria; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Apperley:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

90Yttrium-Ibritumomab Tiuxetan as First Line Treatment for Follicular Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. 5 Year Results from an International Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1806-1806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Lerch ◽  
Corinna Leng ◽  
Antonello Pinto ◽  
Werner Linkesch ◽  
Heinz Sill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Transformation Rate ◽  
Secondary Malignancies ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ibritumomab Tiuxetan ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
Multicenter Phase

Abstract Purpose Updated 5 year results are presented from the multicenter phase II trial of 90Yttrium-Ibritumomab-Tiuxetan (90YIT) as first line stand-alone therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods 59 patients with CD20-positive FL grade 1 to 3a in stages II with bulky disease (n=12), III (n= 26), or IV (n=21), and in need for therapy, were enrolled between 05/2007 and 06/2010. They received 90YIT according to standard procedure (rituximab 250 mg/m2 days -7 and 0, then 90YIT 15 MBq/kg (0.4mCi/kg) day 0; patients with platelet counts below 150.000/ul but above 100.000/ul received only 11 MBq/kg). Primary end point was the clinical and molecular remission rate. Secondary end points were time to progression, safety, and tolerability. Results at 5 years after therapy with 90YIT are presented. Results Clinical remission rate (CR, Cru) 6 months after treatment with 90YIT was 56% (33 patients), while 31% had achieved a PR (18 patients). Median follow-up was 5 years with 8 patients lost to follow-up. Progression free survival was 2.6 years. Of the 26 patients who were in CR 12 months after 90YIT 57% were still without progress after 5 years, PFS after 90YIT was not reached versus 1.13 years for patients without CR 12 months after treatment (P =0.025, HR 2.474). Elevated LDH predicted a shorter PFS (4.0 years vs. 1.3 years, P=0.056). Some of the patients had extensive disease at time of treatment. Ann Arbor stadium did not differ significantly in response rate and 5 year PFS (II with bulky disease 50%, III 42.3%, IV 33.3%, P=0.12). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) for the whole population was 3.95 years (5-year TTNT-free, 50%). 5 year overall survival since treatment with 90YIT was 80%. Cause of Death was progressive disease (1 patient), secondary malignancy (3 patients) and others (6 patients). As previously reported, most common toxicities were transient thrombo- and leukocytopenia. Non-hematologic toxicities never exceeded grade II (CTCAEv2.0). No unexpected toxicities emerged during 5 year follow-up. Secondary malignancies occurred in 5 patients within 5 years after treatment with 90YIT (8%, oropharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung carcinoma, cerebellar tumor, adenocarcinoma of the colon). All these cases had occurred shortly after therapy, suggesting pre-existing morbidity (retrospectively confirmed in 2 cases) or chance association (3 cases). Cases of acute myeloid leukemia were not reported. Transformation occurred in 8 patients (14%) with an annual transformation rate of 2.7%. Conclusion 90YIT is well tolerated and achieves a 5 year PFS of 40%. Considering that this treatment is a very short procedure (two outpatient drug applications one week apart) this appears remarkable. While patients with elevated LDH tend to relapse early, individuals who continue to be in CR 1 year after 90YIT achieve significantly long responses with a 5 year PFS of 59%. Secondary malignancies and transformation rate were not elevated after 5 years of follow up. 90YIT can be considered for the initial treatment of FL in patients who are unable or unwilling to tolerate standard therapy. Disclosures Pinto: Takeda, Roche, Celgene, Servier, Janssen, Helssin: Honoraria. Viardot:Takeda: Other: travel support; Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Keller:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche, CTI, Pfizer, Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Scholz:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pezzutto:Cellgene, Novartis, Roche, Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals A Phase I/II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Obinutuzumab in Relapsed Indolent Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 348-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan H Fowler ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Collin Chin ◽  
Paolo Strati ◽  
