Results of a Phase I-II Clinical Trial of Oxaliplatin, Fludarabine, Cytarabine, and Rituximab (OFAR) Combination Therapy In Patients with Aggressive, Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Richter Syndrome (RS)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 923-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolia Maria Tsimberidou ◽  
William G. Wierda ◽  
Sijin Wen ◽  
William Plunkett ◽  
Susan O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Log Rank Test

Abstract Abstract 923 Background: To enhance the response rate with a decrease in myelosuppression that were observed with oxaliplatin, fluradabine, Ara-C, and rituximab (OFAR1) (Tsimberidou et al, J Clin Oncol, 2008;26:196), the daily dose of oxaliplatin was increased from 25 to 30mg, the daily dose of Ara-C was decreased from 1 g/m2 to 0.5 g/m2 and the optimal number of days of fluradabine and Ara-C administration was explored (OFAR2). Methods: OFAR2 consisted of oxaliplatin 30mg/m2 D1-4; fludarabine 30mg/m2; Ara-C 0.5g/m2; rituximab 375mg/m2 D3; and pelfigrastim 6mg D6. Fludarabine and Ara-C were given on D2-3 (level 1) D2-4 (level 2) or D2-5 (level 3) every 4 weeks. Tumor lysis, DNA virus, and PCP prophylaxis was administered. A “3+3” design was used (Phase I) and and the planned number of patients in the Phase II was 90 (CLL, 60; RS, 30). Results: Overall 102 patients (rel. CLL 67, RS 35) were treated. Twelve patients were treated in the Phase I portion of the study. Dose-limiting toxicities were noted in 2/3 patients at level 3 (G4 diarrhea and G4 sepsis). Level 2 was the maximum tolerated dose. Ninety patients (CLL, 60; RS, 30) were treated in Phase II portion of the study (age > 60 years 67%, 17p del 37.5%, 11q del 15%, 13q del 18%, +12, 17%; neg. 12.5%; unmutated IgVH 81.5%, ZAP70-positive 77%, and CD38 30%, 63%). Response in 80 of 90 patients (Phase II) is shown in Table (too early, n=10). The overall response rates in patients (Phase II) with 17p deletion and 11q deletion were 29% and 41%, respectively. Twenty-nine patients underwent SCT after OFAR2 (response status to OFAR2 at the time of SCT: CR, n=3; nPR, n=2; 15; no response, n=9). With a median follow-up of 20.8 months, the median survival was 19 months (95% CI, 13–37+) and the median FFS was 6 months (95% CI, 3.4 – 8.2). Overall, 238 cycles were administered. G3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia were noted in 67%, 74%, and 44% of patients (51%, 64%, and 25% of cycles); and G3-4 infections in 19% of patients. Clinical outcomes of OFAR2 were compared with those of OFAR1. In patients with RS, the overall response rate was 41% (11/27) with OFAR2 and 50% (10/20) with OFAR1 (p = 0.57, Fisher's test); the median survival with OFAR2 and OFAR1 was 8.3 months and 18+ months, respectively (p = 0.92, log-rank test); and the respective median FFS was 3.0 months and 4.1 months (p = 0.40, log-rank test). In patients with CLL, the overall response rate was 55% (29/53) with OFAR2 and 33% (10/30) with OFAR1 (p = 0.36, Fisher's test); the median survival with OFAR2 was 21.4 months and 13.8 months with OFAR1 (p = 0.19, log-rank test); and the respective median FFS was 6.6 months and 4.9 months (p = 0.69, log-rank test). Conclusion: OFAR2 induced response in 41% of patients with RS and 55% of patients with relapsed/refractory CLL in the phase II study. Antileukemic activity was also noted in patients with 17p deletion. Although the numbers of patients are small, OFAR1 was associated with a trend towards superior clinical outcomes in patients with RS compared to OFAR2; and OFAR2 was associated with a trend towards superior clinical outcomes compared to OFAR1 in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL. Disclosures: Tsimberidou: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ASCO: Career Development Award, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Drug: Oxaliplatin. Oxaliplatin combined with fludarabine, cytarabine, and rituximab has antileukemic activity in patients with relapsed/refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter Syndrome. Wierda:Genentech: Consultancy, 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; Micromet: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Research Funding. O'Brien:Biogen Idec: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kipps:Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Jones:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbott Laboratories: Research Funding.

