A Phase I Study of a Combination of 5-Azacyitidine Followed by Lenalidomide In High-Risk MDS or AML Patients with Chromosome 5 Abnormalities – Interim Results of the “AZALE” Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4000-4000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Platzbecker ◽  
Detlef Haase ◽  
Friederike Braulke ◽  
Gesine Bug ◽  
Katharina Götze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Rapid Progression ◽  
Chromosome 5 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cytogenetic Remission ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Abstract Abstract 4000 Lenalidomide has shown single agent activity in patients with MDS (Myelodysplastic Syndromes) and a del(5q) cytogenetic abnormality. Further, studies with the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor 5-azacytidine (5-aza) have been conducted in high-risk MDS (IPSS INT-2 or HIGH) and patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) resulting in considerable responses with a low rate of extramedullary toxicity compared to conventional induction chemotherapy (IC). Given the poor outcome of high-risk MDS and AML patients with chromosome 5 abnormalities, there is a significant clinical need to perform studies with new regimens in this patient population. We report first results of an ongoing phase I clinical trial evaluating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lenalidomide in combination with 5-aza in patients with either high-risk MDS, refractory/relapsed AML or de novo AML not eligible for conventional IC with chromosome 5 abnormalities including monosomy 5 or del(5q). Given the mechanism of action of both drugs and also in contrast to a recent study in non-del(5q) MDS patients, a sequential approach was chosen. In fact, induction therapy consisted of 5-aza (75mg/m2 days 1–5) followed by increasing doses of lenalidomide (starting with 10mg p.o., days 6–19). In patients achieving a complete remission this was followed by a combined maintenance therapy every 8 weeks until disease progression. To determine the MTD, a standard “3+3” design was used. The dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is determined during the first cycle only and is defined as either inability to deliver the full dosing schedule of lenalidomide due to any ≥ Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity or absence of hematological recovery after completing the 1st cycle despite complete marrow blast clearance or treatment delay of ≥ 4 weeks as a result of unresolved grade 4 non-hematological toxicity. Of 8 patients currently enrolled, median age was 67 years (range, 45 to 74 years), interval from primary MDS or AML diagnosis was 9 months (range, 1 to 100 months). IPSS categories were INT-2 (n = 1) and HIGH (n = 3) whereas 4 patients were included with advanced AML. It is of note, that all but two patients had a complex karyotype including a del(5q) abnormality. Prior treatment included IC (n=1), IC plus allogeneic HSCT (n=3) and/or single agent 5-aza (n=3) while 4 patients had received supportive care only prior to study entry. A median of 2 induction cycles were administered. During the first cycle of cohort I (10mg lenalidomide) and cohort II (15mg lenalidomide) grades 3 to 4 non-hematologic toxicities included febrile neutropenia (n = 3), enterocolitis (n = 1) and pneumonia (n=3) whereas therapy-induced grade 3–4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia occurred in four and five patients, respectively. The MTD has not been reached yet. One patient (12.5%) with AML showed rapid progression while receiving the 1st cycle. Out of the remaining seven patients, one (12.5%) achieved a marrow CR together with a partial cytogenetic remission, and six patients (75%) had stable disease. Interestingly, two out of these achieved a partial cytogenetic remission. These preliminary data of an ongoing phase I trial demonstrate the safety and the potential of a combination of 5-aza and lenalidomide in patients with advanced MDS or AML and a del(5q). Disclosures: Platzbecker: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Haase:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Götze:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuendgen:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giagounidis:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hofmann:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Primary Therapy of Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (WM) with Weekly Bortezomib, Low-Dose Dexamethasone and Rituximab (BDR): A Phase II Study of the European Myeloma Network

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1941-1941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Ramón García-Sanz ◽  
Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽  
Pierre Morel ◽  
Marie-Christine Kyrtsonis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Herpes Zoster ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Ortho Biotech ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1941 Rituximab and bortezomib are active agents in the treatment of WM. Based on preclinical studies which indicated synergism between bortezomib and rituximab, in 2006 we designed a large phase II multicenter trial to evaluate the combination of these agents in previously untreated patients with WM requiring therapy based on consensus recommendations (Kyle et al, Sem Oncol 2003;30:116). This trial was conducted by the European Myeloma Network in 10 centers. In order to prevent the “IgM flare effect” seen with rituximab-based regimens, one course of single agent bortezomib was first administered at a standard dose of 1.3 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Ten days later, the patients received four courses of 35 days duration each. In courses 2 to 5, bortezomib was administered weekly at a dose of 1.6 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. During courses 2 and 5, immediately after the administration of bortezomib, patients received dexamethasone 40 mg IV followed by rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV. Patients received a total of 8 infusions of rituximab. Bortezomib was administered weekly in order to reduce the incidence of neurotoxicity which can be significant in WM patients treated with standard schedule bortezomib (Treon