Switching to Nilotinib Is Associated with Continued Deeper Molecular Responses in CML-CP Patients with Minimal Residual Disease After ≥ 2 Years On Imatinib: Enestcmr 2-Year Follow-up Results

Abstract Abstract 694 Background: Superior rates of deeper molecular responses were achieved with nilotinib vs imatinib in patients newly diagnosed with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials—newly diagnosed patients (ENESTnd) trial. In addition, the 12-month (mo) analysis of the ENEST—complete molecular response (ENESTcmr) study demonstrated that switching to nilotinib after a minimum of 2 years on imatinib led to increased rates of major molecular response (MMR) and deeper molecular responses vs remaining on imatinib. Results from ENESTcmr are presented here with minimum 24 mo of patient follow-up. Methods: Patients with Ph+ CML-CP who had achieved complete cytogenetic responses but still had persistent BCR-ABL positivity by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) after ≥ 2 years on imatinib were eligible. Patients (n = 207) were randomized to switch to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 104) or to continue on the same dose of imatinib (400 or 600 mg once daily [QD]; n = 103). Rates of MMR, MR4 (BCR-ABL ≤ 0.01% according to the International Scale [IS], corresponding to a 4-log reduction), MR4.5 (BCR-ABL ≤ 0.0032%IS, corresponding to 4.5-log reduction), and undetectable BCR-ABL via RQ-PCR with ≥ 4.5-log sensitivity were measured. Results: Among all randomized patients (intent-to-treat population), significantly more patients treated with nilotinib continued to achieve undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo (32.7% on nilotinib vs 16.5% on imatinib; P =.005; Table).The difference between the arms in achievement of this endpoint increased between 1 and 2 years (from 12.4% to 16.2%). The median time to MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL was also significantly faster on nilotinib than on imatinib (P = .005 and .003, respectively). Cumulative rates of MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL continued to be higher with nilotinib in patients without those responses at baseline, and the difference between arms appeared to increase over time. The safety profiles for nilotinib and imatinib were consistent with prior studies. By 24 mo, no patients in either arm progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis. No patients on nilotinib died since the 12-mo analysis; 1 patient on imatinib died from metastatic prostate cancer in follow-up after discontinuation from the study. Conclusions: Switching to nilotinib led to significantly faster, deeper molecular responses in patients with minimal residual disease on long-term imatinib therapy. Since the 12-mo analysis, rates of deep molecular response (MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL) have remained significantly higher in patients who did not have the response at baseline and were switched to nilotinib (vs those remaining on imatinib). In fact, the difference in favor of nilotinib increased between 1 and 2 years. These results suggest that switching to the more potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib is beneficial in patients with minimal residual disease after long-term imatinib therapy. Achievement of these deeper molecular responses (MR4.5 and undetectable BCR-ABL) after switching to nilotinib may enable a greater proportion of CML-CP patients to be eligible for future discontinuation studies. Cumulative rates of confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo will be presented as the confirmation assessments for several responders were not available at the time of this analysis. Disclosures: Hughes: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; CSL: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Spector:Novarits: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Leber:Novartis: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Schwarer:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Etienne:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Branford:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding. Purkayastha:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Collins:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Szczudlo:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Cervantes:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Enestnd 4-Year (y) Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Vs Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome–Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1676.1676 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1676-1676 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Surapol Issaragrisil ◽

Richard E Clark ◽

Josy Reiffers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

The Difference ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1676 Background: Pts treated with nilotinib in the ENESTnd phase 3 trial achieved higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular responses (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 1, 2, and 3 y. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 3 y; efficacy and safety data based on longer follow-up of 4 y will be presented to further assess the impact of nilotinib vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Methods: Adult pts (N = 846) with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 by 3 y were achieved in nilotinib- vs imatinib-treated pts (Table). Nilotinib led to the achievement of higher rates of molecular responses regardless of Sokal risk group or age. The difference in the rates of both MR4 and MR4.5 continued to be significantly higher for nilotinib, with the difference in favor of nilotinib increasing from 1 to 3 y (MR4: 9%-14% difference by 1 y, 18%-24% difference by 3 y; MR4.5: 6%-10% difference by 1 y, 13%-17% difference by 3 y). Among patients who achieved MMR, more pts achieved MR4 or MR4.5 on nilotinib 300 mg BID (68%) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (62%) compared with imatinib (49%). No pt in any arm progressed after achieving MR4.5. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). No new progressions occurred on core treatment between the 2-y and 3-y analyses. When events occurring after treatment discontinuation were included, the rates of progression to AP/BC were also significantly lower with nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Nearly twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 21) vs either nilotinib arm (n = 11 in each arm), with 5 pts overall developing mutations between 2 and 3 y. OS remained similar in all groups at 3 y, but fewer CML-related deaths occurred in both the nilotinib 300 mg BID (n = 5) and 400 mg BID (n = 4) arms vs imatinib (n = 14). Both drugs were well tolerated. Few new adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were observed between 2 and 3 y. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 10%, 14%, and 11% in the nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID, and imatinib arms, respectively. Conclusions: Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib, yielding faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. Results of ENESTnd support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP and should be considered to replace imatinib as the standard-of-care frontline therapy for patients with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding; II-Yang: Research Funding. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reiffers:BMS: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other; Novartis: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses, Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Hochhaus:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kemp:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Fan:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Waltzman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Maintenance of Long-Term Undetectable Minimal Residual Disease after Combination of Ibrutinib with Abbreviated Chemotherapy in the Icll-07 Filo Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126720 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3038-3038

