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.

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 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.

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

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

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

A Phase II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 587-587
Author(s):  
Irene M Ghobrial ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
Betsy LaPlant ◽  
John Camoriano ◽  
Suzanne R. Hayman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Waldenström’S Macroglobulinemia ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia ◽  
Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia

Abstract Abstract 587 Background: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the anti-tumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable disease (IgM monoclonal protein >1000 mg/dL with >10% marrow involvement or nodal masses >2 cm), a platelet count ≥75,000 × 106/L, a neutrophil count ≥1,000 × 106/L, and a creatinine and bilirubin ≤2x laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every 3 cycles until progression. Results: 50 pts were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43-85). The overall response rate (CR+PR+MR) was 70% (95% CI: 55-82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95%CI: 64-89%) and 62% (95%CI: 48-80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematological toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusions: Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM, and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 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; Johnson and Johnson: 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; Keryx: 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. Treon:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Novartis: 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.

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.

Phase II Study of the Pan-Deacetylase Inhibitor Panobinostat in Combination with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Bortezomib-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (PANORAMA 2)

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 814-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Melissa Alsina ◽  
Donna M. Weber ◽  
Steven E. Coutre ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stage 1

Abstract Abstract 814FN2 Background: Patients with refractory multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and an extremely poor prognosis. A recent study of patients who were refractory to bortezomib and were relapsed following, refractory to or ineligible to receive an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD, thalidomide or lenalidomide) demonstrated a median event-free survival of only 5 months (Kumar S et al, Leukemia, 2011). Panobinostat is an oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that increases acetylation of proteins involved in multiple oncogenic pathways. Preclinical studies have demonstrated synergistic anti-myeloma activity of the combination of panobinostat and bortezomib through dual inhibition of the aggresome and proteasome pathways. In a phase I study (B2207) of patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM treated with panobinostat + bortezomib, clinical responses (≥ minimal response [MR]) were observed in 65% of patients, including in patients with bortezomib-refractory disease. PANORAMA 2 seeks to expand upon these preliminary results and seeks to determine whether panobinostat can sensitize resistant patients to a bortezomib-containing therapeutic regimen. Methods: PANORAMA 2 is a single arm, phase II study of panobinostat + bortezomib + dexamethasone in patients with bortezomib-refractory MM. Patients with relapsed and bortezomib-refractory MM (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy including an IMiD and who had progressed on or within 60 days of the last bortezomib-based therapy) are treated in 2 phases. Treatment phase 1 consists of 8 three-week cycles of oral panobinostat (20 mg days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12) + intravenous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, 11) + oral dexamethasone (20 mg on day of and after bortezomib). Patients demonstrating clinical benefit (≥ stable disease) can proceed to treatment phase 2, consisting of 4 six-week cycles of panobinostat (20 mg TIW 2 weeks on 1 week off, and repeat) + bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 22, 29) + dexamethasone (20 mg on day of and after bortezomib). The primary endpoint is overall response (≥ partial response [PR]), as defined by the European Group of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 1998 criteria, in the first 8 cycles of treatment phase 1. A Simon 2-stage design is used to test the primary endpoint where ≥ 4 responses (≥ PR) in 24 patients are needed in stage 1 in order to proceed to stage 2, where ≥ 9 responses in all patients (N = 47) are required to reject the null hypothesis (overall response rate ≤ 10%). Results: A sufficient number of responses ≥ PR were observed in stage 1 to allow for enrollment to continue to stage 2. As of 15 July 2011, 53 patients with bortezomib-refractory MM were enrolled. Safety and demographic data were available for 48 patients. The median age was 61 (41–88) years. Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of 4 (2–14) prior regimens, and most patients (69%) received prior autologous stem cell transplant. Efficacy data were available for 44 patients. At the time of this analysis, 9 patients achieved ≥ PR (2 near CR [nCR] and 7 PR) as best overall response, and an additional 7 patients achieved an MR. Responders exhibited a long duration on therapy, and, to date, 8 patients have proceeded to treatment phase 2. The 2 patients with nCR have received ≥ 10 cycles of treatment (duration of therapy 190 and 253 days). Four patients who achieved PR have received ≥ 9 cycles (duration of therapy 155–225 days). Updated response data will be presented. Common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included, fatigue (52%), diarrhea (41%), thrombocytopenia (38%), nausea (38%), and anemia (21%). Gastrointestinal AEs were generally mild, with a relatively low incidence of grade 3/4 events. Grade 3/4 AEs were generally hematologic in nature, with grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia reported in 38%, 12%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Other common nonhematologic grade 3/4 AEs included fatigue (10%) and pneumonia (10%). Of note, to date, a relatively low rate of peripheral neuropathy (17%) has been observed. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy has been observed. Conclusions: The combination of panobinostat and bortezomib is a promising treatment for patients with bortezomib-refractory MM. These data, along with forthcoming data from the phase III study of panobinostat/placebo + bortezomib + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (PANORAMA 1), will further define the potential role of panobinostat in the treatment of patients with MM. Disclosures: Richardson: Johnson & Johnson: 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alsina:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Weber:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Warsi:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ondovik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mukhopadhyay:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Snodgrass:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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 2 Study Of Ofatumumab In Combination With a Novel AKT Inhibitor (Afuresertib) In Previously Treated Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4175-4175
Author(s):  
Christine I. Chen ◽  
Susi Snitzler ◽  
Trina Wang ◽  
Harminder Paul ◽  
Lisa W Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Treatment Phase ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Akt Inhibitor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Ofatumumab is a novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody which led to impressive single-agent responses of 47-58% in a phase 2 study of CLL patients (pts) with refractory disease (Wierda et al 2010). Unfortunately, response durations were short (median 5.6-7.1 mos). In order to improve upon these results, we combined ofatumumab with a novel pan-AKT kinase inhibitor, afuresertib (GSK2110183). The AKT pathway plays a centralized role in tumor differentiation, migration, proliferation and survival and is frequently aberrantly activated in CLL (Longo et al 2007). Single agent afuresertib is very well-tolerated with minimal myelotoxicity in relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies (Spencer et al ASH 2011). We present an interim analysis of the initial 19 of 31 planned pts in an ongoing trial of ofatumumab and afuresertib in relapsed/refractory CLL. Methods Previously treated CLL pts who have received at least one prior fludarabine-containing regimen with disease progression are eligible. During the initial 6 month Treatment Phase, ofatumumab 2000mg IV is administered weekly for 8 doses, then once every 4 week cycle for 4 doses (dose/schedule identical to the pivotal phase 2 trial) with afuresertib 125mg orally daily. An initial 10 day Lead-in Phase with afuresertib alone allows for evaluation of pharmacodynamic (PD) changes in phosphoproteins and pharmacokinetic (PK) studies. Pts are assessed for safety and response on day 1 of each cycle. Pts achieving SD, PR or CR by the end of the Treatment Phase proceed to the Maintenance Phase with single-agent afuresertib for a maximum of 12 mos (12 cycles). Results Demographics: To date, 19 pts have been enrolled. Median age is 65 yrs (range 43-76), baseline median Hb 108g/L (range 80-145), absolute lymphocytes 29.7 x109/L (range 1.0-464.9), β2M 4.42mg/L (range 1.42-3.21), bulky nodes ≥5cm in 5 pts (32%), organomegaly in 8 pts (42%), del17p/del11q on FISH in 9 pts (47%), and ZAP70+ in 13 pts (68%). Eight pts (42%) were fludarabine-refractory; only 2 pts had received prior alemtuzumab. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). Toxicity: Hematologic: 4 pts (21%) developed Gr 3-4 neutropenia during at least 1 cycle; 1 pt (5%) had a febrile neutropenia event. Only 2 pts (10.5%) have developed Gr 3-4 thrombocytopenia, without bleeding. Nonhematologic toxicity: Most common related grade 3-4 toxicities were GI: dyspepsia (53%), diarrhea (37%), nausea (21%), temporally related to oral afuresertib and easily managed symptomatically. Infusion reactions to ofatumumab were frequent (12 pts; 63%) with grade 3 reactions in 3 pts. Five pts (26%) developed non-infectious pneumonitis, with 3 pts requiring hospitalization. Two pts with preexisting atrial arrhythmias sustained exacerbation with weekly ofatumumab infusions. Most infections were mild, with only 1 grade 3 cellulitis. Efficacy: Of the 19 response-evaluable pts receiving a median of 6 cycles (range 1-9), 8 pts (42%) have achieved a PR, 11 SD (58%), and no CR. Response onset was rapid at a median 0.9 mos (range 0.8-2.8). At a median follow-up of 6.8 mos (range 0.3-12.9 mos), 5 pts (26%) have progressed and one patient has died after cycle 1 on therapy due to progressive CLL. PD Studies: CD19+ cells are assayed for phosphorylated AKT and its downstream targets RAS40 and GSK3 in addition to phospho-proteins of alternative pathways including ERK and pS6 by multiplexed phospho-flow cytometry. Peripheral blood samples are collected at screening and on cycle 1 day 10, after dosing with afuresertib. Of the 7 patients evaluated thus far, 5 demonstrated constitutive AKT phosphorylation at baseline. Partial inhibition of AKT signaling evidenced by increased phosphorylation of AKT and inhibition of GSK3 and/or RAS40 phosphorylation in response to BCR stimulation was observed post-treatment, indicating target engagement by afuresertib. PK Studies: Afuresertib exposure (Cmax and AUC) was similar when afuresertib was administered alone or in combination with ofatumumab. Conclusion Preliminary results from this phase 2 study suggests that a combination of ofatumumab plus a novel oral AKT inhibitor, afuresertib, has activity in previously treated CLL and is generally well-tolerated with minimal myelotoxicity. Response data are encouraging but whether durable responses can be achieved requires more mature follow-up. Disclosures: Chen: Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Off-label use of ofatumumab and afuresertib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory CLL. Smith:GSK: Employment, Equity Ownership. Johnston:Roche: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document