et al, Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3320). A single dose of dexamethasone was given before each dose or rituximab in order to take advantage of potential synergism with rituximab and to reduce allergic reactions but to avoid steroid-induced complications. During treatment, valacyclovir prophylaxis for herpes zoster was prescribed. After completion of treatment, patients with CR, PR, MR or SD according to consensus criteria (Kimby et al, CLM 2006;3:380) were followed without further therapy until there was evidence of progressive disease. Dose modifications for toxicity were allowed and bortezomib could be reduced from 1.6 mg/m2 to 1.3 mg/m2 to 1.0 mg/m2. The trial was initiated in March 2007, 61 patients were scheduled to be enrolled and the study completed accrual in June 2010. Patients characteristics included: age >65 years in 60% of patients, hemoglobin <11.5 g/dL in 82%, platelet count <100×109/L in 17%, β2-microglobulin >3 mg/dL in 63%, serum monoclonal protein >7 g/dL in 3.4%, lymphadenopathy in 42%, splenomegaly in 29%, and B-symptoms in 42% of patients. According to IPSS for WM, 18% of patients were rated as low risk, 23% as intermediate risk and 59% as high risk. The main reasons to start treatment included cytopenias in 43% of patients, hyperviscosity in 22%, presence of B-symptoms in 18% and lymphadenopathy in 8%. So far, 54 patients are evaluable for response. On an intent to treat, response rating include CR in 2 (4%), PR in 33 (61%), MR in 8 (15%), SD in 5 (9%) and PD in 6 (11%) patients. In responding patients, at least MR occurred within 2.3 months of treatment and the median time to best response is 4.8 months. Plasmapheresis was not required in any patient before or after treatment with BDR. An “IgM flare phenomenon” was not seen and this was attributed to the initial course of single agent bortezomib. Median follow up for all patients is 12 months, and so far 10 patients have progressed. Eight patients have died, 5 due to causes unrelated to WM or complications of treatment. Toxicities include: neutropenia (grade ≥3) in 13% of patients; thrombocytopenia (grade ≥3) in 5%; peripheral sensory neuropathy, grade 1,2 in 30%, but grade ≥3 in only 5%; neuropathic pain in 17%, but grade ≥3 in only 2%, gastrointestinal toxicity, grade 3 in 7%; and infections in 17% (grade ≥3 in 7%). One patient died of septic shock in absence of neutropenia. Three patients (5%) experienced pulmonary toxicity (grade 3/4) which was attributed to bortezomib and consisted of dyspnea, decrease of O2 saturation and diffuse pulmonary infiltrates on chest CT scan. This toxicity resolved completely after administration of steroids and 2 of 3 patients continued treatment as per protocol. Only one patient (who had discontinued valacylovir prophylaxis) developed herpes zoster. The dose of bortezomib was reduced in 30% of patients primarily because of peripheral neuropathy. This is the largest trial that has evaluated the role of a bortezomib-containing regimen in the frontline setting of symptomatic patients with WM, most of whom were rated as high risk according to IPSS. We conclude that the BDR regimen is active. An update on response, toxicity and time to progression will be performed in November 2010. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Bortezomib for Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. García-Sanz:Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Merlini:Millennium: Honoraria; Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Ortho-Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Effect Of Treatment With The JAK2-Selective Inhibitor Fedratinib (SAR302503) On Bone Marrow Histology In Patients With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms With Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2823-2823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catriona HM Jamieson ◽  
Robert P Hasserjian ◽  
Jason Gotlib ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Richard M. Stone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Selective Inhibitor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Fedratinib, a JAK2-selective inhibitor, demonstrated clinical benefit through a reduction in splenomegaly and symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis (MF), including post-polycythemia vera MF (post-PV MF), post-essential thrombocythemia MF (post-ET MF) and primary MF (PMF), in Phase I and II studies (J Clin Oncol 2011;29:789; Haematologica 2013;98:S1113). Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) has been associated with splenomegaly and cytopenias (Ann Hematol 2006;85:226). Hence, stabilization and/or reversal of BMF remain important therapeutic goals. This report represents an exploratory analysis of sequential BMF data from patients with MF in an open-label Phase I/II study to evaluate the long-term effects of orally administered fedratinib (TED12015; NCT00724334). Methods Patients with intermediate or high-risk MF (Mayo Prognostic Scoring System) received fedratinib therapy in consecutive cycles (1 cycle = 28 days) as long as they derived clinical benefit. Bone marrow trephine biopsies were performed at baseline and after every 6 cycles. Hematoxylin and eosin, reticulin, and Masson's trichrome staining of core biopsy slides were used to grade BMF on a scale from 0 to 3 using the 2008 WHO MF grading criteria. BMF was graded independently in a blinded fashion by 3 hematopathologists. BMF grades were established as long as at least 2 of the 3 pathologists agreed independently. Changes in BMF grade from baseline were categorized as improvement (≥1 grade reduction), stabilization (no change), or worsening (≥1 grade increase). Results Of the 43 patients enrolled in the TED12015 study, the median fedratinib dose received was 473 (range 144–683) mg/day and median treatment duration was 32.3 (range 7–61) cycles. Bone marrow biopsies at baseline and at least one other time point were available for 21/43 (49%) patients, whose baseline characteristics were: median age 61 years (range 43–85); 57% male; 38% high-risk MF by WHO 2008 criteria (Leukemia 2008; 22:14); and 90% JAK2V617F positive. A consensus grade was achieved for 96% of the samples. At baseline, 2, 10, and 9 patients had grade 1, 2, and 3 BMF, respectively. Changes in BMF grade