Impact Of The Proportion Of Metaphases With Isolated Del(5q) On Clinical Outcomes In Lenalidomide (LEN)-Treated Patients With IPSS Low-/Int-1-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) In MDS-003 and MDS-004

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1538-1538
Author(s):  
Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽  
Alan List ◽  
Eva Hellström-Lindberg ◽  
Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽  
Ghulam J. Mufti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Rbc Transfusion

Abstract Introduction The proportion of aberrant metaphases is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in MDS patients with trisomy 8 (Mallo M, et al. Leuk Res. 2011;35:834-6). The impact of the proportion of metaphases with del(5q) on clinical outcomes, including OS, disease progression and response to therapy with LEN in MDS remains undefined. In two large multicenter studies of LEN (MDS-003 and MDS-004) in RBC transfusion-dependent patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Low- or Intermediate (Int)-1-risk del(5q) MDS, RBC transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 8 weeks was achieved in 51–67% of patients (List A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1456-65; Fenaux P, et al. Blood. 2011;118:3765-76). This retrospective analysis evaluated response to treatment, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and OS by proportion of del(5q) metaphases in patients with isolated del(5q) from the MDS-003 and 004 studies. Methods In order to allow sufficient patient numbers for analysis, ≥ 16 metaphases were evaluated for del(5q) by standard karyotyping (MDS-003 and MDS-004) and 200 interphase nuclei were evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; MDS-004 only) using a probe for the commonly deleted region 5q31 (LSI EGR1/D5S721, Abbott, Wiesbaden, Germany). Patients received LEN on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle (10 mg) or continuously (5 mg or 10 mg), or placebo. In MDS-004, patients randomized to placebo could cross over to LEN 5 mg by week 16. RBC-TI ≥ 26 weeks, time to AML progression and OS were analyzed by the proportion of del(5q) metaphases or interphases (≤ 60% vs > 60%) using standard karyotyping and FISH, respectively. Results Of the 353 patients from MDS-003 and MDS-004, 194 had isolated del(5q) by standard karyotyping; median proportion of del(5q) metaphases was 96% (range 4–100). Baseline characteristics including age, time from diagnosis, RBC transfusion burden, hemoglobin level, platelet and absolute neutrophil counts were comparable among patients with ≤ 60% (n = 21) and > 60% (n = 173) del(5q) metaphases. Rates of RBC-TI ≥ 26 weeks were similar across patients in the ≤ 60% and > 60% groups (P = 0.6515). Time to AML progression was comparable for patients in the ≤ 60% group versus the > 60% group (log-rank test P = 0.9802); 2-year rates were 22.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7–54.5%) and 14.6% (95% CI: 9.9–21.2%), respectively. Time to AML progression was similar when analyzed with death without AML as competing risk (Gray’s test P = 0.5514). OS was longer in the > 60% versus the ≤ 60% group (log-rank test P = 0.0436); median OS was 3.7 years (95% CI: 3.0–4.2) and 2.4 years (95% CI: 1.5–4.9), respectively. In MDS-004, the proportion of del(5q) interphases was analyzed using FISH in 106 patients, including 46 with ≤ 60% and 60 with > 60%. When analyzed by FISH, rates of RBC-TI ≥ 26 weeks were similar across patients in the ≤ 60% and > 60% groups (P = 1.000). Time to AML progression and OS were similar across these groups (log-rank test P = 0.7311 and P = 0.8639, respectively) when analyzed by FISH. In the ≤ 60% and > 60% groups respectively, 2-year AML progression rates were 14.8% (95% CI: 6.9–30.1%) and 18.6% (95% CI: 10.4–32.0%), and median OS was 3.1 years (95% CI: 2.3–4.8) and 2.9 years (95% CI: 2.3–4.4). Time to AML progression was similar when analyzed with death without AML as competing risk (Gray’s test P = 0.8631). Conclusions In IPSS Low- or Int-1-risk MDS patients with isolated del(5q) treated with LEN in MDS-003 and MDS-004 studies, baseline characteristics, RBC-TI ≥ 26 weeks and AML progression were comparable in patients with > 60% versus ≤ 60% del(5q) metaphases. Although similar across groups when analyzed by FISH in a subset of patients, surprisingly, OS was longer in patients with > 60% del(5q) metaphases than in those with ≤ 60% del(5q) metaphases by standard karyotyping. However, the number of patients with ≤ 60% del(5q) metaphases was limited and no adjustment was made for multiple testing. These findings suggest that the number of cells with the isolated del(5q) abnormality measured by FISH does not impact clinical outcome in this RBC transfusion-dependent study population, but this finding could not be confirmed for OS by standard karyotyping. Disclosures: Giagounidis: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene: Serve on Celgene Data Safety & Monitoring Committee Other. Hellström-Lindberg:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mufti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schlegelberger:Celgene: Consultancy. Morrill:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Celgene: Honoraria.