Author(s):

Anne-Sophie Michallet ◽

Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy ◽

Fabien Subtil ◽

Valérie Rouille ◽

Beatrice Mahe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Limit Of Detection ◽

Randomised Trial ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Minimal Residual

Introduction In previously untreated, medically fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and no 17p deletion, there is current research interest in improving survival outcomes and potentially sparing some patients from the standard 6 cycles of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The phase II ICLL-07 (NCT02666898) trial, conducted by the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO), aimed to explore the efficacy of obinutuzumab and ibrutinib treatment induction for 9 months, followed by a minimal residual disease (MRD)-driven strategy. Methods Following assessment at Month 9, patients in complete response (CR) with bone marrow (BM) MRD <0·01% continued only ibrutinib 420 mg po daily for 6 additional months (I arm). Otherwise, patients received 4x4-weekly cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (FC) and obinutuzumab 1000 mg iv, alongside continuing ibrutinib for 6 additional months (FCGA+I arm). Beyond Month 16, response was clinically assessed every 3 months and MRD in PB until Month 40 and every 6 months during 36 months. MRD assessment was by 8-colour flow cytometry (limit of detection 10-6). The primary objective was to demonstrate a 30% or higher rate of CR with BM MRD <0·01% at Month 16, by intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. ResultsBetween 10/2015 and 05/2017, 135 patients were enrolled. At Month 9, only 8% of patients reached CR with BM MRD <0·01%, and thus, in accordance with the MRD-driven strategy, were included in the I arm and continued only ibrutinib for 6 additional months. Most patients were included in the FCGA+I arm and received 4 cycles of FC and obinutuzumab, alongside continuing ibrutinib for 6 additional months. At Month 16, the ITT rate of CR with BM MRD <0·01% was 62% (84/135; 90% confidence interval [CI] 55−69). Of note, the primary objective was exceeded, and this high ITT rate was achieved with no more than 4 cycles of FC and obinutuzumab. The CR rate was 73% by investigator assessment versus 75% by an independent review committee. The PB and BM MRD <0·01% rate was 79%. The most common haematological adverse event (AE) was thrombocytopenia in 45 (34%) of 133 patients at grade 1−2 in Months 1−9 and in 43 (33%) of 130 patients at grade 1−2 in Months 9−15. The most common non-haematological AE were infusion-related reaction in 83 (62%) patients at grade 1−2 in Months 1−9 and gastrointestinal disorders in 62 (48%) patients at grade 1−2 in Months 9−15. A total of 49 serious AE occurred, most frequently infections (10), cardiac events (8) and haematological events (8). No treatment-related deaths occurred. After a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 98% (95% CI 95−100) (Figure 1) and the 2-year OS rate was 97.5% (95% CI 96−100). The longitudinal follow-up of PB MRD in the entire cohort showed durability of a deep response, with a PB MRD <0.01% rate of 96% (n=92 evaluable patients) at Month 22 and 91% (n=85 evaluable patients) at Month 28. According to the treatment arm, in the FCGA+I arm, the PB MRD <0.01% rate was 99% at Month 22 and 93% at Month 28; by contrast, in the I arm, 77% of patients had PB MRD <0.01% at each of Months 22 and 28. The strategy achieved deep and durable molecular remission with a high level of undetectable (UD) PB MRD that was maintained over time, as shown in Figure 2. At Month 28, the rate of UD PB MRD was 83% in the FCGA+I arm versus 54% in the I arm. According to the immunoglobulin heavy gene variable (IGHV) mutational status, the PB MRD ≥0.01% rate at Month 28 was 4% for the mutated group versus 23% for the unmutated group (p=0.075, Fisher test). Conclusion These findings from the ICLL-07 trial demonstrated that, in previously untreated, medically fit patients with CLL and no 17p deletion, treatment induction with obinutuzumab and ibrutinib followed by an MRD-driven strategy yielded a high rate of CR with BM and PB MRD <0.01%, together with prolonged PFS and OS. With longer follow-up, including assessing the evolution of PB MRD, the response is maintained. This strategy could be an option in the first-line setting, although randomised trial evidence is needed. Disclosures Salles: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events. Leblond:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cartron:Roche, Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi, Gilead, Janssen, Roche, Celgene: Honoraria. Cymbalista:Sunesis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Le Garff-Tavernier:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria. Letestu:Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fee, expert contracts; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fee, expert contracts; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fee, expert contracts; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fee, expert contracts. Feugier:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Achievement and Maintenance Of Deeper Molecular Response By Switching To Nilotinib In Patients (pts) With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP) With Residual Disease On Long-Term Imatinib: ENESTcmr 36-Month Follow-Up

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.94.94 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 94-95

Author(s):