from baseline are shown in the figure. BMF improvement with 1 grade reduction was observed in 8/18 (44%) patients at Cycle 6. By Cycle 30, 4/9 (44%) evaluable patients had BMF improvement, including 2 patients with improvement by 2 grades and 2 patients with improvement by 1 grade. Of patients with Grade 3 BMF at baseline, 6/9 (67%) exhibited 1 grade improvement at Cycle 6. Two patients had 2 grades of BMF reduction from baseline during treatment (grade 3 to 1, and grade 2 to 0, both at Cycle 12), and the latter achieved a complete clinical remission at Cycle 30 assessed by IWG-MRT response criteria. The two patients who experienced complete reversal of BMF to grade 0 (one from grade 2 and one from grade 1) had normalization of not only hemoglobin level but also white blood cell and platelet counts at Cycle 18. Conclusions These exploratory analyses suggest that a proportion of patients treated long-term with fedratinib demonstrate stable or improved BMF. The disease modifying impact of fedratinib on BMF changes will be further assessed in a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial (JAKARTA; NCT01437787). This study was sponsored by Sanofi. Disclosures: Jamieson: J&J, Roche: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hasserjian:Sanofi, Inc: Consultancy. Gotlib:Sanofi: Travel to EHA 2012, Travel to EHA 2012 Other; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Research Funding. Cortes:Incyte, Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte, Sanofi: Research Funding. Talpaz:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Research Funding; Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Speakers Bureau. Thiele:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Novartis, Shire, Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis, Shire: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Novartis, Shire, Sanofi: Honoraria. Rodig:Ventana/Roche Inc.: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo/Arqule Inc., Ventana/Roche Inc., Shape Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy. Patki:Sanofi: Employment. Wu:Sanofi: Employment. Wu:Sanofi: Employment. Pozdnyakova:Sanofi: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy.

An Open-Label Phase I Study of the Safety and Efficacy of RAD001 in Combination with Lenalidomide in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed and Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3856-3856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noopur Raje ◽  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Parameswaran N Hari ◽  
Anuj Mahindra ◽  
Sarah Kaster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Oral Steroid ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3856 Poster Board III-792 Background Lenalidomide (Revlimid®, Len) plus dexamethasone (Dex) is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients following ≥1 prior therapy. mTOR inhibitor RAD001 has been studied as a single agent in MM, and although well tolerated, did not have single agent activity. Given the increased toxicity noted with pulsed high dose steroids, we sought to study a non-steroid containing oral regimen for the treatment of relapsed MM predicated upon our previous studies which demonstrated synergistic anti-MM activity of mTOR inhibitors when combined with len. Here, we extended our in vitro observations to a phase I clinical trial combining RAD001 with len in patients with relapsed or refractory MM. The primary objective was to assess toxicity of this combination and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The secondary objective was to determine the activity of this combination. Methods Patients with relapsed and refractory MM were assigned to len and RAD001 to be taken for 21 days of a 28 day cycle. Dose escalation followed a modified Fibonacci design. Patients were allowed to continue therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients received concomitant anti-thrombotic (aspirin 81 or 325 mg/day) therapy. Response was assessed according to modified EBMT and Uniform Criteria, and toxicities were assessed using NCI CTCAE v3.0. Results Eighteen MM patients have been enrolled to date. One patient in cohort 1 (Len: 10mg and RAD001: 5 mg x 21 days) developed grade 3 neutropenia requiring expansion of the cohort. Cohort 2 (Len: 15mg and RAD001: 5 mg x 21 days) also required expansion because of grade 4 thrombocytopenia noted in 1 patient. Dose limiting toxicities included grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in 2/3 patients in cohort 3 (Len: 20mg and RAD001: 5 mg x 21 days). The MTD for patients with MM was therefore declared at 15 mg of len and 5mg of RAD001 for 21 days with a 7 day rest period. Apart from the hematological toxicities expected with the combination, patients otherwise tolerated the regimen well. Most common (≥10%) grade 1 / 2 events included nausea, fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, constipation, neuropathy and muscle cramps, all of which were manageable with supportive care. No thromboembolic events were noted. Grade 3 / 4 adverse events ≥ 5% included thrombocytopenia (11%) and neutropenia (22%). Fifteen patients have finished at least 2 cycles of therapy: 8 of 15 patients have either stable disease (SD: 1), minimal response (MR: 5) or a partial response (PR: 2), including 7 of 9 patients treated at the recommended MTD for an overall response rate (MR or better) of 50% (90% CI: [30.76%]). One patient with SD continued therapy for a total of 10 cycles, without significant toxicities. Conclusions The combination of Len plus RAD001 is a well tolerated regimen with predictable hematological toxicities. Promising responses were noted in this heavily pretreated patient population. This combination provides an oral steroid free combination alternative strategy which warrants future evaluation in phase II studies. Disclosures: Raje: Astrazeneca : Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: RAD001 not labelled for use in myeloma. Richardson:Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, 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. Hari:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Laubach:Novartis:. Ghobrial:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Adams:Novartis: Employment. Makrides:Celgene: Employment.