Final Results of the Phase I/II Study of Chemosensitization Using the CXCR4 Inhibitor Plerixafor in Combination with Bortezomib in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4256-4256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Kenneth H. Shain ◽  
Jacob Laubach ◽  
Patrick Henrick ◽  
James Vredenburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Recommended Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine activity and safety of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM). This was based on our preclinical studies showing that plerixafor (Mozobil, Sanofi Corporation) induces de-adhesion of MM cells and sensitization to bortezomib in preclinical animal models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Theprimary endpoint of the phase I study was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and for the phase II study, the safety and response rate of the combination. Eligibility criteria included patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM with 1-5 prior lines of therapy including bortezomib (unless patients were refractory to bortezomib). The phase I included 8 cohorts with different doses and two treatment schedules. In cohorts 1-5, patients received plerixafor at the recommended dose sq on days 1-6 of each cycle and bortezomib at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. In cohort 5b-6, plerixafor was given at the recommended dose sq on days 1, 3, 6, 10, and 13 and bortezomib was given at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. For the phase II portion patients received plerixafor at the MTD established in phase I of trial, 320 mcg/kg sq on days 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, and 13. Bortezomib was given 1.3 mg/m2 IV or sq twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, 13, every 21 days. Dexamethasone was given at 40mg on days of Bortezomib. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were enrolled on this study from June 2009 to March 2015, with 25 on the phase I and 33 on the phase II study. In the phase I study, the median age was 60 years (range, 43-85), the median number of prior therapies was 2 (range, 1-4), with all but 3 patients receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 4 (1-12). Dose limiting toxicities including insomnia, restlessness, and psychosis were observed in two patients at dose level 6 (plerixafor 0.40 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). Therefore, 3 additional patients were enrolled at dose level 5b (plerixafor 0.32 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). There were no grade 4 toxicities. Grade 3 toxicities included lymphopenia (40%), hypophosphatemia (20%), anemia (10%), hyponatremia (10%), hypercalcemia (10%), and bone fracture due to myeloma bone disease (10%). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response, including 1 (4%) complete response (CR), 1 (4%) very good partial response (VGPR), 1 partial remission (PR) and 2 (9%) MR, and 15 (65%) having stable disease with only 3 (13%) progressive disease (PD). In the phase II study, the median age was 63 (46-83). The median number of prior therapies was 2 (1-5), with 22 (66%) who have received prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy is 5 (1-24). The response rate included 5 VGPR (16%), 11 PR (35%) with an overall response rate of 51% and another 11 (35%) stable disease. Grade 3/4 toxicities included thrombocytopenia (68%), lymphopenia (6%), hypophosphatemia (2%), anemia (4%), infections (4%), hyponatremia (2%), hypercalcemia (2%) and neurological toxicity (2%). We also examined in vivo mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells and other accessory bone marrow cells. Analysis of these samples showed rapid mobilization of plasma cells at 2 hours post-plerixafor with a rapid return to normal levels at 4 and 24 hours post plerixafor. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of plerixafor and bortezomib is generally well tolerated with minimal neuropathy or other toxicities seen to date. The responses observed are strongly encouraging with 51% ORR in this relapsed and refractory population. This study was supported by R01CA133799-01, and by Sanofi and Takeda Corporations. Disclosures Off Label Use: Plerixafor in myeloma. Azab:Verastem: Research Funding; Selexys: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Cell Works: Research Funding; Targeted Therapeutics LLC: Other: Founder and owner . Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Richardson:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Final Results of Phase I/II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Combination with Bortezomib and Rituximab (RVR) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3081-3081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Robert Allyn Redd ◽  
Jeffrey Matous ◽  
Philippe Armand ◽  