Brian Leber ◽

Francisco Cervantes ◽

Nelson Spector ◽

Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽

Gabriel Etienne ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

Predictors Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction The 12- and 24-mo results of the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in clinical Trials–complete molecular response (ENESTcmr) trial showed that pts with CML-CP with minimal residual disease after ≥ 2 y on imatinib achieved deeper molecular responses with switch to nilotinib. Results from ENESTcmr with 36-mo follow-up will be presented. Methods Pts with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) CML-CP who had achieved complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) but had detectable BCR-ABL after ≥ 2 y on imatinib were included. Pts (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to continue the same dose of imatinib (400 or 600 mg once daily [QD]; n = 103) or switch to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 104). Rates of major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABL ≤ 0.1% according to the International Scale [IS]) and MR4.5 (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032%) were evaluated by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR). Confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL was measured by RQ-PCR with a sensitivity of ≥ 4.5 logs, confirmed with a sensitivity of at least 4 logs in the next sample. Predictors of response were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. Pts receiving imatinib were allowed to cross over to nilotinib if they had not achieved confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo or if they experienced treatment failure or confirmed loss of undetectable BCR-ABL at any time. Results By 24 mo, 77% of pts in the nilotinib arm and 91% in the imatinib arm remained on study treatment. Discontinuation rates were comparable between arms during year 2; 7% and 5% of pts discontinued study treatment in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively, between years 1 and 2. Three pts crossed over to nilotinib before 24 mo; the no. of pts who crossed over at or after 24 mo will be presented. By 24 mo, more pts in the nilotinib arm achieved confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL compared with imatinib (22.1% vs 8.7%; P = .0087; Table). Regardless of molecular response at study start, more pts in the nilotinib arm than the imatinib arm achieved MR4.5 by 24 mo. None of the pts in the imatinib arm who lacked MMR at study start achieved confirmed MR4.5 or confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL by 24 mo (vs 20.8% and 16.7% in the nilotinib arm, respectively). Twice as many pts achieved and maintained MR4.5 in 3 consecutive assessments in the nilotinib vs imatinib arm (n = 12 vs 6). Age, sex, BCR-ABL level at study start, duration of prior imatinib (≤ 36 mo vs > 36 mo), and prior interferon were analyzed as predictors of response in univariate and multivariate analyses. None of these was clearly predictive of achieving MR4.5 or undetectable BCR-ABL in multivariate logistic regression. No cases of progression to accelerated phase/blast phase were observed with 24 mo follow-up. Three pts in the imatinib arm had confirmed loss of CCyR vs 0 in the nilotinib arm. Conclusions Switching to nilotinib continues to induce deeper molecular responses in pts with minimal residual disease on long-term imatinib therapy. More pts achieved confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL in the nilotinib arm vs the imatinib arm, with the difference between arms increasing between 12 and 24 mo and notably marked in pts lacking MMR at study start. Maintenance of deeper molecular responses achieved with nilotinib therapy may enable more pts to benefit from treatment-free remission trials. Disclosures: Leber: novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spector:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Etienne:Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Guerci-Bresler:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis : Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Honoraria. Forrest:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Schwarer:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Acharya:Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Collins:Novartis: Employment. Szczudlo:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hughes:Araid: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novarits: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Pegylated Interferon-Alpha 2a in Combination with Nilotinib As First-Line Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Chronic Phase Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (Nilopeg trial). Four-Year Follow-up Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1578.1578 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1578-1578 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Franck E. Nicolini ◽

Gabriel Etienne ◽

Viviane Dubruille ◽

Lydia Roy ◽

Françoise Huguet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Pegylated Interferon ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