Phase I Trial of Everolimus and Rituximab or Everolimus, Bortezomib and Rituximab in Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2705-2705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Erica N Boswell ◽  
Ranjit Banwait ◽  
Tiffany Poon ◽  
Amanda Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Recommended Dose ◽  
Synergistic Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2705 INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of everolimus and rituximab, or everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab in relapsed and/or relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia. This trial was based on our preclinical studies that demonstrated synergistic activity of everolimus and bortezomib with rituximab in WM cell lines, and based on our favorable clinical experience with everolimus as single agent in the treatment of WM. METHODS: Eligibility criteria include: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory WM with any number of prior lines of therapy, including everolimus and bortezomib 2) not completely refractory to rituximab 3) measurable disease by monoclonal IgM protein in the serum and lymphoplasmacytic cells in the bone marrow, 4) Not receiving chemotherapy > 3 weeks, or biological/novel therapy for WM > 2 weeks. A cycle is 28 days and a total of 6 cycles are given, followed by everolimus maintenance for 2 years. Two stages with a total of four dose levels were planned. In stage A, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. In stage B, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days, bortezomib at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days, and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. Patients were assessed for response after every cycle. Subjects who had a response continued on therapy for a total of 6 cycles, and then continued on to maintenance therapy with everolimus alone until progression (or for a maximum of 24 months). Because of the potential of an IgM flare after rituximab, patients who showed an increase in IgM after rituximab in the first 3 months were not deemed as having progressive disease unless they showed evidence of clinical progression. To examine the in vivo effect of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab, peripheral blood samples were obtained from patients on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 at cycle 1; and on day 1 only at all subsequent cycles. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this phase I clinical trial from April 2009 to July 2011. The median age is 61 (range, 52–73) yrs and the median lines of prior therapy is 2 (range, 1–8) with all patients receiving prior rituximab and 12 (52%) receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 3.5 (range, 0–15). Overall, this combination therapy is very well tolerated. Grade 4 toxicities included: neutropenia (8.7%), leukopenia (4.3%), thrombocytopenia (17.4%), lymphopenia (4.3%) and hypertriglyceridemia (4.3%). Grade 3 toxicities included: neutropenia (21.7%), leukopenia (26.1%), anemia (13%), lymphopenia (17.4%), pneumonitis (4.3%), SGPT (4.3%), neuropathy (4.3%), Herpes zoster reactivation (4.3%), hyperglycemia (4.3%) and hypernatremia (4.3%). 1 patient discontinued therapy due to grade 3 anemia. Nineteen patients are currently evaluable for response, including 1 (5%) very good partial response (VGPR) and 9 (47%) minimal response (MR), for an overall response rate including MR of 10/19 (53%) in this relapsed/refractory population. Furthermore, overall response including MR in stage A (everolimus/rituximab) was 2/6 (33%) and 8/13 (62%) in stage B (everolimus/bortezomib/rituximab). Additionally, 9 (39%) patients achieved stable disease, and 4 (17%) are early on therapy and not been yet assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab is generally well tolerated, and importantly no grade 3/4 neuropathy was seen. Moreover, no dose limiting toxicities were observed even at the maximum dose evaluated. The responses observed to date in this relapsed/refractory population are encouraging. Based on the safety of this phase I study, the phase II study of two arms, everolimus/rituximab for low risk patients and everolimus/bortezomib/rituximab for intermediate and high risk patients is underway. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bortezomib and everolimus in WM. Anderson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Treon:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Temsirolimus in Combination with Bendamustine and Rituximab for the Treatment of Relapsed Mantle Cell and Follicular Lymphoma: Report on An Ongoing Phase I/II Trial

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2697-2697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Hess ◽  
Ulrich Keller ◽  
Johannes Atta ◽  
Christian Buske ◽  
Peter Borchmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Entire Treatment ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Abstract Abstract 2697 Background: mTOR inhibition has been shown to be effective in various subtypes of malignant lymphomas. Based on a phase III trial in relapsed MCL which proved superiority of temsirolimus to standard options, the drug is approved for this indication in the EU. Additionally, promising response rates could be observed in patients with follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Smith et al, JCO 2010). Whereas combination to single agent rituximab seems feasible and with improved efficacy (Ansell et al, Lancet Oncology 2011), there is limited information on the feasibility and efficacy in combination with chemotherapy. Bendamustine has been shown to be effective in indolent lymphoma and has a beneficial side effect profile (Rummel et al, JCO, 2005). To evaluate the potential of the combination of temsirolimus with bendamustine and rituximab an ongoing phase I/II trial was initiated. Methods: This is a multicenter, national, prospective trial, approved by the centralized EC. Patients