Fredrick B. Hagemeister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marginal Zone ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Indolent Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) can develop chemoresistance and most relapse following standard therapy. Although multiple treatment options exist, most are associated with short remission or intolerable side effects. Lenalidomide activates NK cells ± T cells and leads to in vivo expansion of immune effector cells in NHL models. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) in relapsed iNHL is highly active and was recently approved. Obinutuzumab is a glycosylated type II anti-CD20 molecule with enhanced affinity for the FcγRIIIa receptors leading to improved ADCC. The primary objective of this phase I/II study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of lenalidomide and obinutuzumab in relapsed indolent lymphoma. Methods: Patients with relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), marginal zone, and follicular lymphoma (gr 1-3a) were eligible. Patients enrolled in three predefined dose cohorts of lenalidomide (10mg,15mg, 20mg) given on days 2-22 of a 28 day cycle. Obinutuzumab was given at a fixed dose (1000mg) IV on days 1,8,15 and 22 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles for 6 cycles. The combination was given for up to 12 cycles in responding pts. Antihistamines were given in pts who developed rash. Prophylactic growth factor was not allowed. In the absence of progression or toxicity, single agent obinutuzumab was continued every 2 months for maximum of 30 months on study. Traditional 3+3 dose escalation was used with dose limiting toxicities (DLT) assessed during cycle 1. Once the MTD was established, 60 additional patients were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study. Adverse events were graded using CTCAE version 4.03. Results: 66 pts were enrolled between May 2014 until March 2019, and all are eligible for safety and response assessment. No DLTs were observed in dose escalation, and 60 pts were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study at 20mg of lenalidomide daily. Histologies included follicular lymphoma (FL) n=57, marginal zone n=4, SLL n=5. The median age was 64 (36-81), with 2 (1-5) median prior lines of treatment. For 53% of pts, the combination represented the third or greater line of treatment. The overall response (OR) rate for all pts was 98% with 72% attaining a complete response (CR). Eighteen pts (27%) had a partial response, and stable disease was noted in 1 (2%). At a median follow up of 17 months, 14 pts have progressed, with an estimated 24mo progression-free survival (PFS) of 73% (57-83% 95% CI). The estimated 24 mo PFS for ≥ third line pts was 63%. Twenty five pts (38%) remain on treatment and 95% remain alive at last follow up. The most common grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic toxicities included fatigue (5 pts), rash (4 pts), and cough (3 pts). Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11 (17%) and 7 (11%) pts respectively. Two pts stopped treatment due to adverse events, including 1 transient bradycardia and 1 grade 3 fatigue. Conclusion: The combination of 20 mg of lenalidomide and 1000mg obinutuzumab is safe and effective in patients with relapsed indolent lymphoma. Adverse events appeared similar to our prior experience with lenalidomide and rituximab and were generally well tolerated. Overall response rates were high, with many pts achieving prolonged remission, including pts who had relapsed after 2 or more lines of prior therapy. Validation studies in the frontline and salvage setting are ongoing. Disclosures Fowler: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Westin:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Neelapu:Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Cladribine Combined with Idarubicin and High-Dose AraC (CLIA2) As a Frontline and Salvage Treatment for Young Patients (≤65 yrs) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4039-4039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mansour Alfayez ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Farhad Ravandi ◽  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Marina Y. Konopleva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry ◽  