Erica N Boswell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia is a distinct lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Several clinical trials have shown high rates of response in patients with relapsed WM using bortezomib and rituximab combinations. In addition, the TORC1 inhibitor everolimus has previously shown a high response rate of 70% in this patient population. In this trial, we aimed to examine the safety and activity of the combination of everolimus with bortezomib and rituximab (RVR) and to determine whether a deep response can be achieved with a triple combination of targeted therapeutic agents in WM. Methods: The phase I portion of the study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus, rituximab combination or RVR combination, while the phase II portion evaluated the depth of responses to the RVR combination. Patients were eligible for this trial if they had relapsed or refractory WM. There was no limit on the number of prior therapies. Patients were required to be ≥18 years old and have measurable and symptomatic disease. For the phase I, patients were assigned to a dose level in the order of study entry. In the dose-escalation scheme, everolimus was given at 5 or 10 mg PO with rituximab, or with bortezomib at 1.3 or 1.6 mg/m2 and rituximab. Rituximab was given at a fixed dose of 375 mg/m2 IV. In the phase II, patients received everolimus 10 mg flat dose PO daily, Bortezomib IV 1.6mg/m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 q 28 days and rituximab IV 375 mg/ m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 22 q 28 days on cycles 1 and 4 only. Treatment was daily and 4 weeks (28 days) was considered one cycle. Patients received a total of 6 cycles followed by maintenance therapy with everolimus 10 mg PO daily until progression. Dexamethasone was not permitted. Patients were assessed every cycle while on combination therapy, and every 3 months while on maintenance therapy. Patients with stable disease (SD) or responding disease could continue therapy until progression. Results: From April 2010 to July 2013, a total of 46 patients were enrolled on this trial; of these, 23 patients were in the phase I study and 23 patients in the phase II study. The median number of prior treatments was 2 (range 1-9) Prior therapies received included bortezomib-based therapy (26, 56%) and rituximab (45, 98%). Median treatment duration was 10 months (range, 3 weeks to 41 months) for all patients. There were no DLTs observed and no deaths occurred on this study. The most common toxicities in all patients on study were fatigue (29 patients, 63%); anemia and leukopenia (each in 24 patients, 52%); neutropenia (22, 48%); diarrhea (20, 43%); and neuropathy, pneumonitis/pulmonary infiltrates (each in 19 patients, 41%). The overall response rate (ORR) which includes patients with minor response (MR) or better in the phase II study (N=23) was 91% (95% CI, 72-99%) with 1 CR, 1 VGPR, 16 PR, and 3 MR. When all 36 patients on the phase I and phase II studies who received full dose of RVR were combined, the ORR was 89% (95% CI 74 – 97%), with 2 CR, 3 VGPR, 21 PR, and 6 MR. Conclusions: The RVR regimen is safe and well tolerated. RVR led to an overall response rate of 89% with PR or better achieved in 72% making this a highly effective regimen even in patients previously treated with bortezomib and/or rituximab. This study represents one of the first combination efforts of novel agents targeting the PI3K signaling pathway with a proteasome inhibitor. Disclosures Ghobrial: Sanofi: Research Funding; Noxxon: Research Funding; BMS: Advisory board, Advisory board Other, Research Funding; Onyx: Advisory board Other; Millennium: 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. Off Label Use: Bortezomib and everolimus are not approved for WM. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Acetylon: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Oncoprep: Scientific Founder Other; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

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.

Pomalidomide, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone Is Superior to Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 303-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachid Baz ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Melissa Alsina ◽  
Kenneth H. Shain ◽  
Hearn J. Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone results in an overall response rate of 33% and median PFS of 4.2 months in patients with prior lenalidomide and bortezomib (Richardson et al. Blood 2014). In this randomized phase II trial, we compared pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm B) versus the addition of oral weekly cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm C) in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously reported that the recommended phase II dose of cyclophosphamide with standard-dose pomalidomide + dexamethasone was 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had relapsed and refractory MM after at least 2 prior therapies and were lenalidomide refractory. Patients had a platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3 and ANC ≥ 1,000/mm3 (patients with ≥50% bone marrow plasmacytosis were allowed if platelet count was ≥ 30,000/mm3and ANC could be supported with GCSF during screening and therapy). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pomalidomide 4 mg PO D1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO D1, 8, 15, 22 (20 mg if older than 75 years) (arm B) with or without oral cyclophosphamide 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle (arm C). Patients randomized to arm B were allowed to cross over to arm C in the event of disease progression. Thromboprophylaxis was mandated with aspirin, warfarin, or LMWH. The primary endpoint was overall response rate using IMWG criteria. Secondary endpoints included an evaluation of PFS, OS and safety of the two arms. Results: Between 7/2012 and 3/2014, 36 patients were randomized to arm B and 34 to arm C. Patients characteristics were not different between the 2 arms (table below). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-12). All patients were lenalidomide refractory and none received prior pomalidomide. After a median follow up of 15 months, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 39% and 65% (p=0.03) for arm B and C, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (minimal response or better) was 64% and 79% (p=0.2) for arm B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.3-5.9) for arm B and 9.2 months (95% CI 4.6-16) for arm C (log rank p=0.04). As of July 2014, 28 patients had died (16 arm B, 12 arm C) with median overall survival of 10.5 versus 16.4 months (p=0.08) for arm B and C, respectively. Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm C, although this was not statistically significant (see table). Thirteen patients crossed over and oral weekly cyclophosphamide was added to their tolerated dose of pomalidomide dexamethasone. For those patients, the best response was as follows: 2 PR, 2 MR, and 6 SD, 3 PD. Conclusions: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide resulted in a superior response rate and PFS compared to pomalidomide-dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The increased hematologic toxicities, as a result of the addition of oral cyclophosphamide, were manageable. Table Arm B (N=36) Arm C (N=34) P value Age, years, median (range) 63 (50-78) 64 (47-80) 0.7 Male, n (%) 23 (64) 18 (53) 0.3 Number of prior therapies, median (range) 4 (2-12) 4 (2-9) 0.5 Bortezomib refractory, n (%) 28 (78) 24 (71) 0.3 Carfilzomib refractory, n (%) 16 (44) 13 (38) 0.5 Prior high-dose therapy, n (%) 27 (75) 28 (82) 0.6 Prior alkylating agent, n (%) 32 (89) 32 (94) 1 B2-microglobulin, median (range) 3.2 (1.6-10) 3.6 (1.5-13.9) 0.5 Serum creatinine, median (range) 1 (0.5-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-2.1) 0.6 High-risk cytogenetics, n (%) 5 (24) 6 (28) 0.8 Deletion 17p, n (%) 3 (14) 4 (20) 0.8 t(4;14), n (%) 3 (14) 3 (14) 0.9 Trisomy or tetrasomy 1q, n (%) 11 (55) 6 (33) 0.4 Best response (partial response or better), n (%) 14 (39) 22 (65) 0.03 Clinical benefit rate (MR or better), n (%) 23 (64) 27 (79) 0.2 Grade 3/4 neutropenia, n (%) 12 (33) 17 (50) 0.2 Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, n (%) 4 (11) 6 (18) 0.5 Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, n (%) 2 (5) 5 (15) 0.2 Grade 3/4 anemia, n (%) 3 (8) 7 (20) 0.2 Grade 3/4 pneumonia, n (%) 4 (11) 3 (9) 1 Grade 3/4 fatigue, n (%) 2 (5) 4 (12) 0.4 Number of serious adverse events 17 20 Disclosures Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karypharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide cyclophosphamide dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Martin:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Triphase: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Shain:Onyx / Amgen: Research Funding; Treshold: Research Funding. Chari:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Busulfan/Fludarabine- or Treosulfan/Fludarabine-Based Conditioning Regimen in Patients with Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Given Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation — an EBMT Inborn Errors Working Party and Scetide Retrospective Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2175-2175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael H. Albert ◽  
Mary Slatter ◽  
Andrew Gennery ◽  
Tayfun Guengoer ◽  
Henric-Jan Blok ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Unrelated Donor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Secondary Procedure ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Secondary Procedures

Abstract PV and AL contributed equally Multiple studies from the EBMT registry and others have shown excellent survival rates after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) patients (Ozsahin et al, Blood 2008). The importance of myeloid engraftment for full disease correction has also been demonstrated (Moratto et al, Blood 2011). However, the vast majority of HSCTs in these studies were performed with (oral) busulfan/cyclophosphamide-based conditioning and in the early 2000 years or before. In 2005, the inborn errors working party (IEWP) of EBMT and ESID first recommended busulfan/fludarabine (BuFlu) or treosulfan/fludarabine (TreoFlu) based conditioning for primary immunodeficiencies such as WAS, with some centers deciding to add thiotepa (TT) to the conditioning. We performed a retrospective analysis via the EBMT and SCETIDE registries of WAS patients transplanted between 01/01/20006 and 12/31/2016 with these two regimens. The primary objective was to compare the overall (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) after HSCT with either BuFlu±TT or TreoFlu±TT conditioning. Secondary objectives included the influence of either conditioning regimen on acute and chronic GVHD, the degree of donor chimerism, incidence of secondary procedures after HSCT (2nd HSCT, stem cell boost, DLI, gene therapy or splenectomy) and rates of disease-specific complications after HSCT. At the time of this interim analysis, 174 patients were included, 92 (53%) with BuFlu±TT and 82 (47%) with TreoFlu±TT conditioning with a median age of 1.57 years (range 0.21-29.96) at HSCT and a median follow-up of 32.9 months (range 1.5-128.9). The donor was an HLA-matched sibling (MSD) in 30, a matched related donor (MRD) in 5, a matched unrelated donor (MUD, 9/10 or 10/10) in 105, a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD, <9/10) in 9 and a mismatched family donor (MMFD) in 25 (18 with ex-vivo T-cell depletion). Stem cell source was bone marrow