were eligible if they had histologically proven follicular (FL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), the latter with Cyclin D1 positivity or detectable t(11;14), 1–3 prior treatment lines, no curative option available, no refractoriness to bendamustine, measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient bone marrow reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. Treatment consisted of bendamustine 90mg/m2 day 1–2, rituximab 375mg/m2 day 1 and temsirolimus day 2, 8, 15 of a 28d cycle. A total of 4 cycles was planned with interim staging after 2 cycles. In the ongoing phase I part (3+3 design) the following dose cohorts for temsirolimus were planed: A 25mg, B 50mg, C 75mg. Currently cohort C is ongoing. Toxicity was evaluated throughout the treatment and analysis for DLT was performed after 2 cycles. An independent data safety monitoring board decided on the escalation to the next dose level. Results: Overall 9 patients have been included until now (6 pts cohort A, 3 patients cohort B) and 4 patients are in the prescreening period (cohort C). Median age 64; Histology: 8MCL/1FL; sex 2F/7M, median number of pretreatments 2 (1–3). Adverse events: overall the treatment was well tolerated. Toxicity was predominant hematologic with mostly leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. In 29 evaluable cycles of chemotherapy the following grade 3/4 toxicities were noted: Thrombocytopenia in 3 (all grade 3); leukopenia in 11 (9 grade 3; 2 grade 4), and increase in triglycerides, hyperglycemia and hypertension in one patient each (all grade 3). Importantly, one case of pneumonitis occurred, which resolved after steroid treatment and study treatment could be resumed w/o further problems. In addition, one reaction to contrast agent, an allergic reaction to berries and a transient parasthesia during the study phase were noted, leading to hospitalization. All of these events occurred several days after the last application of study drug and were considered not to be associated to the study treatment. As the episode of hypertension led to hospital admission, it was considered to be potentially a DLT, and cohort A was escalated to 6 patients w/o further DLT. In cohort B no DLT were observed in 3 patients and cohort C has been opened for inclusion. 5 patients have completed the entire treatment, in one patient treatment was stopped after cycle 3 due to delayed recovery of platelets, and treatment is ongoing in 3 patients. At interim staging all 9 patients evaluable achieved a partial remission (ORR 100%). After completion of the entire treatment ORR was 100% with 1 CR and 5 PR in 6 evaluable patients. Summary: In this ongoing phase I/II trial the combination of temsirolimus with bendamustine and Rituximab was feasible applying 3 weekly doses of up to 50mg temsirolimus in a 4 week cycle. Until now promising response rates have been noticed. Cohort C is currently recruiting patients (Temsirolimus 75mg), updated results of the phase I part of the trial will be presented at the meeting. If no dose limiting toxicities are observed, the extended phase II part of the trial will be initiated with patients stratified according to lymphoma subtype (30 patients each with FL and MCL). Disclosures: Hess: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Keller:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzens-Harig:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Dreyling:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, scientific advisory.

scholarly journals Aspacytarabine (BST-236) Is Safe and Efficacious As a Single-Agent, First-Line Therapy for Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Unfit for Standard Chemotherapy. Integrated Results from a Phase 1/2a and an Ongoing Phase 2b

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 179-179
Author(s):  
Jessica K. Altman ◽  
Tsila Zuckerman ◽  
Olga Frankfurt ◽  
Selina M. Luger ◽  
Dale L. Bixby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Prior Exposure ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Introduction: Aspacytarabine (BST-236) is a prodrug of cytarabine, a backbone of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) therapy. Due to its unique pharmacokinetics and metabolism, treatment with aspacytarabine evades peak exposure to free cytarabine, which reduces non-hematological toxicity and enables delivery of high-dose cytarabine also to patients unfit for standard therapy. Data from a completed phase 1/2a and an ongoing phase 2b studies in AML patients unfit for standard therapy, including patients with AML secondary to therapy and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with prior exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMA), demonstrate promising single-agent efficacy and safety of aspacytarabine as a potential first-line AML treatment for this challenging population. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspacytarabine in AML patients unfit for standard induction therapy. Methods: A completed phase 1/2a study and an ongoing phase 2b study evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspacytarabine as a single-agent therapeutic for AML. The phase 1/2a, dose-escalation study enrolled newly-diagnosed patients unfit for standard therapy and patients with relapsed/refractory AML. Patients were treated with 0.3-6 g/m2/d aspacytarabine in 6 dose-escalating cohorts. The ongoing multi-center phase 2b study expands the subgroup of newly-diagnosed AML patients unfit for standard therapy, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspacytarabine as a first-line therapy for this population. Secondary AML patients, treated with HMA, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy for a prior condition, are allowed. Patients in the phase 2b study are treated with the selected aspacytarabine dose of 4.5 g/m2/d, containing approximately 3 g/m2/d of cytarabine. Each aspacytarabine treatment course (induction and consolidation) consists of 6 