Intrathecal Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Nucleoside analogues such as cladribine can increase the efficacy of cytarabine (araC) by modulating deoxycytidine kinase. The addition of cladribine to standard 7+3 chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in pts with AML (Holowiecki JCO 2012). Results of our part-1 phase-2 clinical trial (cladribine combined with intermediate dose araC and idarubicin (CLIA1)) reported promising results that exceeded pretreatment expectations for response and tolerability (Jain, et. al. ASH 2016). Based on that, and the benefit of higher doses of cytarabine in younger patients (UK-MRC AML, Willemze JCO 2014), we investigated a higher dose of araC in combination with cladribine and idarubicin (CLIA2). Methods Non-APL, non-core binding factor AML pts 18-65 yrs of age with adequate organ function were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: de novo AML, secondary AML (s-AML), or relapsed/refractory AML (R/R). Induction was cladribine 5 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes on days 1-5, followed by araC 2g/m2 IV on days 1-5, and idarubicin 10 mg/m2 IV days 1-3. Consolidation consisted of up to 5 more cycles of CLIA2 for 3 days instead of 5. Dose-adjustments were allowed for age and PS. Sorafenib or midostaurin was added for pts with FLT3 mutations which occurred in 35% of pts on this study. Prophylactic intrathecal therapy was offered to higher risk pts at count nadir during cycle 1. Mutation profiling was performed using next generation sequencing prior to starting therapy. Results 65 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 47 yrs (range, 24-65): 37 pts (57%) in the frontline, 12 (19%) pts in the s-AML, and 16 (25%) in the R/R cohorts. Pt characteristics and outcomes by cohort are outlined in Table 1. The most commonly detected mutations at baseline were TET2 (45%), DNMT3a (37%), FLT3 (35%), ASXL1 (28%), and NPM1 (28%). Of 35 evaluable pts in the frontline cohort, 31 responded (ORR=89%) with 27 CR (77%) and 4 CRi (11%). Among the responders, 61% were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD [-]) by multiparameter flow cytometry. In the s-AML cohort, 10 pts were evaluable with an ORR of 60% (6/10) with 5 CR (50%) and 1 CRp (10%); 4 (67%) were MRD [-]. In the R/R cohort, 14 pts, previously treated with a median of 1 (1-4) prior therapy were evaluable for response. There were 7 CR (50%), 1 CRi (7%), for ORR of 57%; and 63% were MRD [-]. The median OS was not reached in the frontline and s-AML cohorts with median follow up of 5.2 and 11.5, months, respectively. In the R/R cohort, the median follow up was 4.7 months and median OS was 6.7 months [Figure.1]. Relapse-free survival was not reached in frontline and salvage cohort, and was 9.1 months in s-AML with median follow up of 5.2, 3.9, and 3.5 months in frontline, s-AML, and salvage cohorts, respectively [Figure.2]. The regimen was well tolerated. The most common ≥ grade 3 possibly-related non-hematologic adverse events were fever/infection (38), bleeding (2), and abnormal liver function test (3). Conclusion The 3-drug combination with a higher dose of araC, CLIA2, is safe and effective in younger pts with AML. Compared to our prior experience in pts with s-AML, using higher dose of cytarabine in CLIA2 for this cohort seems to have the highest impact. This trend however was also seen in the salvage and frontline cohorts when compared to the results from CLIA1. Response rates for pts in the newly-diagnosed AML, s-AML, and in the salvage settings are promising and should be explored further in larger studies and compared to current standard regimens. Disclosures Ravandi: Jazz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Konopleva:Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Daver:Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy. Bose:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Andreeff:SentiBio: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy; Oncoceutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eutropics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Equity Ownership; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: MDM2 inhibitor activity patent, Research Funding; United Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: GD2 inhibition in breast cancer . Pemmaraju:abbvie: Research Funding; cellectis: Research Funding; samus: Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Research Funding; stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; plexxikon: Research Funding; daiichi sankyo: Research Funding; Affymetrix: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jabbour:novartis: Research Funding. Cortes:novartis: Research Funding. Kadia:Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

scholarly journals The Use of Venetoclax for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in a Real-Life Setting: A Multicenter National Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5098-5098
Author(s):  
Jacopo Nanni ◽  
Giacomo Gianfaldoni ◽  
Gianluca Cristiano ◽  
Giovanni Marconi ◽  
Matteo Piccini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Real ◽  
Real Life Setting ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade Iii