Log Reduction

Abstract Background & aims In the Nilopeg trial (EudraCT 2010-019786-28), we have previously demonstrated that the combination of nilotinib (Tasigna® Novartis), a second generation inihibitor (TKI2), combined to pegylated interferon-alpha 2a (Peg-IFN, Pegasys®, Roche) in de novo chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) patients is able to induce high rates of molecular responses with an acceptable additional toxicity (F. E. Nicolini et al. Lancet Haematology 2015) within 24 months of follow-up. We report here the ≥4-year follow-up of such patients for toxicity and efficacy. Methods In a phase 2 study, newly diagnosed CP-CML patients were assigned to a priming strategy by Peg-IFN (± HU) for a month at 90 mg/wk, prior to a combination of nilotinib 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 45 micro.g/wk for ≥ 1 year, maximum 2 years. After 2 years nilotinib was continued alone. The primary endpoint was the rate of confirmed molecular response 4.5 (MR4.5) by 1 year. Molecular assessments were centralised for all patients and expressed as BCR-ABLIS in % for 2 years and then performed in each center [all expressed in % on the international scale (IS)]. All data presented here are in intention-to-treat. Events were defined as death, progression to AP or BC, failure on nilotinib or nilotinib treatment discontinuation for any cause excluding treatment-free remission (TFR). Results Fourty-two patients were enrolled in this trial (one withdrawn its consent prior to treatment initiation), and the median follow-up is now 50.7 (47.8-52.8) months. Sokal and Euro scores were high for 12% and 2%, intermediate for 49% and 55% and low for 39% and 43% of the patients respectively. The median age at treatment initiation was 53 (23-85) years, 2 patients had a masked Philadelphia chromosome, 3 a variant form, and 1 additional chromosomal abnormalities, all patients had "major" BCR-ABL1 transcripts. The rates of Complete Cytogenetic Responses (CCyR) at "6", and "12" months of combination (i. e. at 5 and 11 months of TKI2) were 71%, and 100% respectively. Eighty seven percent of patients had a BCR-ABLIS ≤10% at M3 (i. e. after 2 months TKI). The rates of molecular responses respectively at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months were 76%, 78%, 83%, 73% for MMR, 51%, 58.5%, 66%, 58.5% for 4 log reduction (MR4), 17%, 34%, 34%, 44% for 4.5 log reduction (MR4.5), 12%, 32%, 29%, 41.5% for ≥5 log reduction (MR5), shown as cumulative incidence curves for MR4.5 in figure 1. The median doses of Peg-IFN delivered to the patients during the first year were 45 (0-45) micro.g/wk, and for nilotinib 600 (300-600) mg daily. Interestingly, logistic regression analysis adjusted on MR4.5 responses showed a significant relationship with the mean doses of Peg-IFN delivered to the patients at 12 months (p=0.003, OR = 1.09 [1.03-1.16]), 24 months (p=0.005, OR = 1.08 [1.02-1.14]) and 48 months (p=0.024, OR = 1.09 [1.01-1.17], but not with the mean doses of nilotinib [p=0.84, OR = 0.99 [0.99-1.01], p=0.087, OR = 1 [0.99-1.01], and p=0.88, OR = 1 [0.99-1.01] respectively. Eight patients (19.5%) were in TFR for a median of 6.8 (0.5-9.5) months after 2-year consecutive MR4.5, and none lost MMR yet at last follow-up. One patient died of progression (unmutated myeloid blast crisis at M6, who relapsed after unrelated allogeneic stem cell transplantation). There was no additional grade 3-4 hematologic or biochemical toxicities occurring after 24 months. At last follow-up 10 patients switched for another TKI (2 for dasatinib, 5 for imatinib, and 3 for imatinib followed by dasatinib), for unsufficient cytogenetic or molecular response (2 patients) or for toxicity (7 patients). Overall, 4 patients presented some cardio-vascular events 3 coronary stenoses, one brain stroke). Conclusion Despite additional initial toxicities Peg-IFN priming strategy, followed by the combination of nilotinib and Peg-IFN during the first year induces very high rates of durable deep molecular responses (MR4 and MR4.5) at later time-points, offering TFR for number of patients. To date, no emerging severe adverse events occurred. However, to confirm these promising results, a randomised phase III study testing nilotinib versus nilotinib + Peg-IFN is absolutely warranted and in progress. Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of MR4.5 Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of MR4.5 Disclosures Nicolini: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Huguet:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Legros:ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Giraudier:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Coiteux:BMS: Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Guerci-Bresler:ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Speakers Bureau. Rea:Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Amé:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Cony-Makhoul:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gardembas:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Hermet:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot:Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Mahon:ARIAD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Heavy and Light Chain Monitoring in High Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Patients Included in the GEM-CESAR Trial: Comparison with Conventional and Minimal Residual Disease IMWG Response Assessment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128655 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1852-1852

Author(s):

Noemi Puig ◽

Teresa Contreras ◽

Bruno Paiva ◽

María Teresa Cedena ◽

José J Pérez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Bone Marrow ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Response Assessment ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Minimal Residual

Introduction: The GEM-CESAR trial is a potentially curative strategy for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (HRsMM) patients (pts) in which the primary endpoint is the achievement of bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. However, other methods of disease evaluation in serum such as heavy+light chain (HLC) assessment, with a potential complementary value to the IMWG response criteria, have also been tested. Aim: To evaluate the performance of HLC assay in HRsMM pts at diagnosis and after consolidation, comparing the results with standard serological methods and Next Generation Flow (NGF) for the assessment of bone marrow MRD. Patients and Methods: Ninety HRsMM pts included in the GEM-CESAR trial received six 4-weeks cycles of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by high dose melphalan and 2 further cycles of consolidation with the same regimen. All pts received maintenance treatment with lenalidomide for up to 2 years. SPEP and IFE were performed using standard procedures. Serum IgGk, IgGl, IgAk and IgAl HLC concentrations were measured using Hevylite (The Binding Site Group Ltd, Birmingham, UK) on a SPA PLUS turbidimeter. HLC concentrations and ratios were considered abnormal if they were outside the 95% reference ranges provided by the manufacturer. MRD was analyzed by flow cytometry following EuroFlow recommendations (sensitivity, 2x10-6). Standard response assignment was carried out as per the IMWG guidelines. Hevylite responses were assigned and HLC-pair suppression was defined as in Michalet et al (Leukemia 2018). Results: Out of 90 HRsMM pts, 75 had monoclonal intact immunoglobulin and samples available at diagnosis (50 IgG and 25 IgA). HLC ratio was abnormal in 98% of IgG pts and in 100% of IgA pts. Response assessment by Hevylite and standard IMWG criteria were available in 62 pts post-consolidation (Table 1). A good agreement was found between the two methods (kappa quadratic weighting = 0,6327 (0,4016 - 0,8638)). Among 46 pts with assigned CR as per the IMWG response criteria, there were 3 and 8 pts in PR and VGPR according to the Hevylite method, respectively. In 62 cases, paired Hevylite and MRD assessment data were available. Concordant results were found in 72.5% of cases (45/62; HLC+/NGF+ in 15 and HLC-/NGF- in 30 cases) while in the remaining 27.4% of cases results were discordant (17/62; HLC-/NGF+ in 6 and HLC+/NGF- in 11 cases). Post-consolidation, 24, 25.8 and 42.3% of the 62 samples were positive by SPEP, NGF and Hevylite, respectively. HLC-pair suppression was identified in 13/62 pts; 10 had severe HLC-pair suppression at the end of consolidation. After a median follow-up of 32 months (8-128), 93% of pts remain alive and progression-free. Three patients that have already progressed had their responses assessed post-consolidation. The first pt was assigned VGPR by the standard IMWG criteria and PR by Hevylite and was MRD positive by NGF; the second pt was assigned CR by IMWG criteria and Hevylite but had severe HLC-pair immunosuppression and was MRD positive by NGF; the third pt was in CR by IMWG and HLC criteria and was MRD positive by MFC. Conclusions: Moderate agreement was found between response assessment by Hevylite and the standard IMWG methods as well as between Hevylite and MRD assessment by NGF. Most discordances were a result of Hevylite detecting disease in samples negative by the standard methods, but longer follow-up is needed to ascertain its clinical value. HLC assessment could have anticipated the progression noted in 2 (out of 3) patients. Disclosures Puig: Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; The Binding Site: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi and Takeda: Consultancy. Rodriguez Otero:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Oriol:Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Jansse: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Janssen: 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. Alegre:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. De Arriba:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Ocio:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Irctures: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Towards DNA-Based Monitoring of Therapy In Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.2284.2284 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 2284-2284