in 93 (53%), peripheral blood in 62 (36%) and cord blood in 18 (10%). Two year overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 88.6% (95% confidence interval 83.5%-93.6%). There was no significant difference in OS between patients treated with BuFlu±TT or TreoFlu±TT conditioning (2-year OS 88.1% vs. 89.5%; log-rank test p=0.7). Patients aged >5 years had a worse OS as compared to those 5 years or younger at HSCT (74.9% vs. 90.8%; log-rank test p=0.005). The type of donor had no influence on OS: 96.4% for MSD/MFD, 86.8% for MUD/MMUD and 87.7% for MMFD (log-rank test p=0.4). Whole blood chimerism was complete (>90% donor) in 60/75 evaluable patients (80%) at last follow-up or before secondary procedure (if a patient had one), 39/40 (98%) in the BuFlu±TT group and 21/35 (60%) in the TreoFlu±TT group. Twenty-six patients required a secondary procedure: stem cell boost in 4 patients, donor lymphocyte infusion in 9, 2nd HSCT in 15 and splenectomy in 1. Twenty-two of these 26 (84.6%) are alive and 14 of 16 with available chimerism data have a complete donor chimerism (>90%donor) at last follow-up. The 2-year cumulative incidence (CI) of secondary procedures was higher at 33.9% in the TreoFlu±TT versus 12.8% in the BuFlu±TT group (Gray's test p=0.017), and 2-year EFS (secondary procedure or death as event) was 61.4% in the TreoFlu±TT and 75.0% in the BuFlu±TT group (log-rank test p=0.2). Grade II-IV acute GVHD had the same incidence in both groups (100 day CI 24.4% vs. 26.3%; Gray's test p=0.849) and chronic GVHD of any grade was borderline more frequent in the TreoFlu±TT group (2 year CI 17.2% vs 6.7%; Gray's test p=0.054). The cumulative incidence of disease-specific complications occurring more than 6 months post HSCT (severe infections, bleeding, autoimmunity) was not different between the two groups (6.5% vs. 6.4%; Gray's test p=0.92). There was no malignancy reported after HSCT except for one EBV-post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) 2.7 months after HSCT. In summary, HSCT with either BuFlu±TT or TreoFlu±TT conditioning reliably cures almost 90% of patients with WAS regardless of donor type. WAS-related complications are very rare events more than 6 months post HSCT. More patients required secondary procedures after treosulfan-based than busulfan-based conditioning. These data confirm the feasibility and efficacy of the regimens currently recommended by the IEWP. Disclosures Slatter: Medac: Other: Travel assistance. Chiesa:Gilead: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy. Kalwak:Sanofi: Other: travel grants; medac: Other: travel grants. Locatelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bluebird bio: Consultancy; Bellicum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi: Honoraria. Sykora:Aventis-Behring: Research Funding; medac: Research Funding. Zecca:Chimerix: Honoraria. Veys:Pfizer: Honoraria; Servier: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Induction Therapy with Everolimus in Combination with DHAP (Dexamethasone, High-Dose AraC, Cisplatinum) in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase I/II Trial (HD-R3i)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2912-2912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastian von Tresckow ◽  
Andreas Hüttmann ◽  
Vladan Vucinic ◽  
Horst Mueller ◽  
Annette Plütschow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Support Research

Abstract Introduction: Induction chemotherapy followed by BEAM high dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSC transplant) is standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (rrHL). However, approx. 50% of patients relapse and therefore, this strategy must be improved. As response to induction therapy is predictive of the outcome after HDCT, this trial aimed at improving the response to induction therapy by adding oral everolimus to time-intensified standard DHAP (Ever-DHAP). Methods: We included patients with histologically confirmed rrHL aged 18-60 years in this phase I/II trial. Dosage of everolimus was pre-determined in the phase I part with 10 mg/day given parallel to DHAP for 14 days within each of two cycles. The phase II part started as a randomized controlled trial comparing 50 patients in the everolimus group to 50 patients in a placebo group. The primary endpoint of the phase II part was the CT-based complete remission (CR-) rate after two cycles of Ever-DHAP. This CR-rate would be expected to be ≥ 40% if adding everolimus was effective. Secondary efficacy endpoints of the trial were PET-based CR-rate after two cycles of induction, progression-free and overall survival. Secondary feasibility endpoints were time to recovery, CTC-based adverse events, duration of induction therapy, discontinuation rates and the rates of successful PBSC collection. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT01453504. Results: From 7/2014 to 3/2018 we recruited a total of 59 patients in the phase II part. Because of poor recruitment the placebo group was closed in 9/2015 after 9 patients were randomized. These patients are analyzed in a descriptive way only. Of 50 patients in the everolimus group two were not evaluable because of retracting consent and not starting therapy; three additional patients discontinued Ever-DHAP because of toxicity. PBSC collection was successful in 37/39 documented patients receiving Ever-DHAP (95%). After two cycles of therapy we observed a CT-based CR in 12/45 patients of the everolimus group (27%) and in 2/9 patients of the placebo group (22%). A PET-based CR was achieved by 19/38 patients of the everolimus group (50%) and by 4/5 patients of the placebo group. In the everolimus group two patients had refractory disease (4%) and two died (4%), 3 and 4 months after starting but not related to Ever-DHAP. Final results and additional analyses will be presented. Conclusions: Adding everolimus to time-intensified DHAP is feasible, however, the Ever-DHAP regimen failed to show an improved efficacy. Disclosures von Tresckow: Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Viardot:Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Topp:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Borchmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Phase I/II Study of NMS-03592088, a FLT3, KIT and CSF1R Inhibitor, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory AML or CMML

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3855-3855
Author(s):  
Marina Ciomei ◽  
Lucia Zanetta ◽  
Federico Lussana ◽  
Erika Ravelli ◽  
Francesco Fiorentini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Dose Titration ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Secondary Resistance ◽  
Support Research ◽  
Refractory Aml

Background: NMS-03592088 is a novel, potent inhibitor of the FLT3, CSF1R and KIT receptor tyrosine kinases (KD < 1 nM for all three targets). The compound demonstrated high preclinical efficacy following oral administration in all tested target-dependent tumor models, including those harboring kinase domain secondary resistance mutations, such us the FLT3 residue 691 gatekeeper mutation and the KIT residue 670 and exon 17 mutations. In a FLT3-ITD model of disseminated AML, efficacy observed following single agent treatment with NMS-03592088 was further significantly increased when administered in combination with cytarabine, with excellent tolerability. In preclinical studies conducted in non-human primates, a dose-related increase of circulating CSF1 levels was observed in association with the administration of NMS-03592088, consistent with in vivo inhibition of CSF1R by the compound, thus providing the opportunity for the use of CSF1 levels as a potential pharmacodynamic biomarker of CSF1R modulation in the clinical setting. All three targets of NMS-03592088 are relevant in different settings of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. In particular, FLT3 mutations occur in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia patients (AML), and are associated with a poor prognosis; KIT mutations are reported in patients with the core-binding factor (CBF) subtype of AML and the CSF1 and/or CSF1R genes are frequently expressed in AML blasts. Recent experimental evidence suggests a potential therapeutic rationale for CSF1R blockade in AML, possibly due to interference with microenvironmental support [Edwards DK et al, Blood, 2019, 133: 588]. Furthermore, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) blasts express high levels of CSF1R and NMS-03592088 was able to effectively inhibit their proliferation, concomitant with the suppression of intracellular CSF1R dependent signalling. A clinical trial exploring safety, tolerability and efficacy of NMS-03592088 in patients with AML and CMML is therefore warranted. Trial design: This first-in-human study (EudraCT Number: 2018-002793-47) is designed as an open-label multicenter Phase I/II trial including patients with relapsed or refractory AML or CMML who have exhausted standard treatment options, or for whom standard therapy is considered unsuitable. The study is designed to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and to explore the preliminary anticancer activity of NMS-03592088 administered orally as single agent once daily for 21 consecutive days, followed by a 7-day break within a 28 day cycle. The study includes an initial conventional phase I part with an accelerated dose titration design in subsequent cohorts of 3+3 patients aimed at defining the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), followed by a limited dose expansion to confirm the RP2D. Once the RP2D is confirmed, a single-stage exploratory Phase II part will start comprising two parallel cohorts, one cohort will consist of AML FLT3 mutated patients and one of patients with CMML. Patients previously treated with FLT3 inhibitors are allowed to participate. The primary endpoint of the Phase II portion of the study is Overall Response Rate. Efficacy will be assessed according to standard criteria [Döhner H et al, Blood 2017, 129: 424; Savona MR et al., Blood, 2015, 125: 1857]. Exploratory endpoints are included to evaluate the potential effects of treatment with NMS-03592088 on circulating levels of CSF1 in plasma, the potential correlation of cellular CSF1R expression levels with clinical outcome in both AML and CMML, and the mutational status of a panel of leukemia-related genes, not limited to FLT3. The Phase I part started in Italy in March, 2019 and is currently ongoing. Disclosures Ciomei: NMS: Employment. Zanetta:Clioss: Employment. Fiorentini:Accelera: Employment. Bosotti:NMS: Employment. Ardini:NMS: Employment. Lombardi Borgia:NMS: Employment. Pulci:Accelera: Employment. Gatto:Clioss: Employment. Di Sanzo:Clioss: Employment. Colajori:Clioss: Consultancy. Davite:Clioss: Employment. Galvani:NMS: Employment. Gan:NMS: Employment. Rossi:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rambaldi:Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, travel support; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Isacchi:NMS: Employment.