Background The oral anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor venetoclax has shown strong activity in R/R AML in controlled clinical trials, and recently impressive results in treatment-naïve AML elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. However, limited data are available in the real-life setting. Methods This is a multi-center (n=4), retrospective study involving patients with treatment-naïve or Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) AML treated with Venetoclax in combination with HMAs. Data were collected after anonymous aggregation, in accordance with GCP and Helsinky declaration. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according CTCAE v4.03. Survival is estimated with Kaplan-Meyer method. Results Forty-four patients have been prescribed Venetoclax from March 2018 to June 2019 and completed at least 1 course of venetoclax (range 1-8, median 2, IQR 2.0 - 4.0), being evaluable in this analysis. Patients's characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Five/44 (11.4%) patients had a low risk AML, 21/44 (47.7%) had an intermediate risk AML and 14/44 (31.8%) patients had a high risk AML, according to ELN 2017 risk stratification (4 patients had no available ELN risk at baseline). Six out of 44 (13.6%) patients received Venetoclax in combination with HMAs as first line of therapy, whereas 14/44 (31%) as first line rescue for resistant AML, 15/44 (34.1%) at first relapse, 9/44 (20.5%) for second or further R/R AML. Among R/R patients who received Venetoclax, 17/38 (44.7%) and 21/38 (55.2 %) had received chemotherapy or HMAs as induction therapy, respectively. Overall, Venetoclax was combined with azacitidine in 19/44 patients (43.2%), with decitabine in 19/44 patients (43.2%), with Low-dose of Cytarabine in 5/44 (11.4%), and was performed in monotherapy in 1/44 (2.3%) patient. Three out of 44 patients (6.8%) received a maximum dosage of 100 mg daily, 2/44 (4.5%) received 200 mg, 37/44 (84.1%) received 400mg and 2/44 (4.5%) received 600 mg. Fifteen out of 44 (34.1%) patients reduced the dosage of venetoclax for concomitant Azole administration. The median follow-up is 75.5 (IQR 45.2 - 178.5) days for patients who received upfront venetoclax therapy, while 143 (IQR 49.2 - 235.7) days for R/R patients. In the first-line setting, no patients reduced venetoclax dosage for concomitant adverse events; two neutropenia grade IV and two thrombocytopenia grade III have been documented. In the R/R setting, 14/38 (36.6%) patients reduced venetoclax dosage for concomitant adverse events. Specifically, we reported 22 adverse events, of which 10 were grade III-IV (5 neutropenia grade IV, 2 pancytopenia grade IV, 1 neutropenia grade III and 2 febrile neutropenia grade III). The overall CR rate is 16.7 % in newly-onset AML patients and 28.9 % in R/R patients, respectively. Two out of 6 treatment-naive patients had an evaluable response at 2 months after the beginning of Venetoclax treatment, and 2/6 had an evaluable 4-months response: 1 stable disease (SD) and 1 disease progression (PD) at 2 months,1 SD e 1 complete remission (CR )at 4 months. Thirty-one out of 38 R/R patients had an evaluable response at 2 months and 21/38 had an evaluable 4-month response: 10 CR, 1 complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), 14 SD and 6 PD at 2 months; 6 CR, 10 SD and 3 PD at 4 months have been documented. After a short follow-up period (75.5 days), no patients who received Venetoclax as upfront therapy underwent an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). On the other hand, after a longer follow-up period (143 days), 5 out of 38 patients (13.2%) received a HSCT after Venetoclax therapy among R/R patients. Median Overall Survival was not reached in the newly-onset cohort. In R/R setting, median OS was 253 days (95% C.I. 157-349). Interpretation These data extend to the real-life setting some previous evidence obtained from trials. In particular, our data confirm that venetoclax plus HMAs or LDAC has an acceptable toxicity profile and is safe and manageable. However, especially in the R/R setting, hematological toxicity represents the most frequent adverse event, arising some concerns about the optimal drugs management. Although our data suggest a similar clinical activity of venetoclax combinations to that reported in clinical trials, further studies from the real-life setting are highly warranted to confirm venetoclax efficacy under normal clinical practice. GG and JN equally contributed CP and AC equally contributed Disclosures Boccadoro: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Papayannidis:Shire: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved to treat Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Italy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document