1-hour daily intravenous infusions. Results: To date, 34 AML patients, median age 76 years, received at least 1 dose of aspacytarabine, including 30 patients unfit for standard induction therapy due to age or comorbidities. Overall, 25 patients completed 1 course of aspacytarabine, 4 patients completed 2 courses, 1 patient completed 3 courses, and 1 patient completed 4 courses of aspacytarabine. Three patients (in the phase 1/2a study) did not complete the first course. Aspacytarabine was safe and well-tolerated in repeated-course administration, including in older and unfit patients. Adverse events included mainly hematological "on-target" events with no drug-related mucositis or cerebellar toxicity. Twenty-one patients were newly-diagnosed with AML, either de novo or secondary to MDS or therapy. The patient population was characterized by older age (median 76 years, range 67-88 years), and the majority (67%) of patients had secondary AML, including 10 patients (48%) who were previously treated with HMA (median of 10 courses) or radiotherapy. The median baseline bone marrow blast percentage of this population was 75, and 43% and 48% had intermediate or adverse European LeukemiaNet (ELN) cytogenetic score, respectively. Despite these poor-prognostic characteristics, the 30-day mortality rate in the group of patients receiving ≥4.5 g/m2/d aspacytarabine was 7%. The combined complete remission (CR) rate of all doses was 33%, including 1 patient reaching a CR with partial platelet recovery (CRp). The CR rate in patients treated with at least 4.5 g/m2/d aspacytarabine is 36%, with median time for complete hematological recovery of 27 days (range 21-30) following induction and consolidation. Notably, among the 7 patients who reached a CR/CRp (median age 77), 3 secondary AML patients reached a CR, including 2 patients with prior exposure to HMA (5 and 10 courses) and 1 with prior exposure to radiotherapy (Table 1). Duration of response and overall survival follow up is ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: The accumulating clinical data suggest that aspacytarabine is safe and efficacious for the treatment of AML patients who are unfit for standard induction therapy, including patients with prior exposure to HMA, which may establish aspacytarabine as a new therapeutic backbone for AML, either as a single agent or in combination with targeted therapy. Disclosures Altman: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead; Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Luger:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria. Kota:Takeda: Honoraria; Xcenda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Flaishon:BioSight Ltd.: Employment. Tessler:BioSight Ltd.: Employment. Gengrinovitch:BioSight Ltd.: Employment. Ben Yakar:BioSight Ltd.: Employment. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Results of a Phase I Trial of Lenalidomide, Rituximab (R2) and Ixazomib for Frontline Treatment of High Risk Follicular and Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Brian T. Hill ◽  
Deepa Jagadeesh ◽  
Alex V. Mejia Garcia ◽  
Robert M. Dean ◽  
Omer N. Koc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marginal Zone ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Marginal Zone Lymphoma ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Frontline Treatment

INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide and Rituximab (R2) is an effective frontline treatment regimen for patients (pts) with indolent B-cell lymphoma including follicular lymphoma (FL). Recent phase III data from the RELEVANCE trial comparing R2 to traditional chemoimmunotherapy showed that this regimen is generally well-tolerated and has favorable clinical efficacy [61% overall response, 53% CR rate, 77% 3-year progression free survival (PFS) (Morschhauser, et al)]. Proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib disrupt NF-KB signaling and have shown clinical activity in indolent NHL. Although randomized trials have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit of adding bortezomib to standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen bendamustine + rituximab (BR) for frontline treatment of FL, the addition of proteasome inhibitors to lenalidomide is a mainstay of treatment for plasma cell neoplasms due to synergistic antitumor effect. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib has less potential for dose-limiting neuropathy than bortezomib, making it an attractive option to incorporate into the R2 regimen. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of the addition of ixazomib to R2 for FL and indolent B-cell NHL through a phase I clinical trial of this combination for patients with high risk disease. METHODS: Adult (age ≥ 18) pts with untreated FL or other indolent lymphoma, adequate organ function and performance status were enrolled. To be enrolled, FL patients were required to have stage 2, 3 or 4 disease, with high tumor burden by GELF criteria and/or FLIPI score of 3-5. During 3 x 3 dose escalation, ixazomib was given at a dose of 2 mg (n=3), 3 mg (n=3) or 4 mg (n=12) PO on days 1, 8, and 15 with lenalidomide 20 mg PO on days 1-21 every 28 days. Rituximab was administered at standard dosing on days 1,8,15,21 for cycle 1, once every 28 days for cycles 2-6 and then once every 2 months for cycles 7-12. Treatment was continued for 12 cycles and no maintenance therapy was specified per protocol. All pts received low dose aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and acyclovir for prevention of VZV reactivation. Response assessments by CT were performed after cycle 3 and 6 and by PET/CT at the end-of-treatment (cycle 12). RESULTS: 20 pts were enrolled and 18 were eligible for treatment [15 FL (14 grade 1-2, 1 grade 3A), 2 splenic marginal zone lymphoma and 1 nodal marginal zone lymphoma].The median age of treated pts was 61 (range 40-83) years old. 55% of patients were female. Stage at diagnosis was II (n =2), III (n = 4) and IV (n = 12). For FL pts, FLIPI scores at enrollment were low (n=2), intermediate (n = 5) and high risk (n=8) and FLIPI-2 scores were low (n=3), intermediate (n = 2) and high risk (n=10). There were no dose limiting toxicities during 3 x 3 dose escalation. Grade (G) 1/2 and G3/4 treatment-related hematologic adverse events (AEs) included neutropenia (6%, 28%), thrombocytopenia (16.7%, 5.6%) and anemia (16.7%, 0%). The most common treatment-related AEs included nausea/vomiting (44% G1, 11% G2), diarrhea, (50% G1, 22% G2, 5% G3), rash (33% G1, 6% G2, 11%G3), peripheral neuropathy (22% G1, 6% G2), myalgia/arthralgia (17% G1, 17% G2), and infection (33% G2, 17% G3). There was one pulmonary embolism and no cases of febrile neutropenia. As of June, 2020, median follow-up among living pts was 21 months. 