Author(s):

Alexander A. Morley ◽

Paul Bartley ◽

David Ross ◽

Sue Latham ◽

Brad Budgen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Leukemic Cell ◽

Cell Number ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Specific Primers ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Difference

Abstract Abstract 2284 Monitoring of CML is conventionally performed by RT-qPCR but the use of RNA as the starting material leads to a number of disadvantages, which include propensity of RNA to degradation, a low level of endogenous BCR-ABL transcripts, requirement for reverse transcription, somewhat complex laboratory standardisation, and uncertain relationship between transcript level and leukemic cell number. The use of genomic DNA to quantify BCR-ABL sequences would overcome these disadvantages but it presents 2 major problems - the need to determine the breakpoint sequence for each patient and the need to synthesise and test specific primers for each patient. We developed a simple and rapid method for isolating the BCR-ABL sequence which involved a primary highly multiplexed PCR to amplify across the breakpoint and 2 subsequent PCRs using specially designed primers to eliminate the non-specific material produced in the primary PCR. The need to develop primers specific for each patient was bypassed by synthesising a library comprising 11 pairs (to enable nested PCR) of forward BCR primers and 493 pairs of reverse ABL primers which were all tested to ensure efficient amplification. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was quantified by a one round qPCR if the level was anticipated to be > 10-3, by nested qPCR if the level was anticipated to be < 10-4, and by one or both methods if the level was anticipated to be in the range 10-3 – 10-4. Quantification involved use of a standard curve comprised of various dilutions of diagnosis DNA and amplification was measured using a Taqman hydrolysis probe directed to the BCR region of the BCR-ABL sequence. MRD levels quantified by RT-qPCR were also available for 75 of the 79 samples. To date, 217 MRD estimations have been performed by DNA-qPCR on 79 samples obtained from 30 patients during treatment. MRD was quantified down to approximately 10-6. There was a highly significant correlation (p < 0.001) between the results of DNA-qPCR and RT-qPCR for the 54 samples in which MRD was quantified by both methods. MRD was quantified by DNA-PCR but was not detected by RT-qPCR in another 15 samples and was not detected by either technique in a further 6 samples. There were no samples in which MRD was detected by RT-qPCR but not by DNA-qPCR. Overall, the MRD result was significantly lower (p < 0.01) by a mean of 0.38 log units (2.4 fold) when quantified by RT-qPCR as compared to when quantified by DNA-qPCR. Replicate DNA-qPCR estimations on the same sample showed that the SD of a single estimation was 0.25 log units (95% CI = 3.2 × result to 0.31 × result) and there was no significant difference between a one-round qPCR and a nested qPCR for the 14 samples estimated by both methods. Analysis of the difference between the RT-qPCR result and the DNA-qPCR result for each sample drawn from an individual patient showed systematic differences between patients which were almost certainly attributable to differences in BCR-ABL expression. The Figure shows the difference between the RT-qPCR result and the DNA-qPCR result for the 17 patients for whom two or more samples had been quantified by both techniques. Each point refers to an individual sample. Some patients e.g. the 3 on the left of the Figure, appeared to be high expressors and other patients e.g. the 2 on the right, appeared to be low expressors. The level of expression differed from the mean by up to approximately 1 log unit (10 fold). Conclusions 1. DNA-qPCR provides MRD results which are broadly comparable to RT-qPCR results when MRD is > 10-4. 2. DNA-qPCR is more analytically sensitive than RT-qPCR by up to 2 log units. This may become increasingly important as more patients achieve complete molecular response as defined by RT-qPCR. 3. DNA-qPCR provides a more accurate measure of leukemic cell number than RT-qPCR as it is not influenced by the level of BCR-ABL expression. 4. DNA-qPCR is more expensive than RT-qPCR owing to the requirement for determining the breakpoint sequence and obtaining specific primers. However this initial expense can be amortised if multiple MRD estimations are performed during the course of monitoring –if this is the case then the extra cost/assay is minimal. Disclosures: Morley: Monoquant P/L: Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Branford: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hughes: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Phase III Study of Daratumumab/rhuph20 (nsc- 810307) + Lenalidomide or Lenalidomide As Post-Autologous Stem Cell Transplant Maintenance Therapyin Patients with Multiple Myeloma (mm) Using Minimal Residual Disease Todirect Therapy Duration (DRAMMATIC study): SWOG s1803