Phase 1/1b Study of the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Panobinostat + Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4081-4081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Sheeba K. Thomas ◽  
Donna M. Weber ◽  
Michael Wang ◽  
Raymond Alexanian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Elevated Creatinine

Abstract Abstract 4081 Background: Carfilzomib, a novel irreversible proteasome inhibitor (PI), has demonstrated single agent activity in, and was recently FDA approved for relapsed and refractory myeloma. Panobinostat, a potent histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi), has been studied as a single agent and in combination with bortezomib, demonstrating promising response rates and a favorable safety profile in bortezomib-refractory patients. Our hypothesis proposed that the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat (Car-Pan) would also be highly active, and we therefore aimed to combine these two agents for the first time. We report the initial findings from the phase I dose-escalation and expansion portions of our phase I/II trial of this novel combination regimen. Methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety/tolerability of Car-Pan in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Secondary objectives included determination of the overall response rate, time to progression, progression free survival, and time to next therapy. Panobinostat was administered orally on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 of every 28-day cycle, while carfilzomib was given intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. Dose level 1 started carfilzomib at 20 mg/m2 with 15 mg of panobinostat, and escalated from there using a standard 3+3 schema based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. An amendment was later introduced to allow carfilzomib to be given at 20 mg/m2for days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by an increase to the full dose level for that cohort. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the NCI-CTCAE v4, and responses were assessed with the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: To date, 20 patients have been enrolled, 3 of whom are still in their first cycle, leaving 17 evaluable patients who are described herein, who have received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–8). The median age was 62 years (range 46–73), 11/17 (70%) were male, and the median number of prior regimens was 5 (range 2–15). Patients were very heavily pretreated, with 16/17 (94%) having undergone stem cell transplantation, 16/17 (94%) having prior bortezomib, including 8/17 (47%) who were bortezomib-refractory, and 17/17 (100%) having prior lenalidomide, including 12/17 (70%) who were lenalidomide-refractory. Cytogenetic abnormalities were common, including: 4 with del(17p), 4 with t(4;14), 2 with t(11;14), 9 with del(13), of whom 7 had additional mutations. Grade 1–4 AEs regardless of causality occurring in >20% of patients included anemia (14/17), thrombocytopenia (17/17), neutropenia (8/17), diarrhea (9/17), nausea/emesis (7/17), fatigue (10/17), elevated creatinine (8/17), and pneumonia (5/17). Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of causality included anemia (7/17), thrombocytopenia (10/17), neutropenia (6/17), diarrhea (2/17), nausea/emesis (1/17), fatigue (4/17), elevated creatinine (2/17), and pneumonia (4/17). An MTD has not been established, and dosing is ongoing in cohort 4, with Carfilzomib at 45mg/m2and 20 mg of Panobinostat. Of the 17 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 35% (6/17) who achieved at least a partial response (PR); including 2 with very good PR (VGPR). In addition, one patient had a minor response, and 65% overall achieved stable disease or better. Conclusions: The combination of Carfilzomib + Panobinostat is well tolerated with a manageable side effect profile. Importantly, the combination achieves a promising response rate in a very heavily pre-treated, lenalidomide/bortezomib/high dose melphalan-refractory population, with an overall response (≥PR) rate of 35%. Updated safety and efficacy data for all patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Shah: Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: This presentation will include information about panobinostat, which is not yet approved for use in patients with multiple myeloma. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orlowski:Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Phase I/II Trial Of Everolimus, Bortezomib and Rituximab In Relapsed Or Relapsed/Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4402-4402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Erica N Boswell ◽  
Stacey Chuma ◽  
Ranjit Banwait ◽  
Courtney Hanlon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Recommended Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction The phase I aimed to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of everolimus and rituximab, or everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab and the phase II study aimed to examine response and safety of the combination of all 3 agents 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. 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 until Progression. The phase I trial included two stages with a total of four dose levels. 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. For the phase II study, patients received everolimus 10 mg daily, bortezomib IV 1.6mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days, and rituximab 375mg/m2 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 Results Forty-Six patients were enrolled in this phase I/II clinical trial from April 2009 to July 2013. The median age is 65 (range, 47–84) yrs and the median lines of prior therapy is 5 (range, 1–9) with 45 (98%) patients receiving prior rituximab and 23 (50%) receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 19.5 (range, 0–39). Overall, this combination therapy is very well tolerated. Grade 4 toxicities included: neutropenia (4.3%), leukopenia (2.2%), thrombocytopenia (13%), lymphopenia (2.2%) and hypertriglyceridemia (2.2%). Grade 3 toxicities included: neutropenia (13%), leukopenia (13%), anemia (10.9%), lymphopenia (8.7%), pneumonitis (4.3%), SGPT (4.3%), neuropathy (4.3%), Herpes zoster reactivation (4.3%), (2.2%) bacterial endocarditis, (2.2%) congestive heart failure, (2.2%) hearing loss, hyperglycemia (4.3%) hypernatremia (4.3%) and 1(2.2%) subject had an incarcerated inguinal hernia with small bowel obstruction. Two patients discontinued therapy due to grade 3 anemia. For the phase II study, sixteen patients are currently evaluable for response, including 2 (13%) complete response (CR), 11 (68%) partial response and 1 (6%) minimal response (MR), for an overall response rate including MR of 14/16 (88%) in this relapsed/refractory population. Furthermore, overall response including MR in phase I was 1/23 (4%) complete response, 7/23 (30%) partial response and 10/23 (43%) minimal response. In phase II 1/23 (4%) complete response, 14/23 (61%) partial response and 2/23 (9%) minimal response. Additionally, 8 (17%) patients achieved stable disease. Conclusions The combination of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab is generally well tolerated, and importantly no grade 3/4 neuropathy was seen. The responses observed to date indicate that this combination is highly effective in this relapsed/refractory population. This study was supported from the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development and by Millennium/Takeda and Novartis Inc. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium: 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. Treon:Millennium: Consultancy. Matous:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document