4 pts discontinued treatment due to disease progression; 2 with transformation to aggressive lymphoma. Of the transformed cases, one subject died on study due to progression disease and one developed CNS disease on study treatment but proceeded to autologous stem cell transplant. The best overall response rate was 61.2% [55.6% CR, 5.6% PR): 22.2% had stable disease and 16.7% had disease progression. 18-month Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS and overall survival were 71% and 94%, respectively (Figure). CONCLUSION: R2 can safely be combined with at the target dose of 4 mg of ixazomib for treatment-naïve indolent NHL patients. Non-hematologic AEs were generally consistent with known toxicity of each component of therapy. CR rate and PFS were was similar to the outcomes reported in the RELEVANCE trial despite enrolling high risk patient. R2 may serve as backbone for future studies of novel treatment combinations for high risk FL after thorough evaluation for occult transformation to aggressive lymphoma. Disclosures Hill: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagadeesh:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caimi:Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Smith:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib is off-label for treatment of NHL

PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4304-4304
Author(s):  
Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽  
Rudy Agius ◽  
Arnon P. Kater ◽  
Mark-David Levin ◽  
Anders Österborg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Educational Grant ◽  
Travel Grant ◽  
Grade 3

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

Phase I-II Study of Clofarabine-Melphalan-Alemtuzumab (CMA) Conditioning for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) in Patients with Advanced Hematologic Malignancies: Determination of MTD and Outcomes.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 197-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen van Besien ◽  
Justin Kline ◽  
Lucy A Godley ◽  
Richard A. Larson ◽  
Vu H. Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Renal Toxicity ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

Abstract Abstract 197 Supported by an unrestricted grant from Genzyme Corporation. Fludarabine (Flu) melphalan-alemtuzumab is a well tolerated, reduced intensity conditioning regimen for HCT. Clofarabine (Clo), a second generation nucleoside analog with excellent activity in acute leukemia, might enhance disease control over Flu. We report outcomes of a completed phase I and ongoing phase II study of CMA conditioning for allogeneic peripheral blood HCT. Tacrolimus was administered as GVHD prophylaxis. For the phase I cohort, one pt was enrolled per dose level, until the first DLT or until 2 had grade 3 toxicity. Dose level 1 consisted of: clo 10 mg/m2/day on d −7 to −3 and melphalan 100 mg/m2 on day −2. Clo was increased by 10 mg/m2/day per cohort until 40 mg/m2/day. Then, melphalan was increased by 20 mg/m2 until 140 mg/m2. Alemtuzumab was given at a fixed dose of 20 mg/day on d −7 to −3. Twelve pts were accrued in the phase I portion of whom three remain in remission at 26, 22 and 21 months. Forty pts, median age 53 (24–69), have been accrued in the phase II study of whom 16 had related and 24 unrelated donors. 20 had AML/MDS (6 refractory, 4 CR2, 9 CR1, 1 untreated MDS), 16 NHL (6 refractory, 9 chemosensitive relapse, 1 CR1) 2 CLL, 2 MPD. ASBMT risk score was high in 14, intermediate in 14, and low in 12. Performance score was 0 in 19, 1 in 17, 2 in 2, and not documented in 2 patients. The phase II dose was initiated at Clo 40 mg/m2/day x 5 days and melphalan 140 mg/m2. Twenty-four pts received this dose. Grade 3 renal toxicity occurred between day −7 and day +7 in 4 of 24 (17%) pts receiving this dose. The phase II dose was then reduced to Clo 30 mg/m2/day x 5 days and melphalan 140 mg/m2, and used to treat 16 pts. One pt with preexisting cardiomyopathy and refractory AML died during conditioning from cardiovascular failure. No grade 3 renal toxicity has been observed in this cohort and 3 pts had reversible grade 2 renal failure. Other toxicities included: gr 2–3 reversible ALT elevation between day −2 and day +5 in 8 pts; gr 2 reversible bilirubin elevation in 1 pt. No grade 3–4 hand foot syndrome or VOD occurred in this cohort. All evaluable pts engrafted. Twenty of 24 pts had full donor CD3 chimerism on day 30 and 2 had mixed donor chimerism. 11 pts had gr II aGVHD, and 3 had gr IIII/IV aGVHD. 7 have cGVHD.With a median follow-up of 313 days (19–607), 24 of 40 pts (60%) in the phase II portion of the study remain in remission. Eight have relapsed, 4 of whom have died. Eight others have died of treatment-related causes (7 after Clo 40 and 1 after Clo 30). Estimated one year survival is 72% (95%CI, 56–88) and PFS is 63% (45–81%). Neither dose of Clo (40 vs 30), donor type (MUD vs related), age (< 50 vs >50) affected outcomes. One year PFS was 56% (28–84) for NHL and 68% (46–90) for AML/MDS (P=NS). One year PFS was 43% (15–71%) for ASBMT high risk pts vs 70% (50–90%) for ASBMT low/intermediate risk pts (P=0.01; Figure 1). Conclusions: Clofarabine - melphalan - alemtuzumab conditioning induces durable remissions in a substantial fraction of patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Clo 30/Mel 140 has an excellent safety profile. Disclosures: Off Label Use: clofarabine for transplant conditioning. Kline:Genzyme corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Odenike:Genzyme corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stock:Genzyme: Research Funding.