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142913 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 21-22

Author(s):

Amrita Krishnan ◽

Antje Hoering ◽

Parameswaran Hari ◽

Rachael Sexton ◽

Robert Z. Orlowski

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

North America ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Optimal Duration ◽

Minimal Residual

Background:Lenalidomide(Len) maintenance following autologous transplantation(ASCT) for multiple myeloma has improved progression free survival (PFS)and overall survival compared with placebo. Optimal duration of maintenance is unknown with considerable inter-trial variability. Depth of remission correlates with PFS, with patients (pts) in a minimal residual disease negative state (MRD) to a sensitivity of 10 -5 having a better PFS. Therefore, Len combinations that lead to higher MRD negativity rates are under study. The anti CD38 antibody Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide in newly diagnosed MM pts showed a higher MRD negativity rates in the MAIA trial (NEJM2019). SWOGS1803 is testing this regimen as maintenance following ASCT while also assessing the optimal duration of maintenance in patients who achieve MRD negativity. Methods:Pts 18-75 years, with MM within 12 months of induction and without progression from diagnosis are eligible. Prior daratumumab therapy is allowed. Enrollment may be before or after ASCT with transplant being within 18 months from initial registration. Within 180 days from ASCT pts will undergo first randomization to Len or Len plus subcutaneous daratumumab/rHuPH20 maintenance (Len Dara). MRD will be assessed prior to start of maintenance and then annually. Randomized treatment will continue for two years at which time repeat MRD will be assessed for pts in VGPR or better. Pts who are MRD negative will undergo second randomization to either continue maintenance on their assigned arm or discontinue maintenance. The continued maintenance arm will stay on therapy for 7 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.(see schema) The primary objective of the trial is to compare OS between the two treatment arms (Len vs. LenDara). Secondary objectives include comparisons of overall response rate, PFS, and MRD negativity rate between the treatment arms. The objectives of the second randomization are to compare OS of MRD negative pts who continue maintenance on each arm vs. those who discontinue. An early read out of the trial will be the 24 month MRD analysis after all pts have been accrued. A total of 1100 pts will be accrued to initial step 1 to allow for a 5% drop out and allow 950 pts for the second randomization. As of Aug 1, 171 pts are enrolled for screening among whom 133 have been randomized. Figure 1 Disclosures Krishnan: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Stock BMS, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Z Predicta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy. Hari:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Serial Minimal Residual Disease Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Under Long-Term Venetoclax Treatment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114048 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1876-1876

Author(s):

Thomas Lew ◽

Mary Ann Anderson ◽

Constantine S. Tam ◽

Sasanka Handunnetti ◽

Dennis Carney ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Minimal Residual

Abstract Background The selective BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) achieves an overall response rate of approximately 75-80% as a single agent in relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (RR-CLL/SLL)1. At one year ~75% of patients (pts) are progression-free at the approved monotherapy dose of 400 mg/day1,2 and Ven is the only novel agent with a significant rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (MRD-neg)3. The temporal pattern of MRD levels and systematic long term follow up of pts stratified by their MRD status on Ven have not been reported. We report the long term outcomes according to MRD status for 59 pts with RR-CLL/SLL who attained objective disease response to Ven, and the temporal patterns of change in MRD. Methods We reviewed the clinical outcomes to July 2018 of 67 pts with RR-CLL/SLL enrolled since June 2011 on early phase clinical studies of Ven at our two hospitals. Analysis was restricted to the 59 pts who achieved a partial response or complete response by iwCLL criteria. Pts initially received 150-1200mg Ven/day (45 ≥400mg/day) on one of three ongoing trials: Phase 1 Ven monotherapy (NCT01328626) (n=36), Phase 1b Ven plus rituximab (NCT01682616) (n=14), or Phase 2 Ven monotherapy in del(17p) CLL/SLL (NCT01889186) (n=9). For this analysis MRD-negativity was defined as <1 cell in 10-4 leukocytes by ERIC criteria, or no cells with a CLL phenotype when <400,000 cells were analyzed in an assay with a minimum sensitivity of 0.1%. Of those pts reported as MRD-neg this was confirmed at a level of 10-4 in 71%4. Unless otherwise specified, MRD-neg refers to status in the bone marrow (BM) and pts who were not tested were considered to be MRD-pos (n=2 pts). Landmark analyses of time to progression (TTP) by MRD status used the median time to achievement of MRD-neg. Fisher exact test was used to assess the association of clinical, biological and treatment variables with achievement of MRD-neg. TTP and time to MRD-neg were estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and comparisons among groups used the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. Results Of the 59 pts who achieved an objective response to Ven, 21 (36%) achieved MRD-neg in the BM and 26 (44%) in the PB. Of the 38 pts who did not achieve BM MRD-neg, 36 (95%) had at least one BM assessment on treatment; the two remaining pts did not clear MRD in the PB. The strongest positive predictor for the achievement of BM MRD-neg was treatment with Ven plus rituximab (9 of 14 [64%]) achieved vs 13 of 45 [27%] on Ven monotherapy (p=0.02)). Complex karyotype was a negative predictor in pts receiving ≥400mg/day. TP53 aberrant state (mutation and/or del(17p)), bulky adenopathy >5cm and fludarabine-refractoriness were not significantly associated with achievement of MRD-neg, irrespective of dose (table 1). The median time to MRD-neg was 8.2 (range 2 - 46) mths for BM (fig 1A) and 5 (range <1 - 50) mths for PB, with 22/26 (85%) pts who achieved PB MRD-neg doing so within 12 mths of starting Ven. 25/26 had a contemporaneous or subsequent BM aspirate and 20 (80%) achieved BM MRD-neg after a median of 3 (<1 - 17) further mths. After a median follow up of 25 (range 2 - 55) mths since attainment of BM MRD-neg, 8/21 (38%) pts have developed confirmed re-emergence of BM MRD, and a further 2 pts have re-developed PB MRD-pos. Median time to reemergence of BM MRD has not been reached (59% BM MRD relapse free at 2 years post attainment). In a landmark analysis from median time to BM MRD-neg (8.2 mths), TTP by iwCLL criteria was significantly longer among BM MRD-neg pts (n = 21; median TTP 65 mths [95% CI 47 - undefined]) than BM MRD-pos pts (n = 31; median 22 mths [95% CI 14 - 39]; Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.11; p<0.0001) (figure 1B). Similar patterns held for the equivalent landmark analysis according to PB MRD (HR 0.21; p = 0.0002). Conclusions Venetoclax frequently induces BM MRD-neg, and pts achieving BM MRD-neg have very durable responses. Combined Ven plus rituximab increases the rate of BM MRD-neg. With Ven therapy, PB MRD status appears to be a reasonable surrogate for BM MRD status, but further validation is required. Achievement of BM MRD-neg should be the aim of therapy with Ven and Ven-based combination approaches may be the most effective way to achieve this.Roberts; N Engl J Med; 2016;374:311-22.Stilgenbauer; Lancet Oncol; 2016;17:768-78.Seymour; Lancet Oncol; 2017;18:230-40.Rawstron; Leukemia; 2016;30:929-36. Disclosures Lew: Walter and Eliza Hall: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Anderson:Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Tam:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Roberts:AbbVie: Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall: Employment, Patents & Royalties: Employee of Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research which receives milestone and royalty payments related to venetoclax; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Seymour:Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Minimal Residual Disease in the Maintenance Setting in Myeloma: Prognostic Significance and Impact of Lenalidomide

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.904.904 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 904-904

Author(s):

Ruth M de Tute ◽

David Cairns ◽

Andy Rawstron ◽

Charlotte Pawlyn ◽

Faith E. Davies ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Powerful Predictor ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

End Of Treatment ◽

Minimal Residual ◽

Support Research

Abstract Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and demonstrated a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.48; P < .001 (Munshi et al, JAMA Oncol, Jan 2017). We have previously demonstrated the prognostic impact of MRD both following ASCT in transplant-eligible (TE) patients and following induction in transplant non-eligible (TNE) patients. There is more limited data on the applicability and significance of MRD assessment in the maintenance setting, largely as a consequence of high rates of drop-off historically within myeloma trials but improved outcomes have seen larger numbers of participants with samples at later timepoints. Patients and Methods. This analysis aims to assess the impact of MRD on PFS amongst patients receiving maintenance or no further therapy in the NCRI Myeloma XI trial. In this study patients were randomised between thalidomide (CTD) and lenalidomide (RCD) based induction therapies. For patients with a sub-optimal response to initial therapy, induction was supplemented with sequenced bortezomib-based induction (CVD). Intensively treated patients then proceeded to an autologous transplant and then responding patients from both intensive and non-intensive arms were subsequently randomised to maintenance with lenalidomide monotherapy, lenalidomide and vorinostat or no further therapy. Bone marrow aspirates were obtained prior to maintenance randomisation (100 days post ASCT for TE and at the end of (sequenced-) induction treatment for TNE) and 6 months post maintenance randomisation. This analysis represents a subset of 389 patients (median age 63.5 years) with an informative post maintenance randomisation bone marrow aspirate. MRD was assessed using flow cytometry (sensitivity 0.004%) with a minimum of 500,000 cells evaluated with six- or eight-colour antibody combinations including CD138/CD38/CD45/CD19/CD56/CD27 in all cases and CD81/CD117 added latterly. Results. Taking the group as a whole, MRD-negativity was demonstrated in 206/389 (55.8%) and this was associated with a significant outcome advantage as the median PFS was >50 months versus 20 months for MRD-positive patients (Fig.1(a), p<0.0001, HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.37). When the pre-maintenance MRD result was also taken into account, outcome was best for patients achieving negativity post ASCT/end of treatment and remaining MRD-negative and worst for those patients who were MRD-positive post ASCT/end of treatment and remained so (Fig 1(b), p<0.0001). Conversions to MRD-negativity were seen in 32% of MRD-positive patients on maintenance compared to 4% of patients randomised to no further therapy (p=0.0045). This conversion is associated with some improvement in outcome, but this group still have inferior outcome relative to those patients achieving MRD-negativity earlier in protocol treatment. Conversions to MRD-positivity were also seen in 24 (9.5%) of 252 patients and the outcome for this patient group was similar to that of the patients who remain MRD-positive throughout (Fig. 1(b)). For those patients that remained MRD-positive, a benefit from maintenance could be demonstrated by a lower level of residual disease relative to those patients on observation (median level of neoplastic plasma cells 0.15% on maintenance vs 0.39%, p=0.04). Conclusions. We would conclude that MRD is a particularly powerful predictor of outcome in the maintenance setting and is clearly a desirable therapeutic goal in this patient group. The hazard ratio of 0.2 demonstrated here appears superior to those demonstrated in previous studies examining post induction or ASCT time-points. Approximately one third of MRD-positive patients receiving maintenance became MRD-negative and maintenance therapy also results in a decrease in disease levels in those patients remaining positive. These results support the role of MRD monitoring in assessment of the efficacy of different maintenance/consolidation strategies within clinical trials. In the longer term, a stratified approach to treatment based on sequential MRD assessments is feasible. The predictive ability of MRD during maintenance will be assessed with respect to overall survival when the primary endpoint matures in September 2017 and presented at the meeting. Disclosures Rawstron: BD biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Davies: Bristol-Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jones: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Kaiser: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson: Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jenner: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson: Celgene: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Morgan: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Post Induction and Post Consolidation Measurable/Minimal Residual Disease Predict Relapse in NPM-1 Positive AML. Outcome of Treatment Relapse. a Single Center Experience