A Phase I Study of Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone In Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Excellent Tolerability and Promising Activity In a Heavily Pretreated Population

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1951-1951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Donna Weber ◽  
Constantine S. Mitsiades ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Jean-Luc Harousseau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1951 Background: Although novel treatment combinations for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved outcomes, the disease remains incurable and new drug combinations are urgently needed. Vorinostat is an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor approved in the United States for treatment of patients (pts) with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma who failed prior therapies. Vorinostat alters gene expression and protein activity, promoting MM cell death through multiple pathways, and has been shown in preclinical studies to synergistically enhance the anti-MM activity of bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs, including lenalidomide, with or without dexamethasone. Aims: The primary objective of this Phase I study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. Secondary objectives included overall safety, tolerability, response rate, duration of response, and time to progression (TTP). Methods: Pts in this Phase I multicenter open-label study were sequentially enrolled into 1 of 5 escalating doses of the combination regimen using a standard 3 + 3 design for ≤8 cycles. Pts who tolerated treatment and experienced clinical benefit were eligible for enrollment in an extension phase. Toxicity was evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (version 3.0). Response was assessed using the modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria and International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Criteria. Safety and efficacy data were analyzed using summary statistics, except for TTP, which was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: As of July 15, 2010, 31 pts were treated and evaluable for toxicity; 4 pts remain on study. Most pts had received prior thalidomide (n=22; 71%), bortezomib (n=20; 65%), or lenalidomide (n=14; 45%), with a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1–10). The patient population contained both high-risk and low-risk pts, based on cytogenetic and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in severity. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs, experienced by 19 (61%) pts, were neutropenia (26%), thrombocytopenia (16%), diarrhea (13%), anemia (10%), and fatigue (10%); 8 pts discontinued due to toxicity. One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea lasting >48 h) was observed at the maximum assessed dose (level 5), but MTD was not reached (Table) and there were no treatment-related deaths. Among 30 pts evaluable for response, the median TTP was 32 weeks (5 mo), and 4 pts remain on study as of the data cutoff date; 26 of 30 pts (87%) have achieved at least stable disease (SD). Best single responses included 2 complete responses, 3 very good partial responses (VGPR), 11 partial responses (PR), and 5 minimal responses (MR), with 5 pts achieving SD and 4 developing progressive disease, resulting in an overall response rate (ORR; PR or better) of 53%. Of 13 evaluable pts who had previously received lenalidomide, a best single response of SD or better was observed in 9 (69%; 2 VGPR, 3 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD), resulting in a 38% ORR. Notably, SD or better (2 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD) was observed in 60% of 10 evaluable pts who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to previous lenalidomide-containing regimens. Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Phase I study suggest that vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone is a convenient and generally well-tolerated regimen with promising activity for relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. The MTD for this combination was not reached. Importantly, responses were observed in pts who had received prior lenalidomide, bortezomib, and thalidomide. Further evaluation of this regimen is planned in future trials. Disclosures: Richardson: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for treatment in Multiple Myeloma. Weber:Novartis-unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Merck- unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Celgene- none for at least 2 years: Honoraria; Millenium-none for 2 years: Honoraria; Celgene, Millenium, Merck: Research Funding. Mitsiades:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck & Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kosan Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centrocor: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Patents & Royalties; OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AVEO Pharma: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gloucester Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harousseau:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Houp:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Graef:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Gause:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Byrne:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene and Millennium: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document