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126074 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2695-2695

Author(s):

Erika Borlenghi ◽

Chiara Pagani ◽

Michele Malagola ◽

Diego Bertoli ◽

Francesca Schieppati ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Disease Status ◽

Salvage Treatment ◽

Late Relapse ◽

Molecular Monitoring ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Minimal Residual

Although the ELN MRD Working Party (Schuurhuis, 2018) recommends that Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients (pts) with mutated NPM1 (NPM1+) should have molecular assessment of measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD), the most clinically significant timepoints (TPs), the thresholds, the best source of samples, bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) and especially the management of molecular relapse, remain controversial. We evaluated the prognostic significance of NPM1 molecular monitoring, its impact on disease recurrence and the outcome of salvage treatment. From Jul 2010 to dec 2018, 83 consecutive NPM1+ AML pts (M/F: 44/39; median age 59 y, 27-74) eligible for intensive chemotherapy (i-T) were treated, according to the NILG-AML00 protocol (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00400673): ICE (idarubicine-ARAC-etoposide) as induction, followed by IC consolidation and 3 further consolidation cycles of high-dose ARAC. Allogeneic stem cell transplant (HSCT) was considered at relapse. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed to detect NPM1 mutation (Gorello, 2006) on BM and PB samples at diagnosis (TP0) and at given TPs: at complete remission (CR) (TP1), post-IC (TP2), post-1st ARAC consolidation (TP3) and at the end of treatment (TP4). Serial MRD monitoring during follow-up was made on PB every 3 months (mo) for 5 years (y) or until relapse. Molecular relapse (mR) was defined as the NPM1 level increase at least 1 log in 2 consecutive samples, in absence of hematological relapse (hR). At baseline, karyotype (K) was abnormal in 8 pts (9.6%); 25 (30%) were FLT3-ITD mutated with a median Allelic Ratio (AR) of 0.35 (range: 0.2 to 2.18) (Pratcorona, 2013). During treatment, 608 samples were studied (383 BM and 225 PB), for a median of 8 per patient (range: 3 to 10). At TP1, a higher level of NPM1 unfavorably impacted on relapse (p 0.02) and a cut-off >200 *10^4/ABL was significantly associated with a higher relapse risk (RR) (68.7%) and lower RFS (p 0.006). Moreover, MRD positivity (value >0*10^4 NPM1/ABL) at TP2 on PB was associated to a higher RR (38.8%; p 0. 041) and a level >0.5*10^4/ABL allowed to predict relapse in 75% of pts, also impacting on RFS (p 0.0001) (Figure 1).Molecular NPM1 relapse/progression occurred in 10 pts early during treatment, after a median of 3.5 mo (1.4-6) from diagnosis and in 8 of them simultaneously with hR. In 16 pts mR occurred after a median CR duration of 18.5 mo (10.5-61.5) (late relapse). Hence a mR was more frequent in late than in early relapse (87.5% vs 20%; p 0.001). Median survival was 8.3 mo in early relapsing pts and was not reached in late relapsing pts (p. 0.0002). Age, NPM1 level at TP0, FLT3-ITD mutation, ITD-AR or abnormal K did not impact on type of relapse (mR or hR), but FLT3-ITD was more frequent in early than late relapse (60% vs 18.7%; p 0.04). After a median follow-up of 42 mo (4-108), 5-y relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were 64.2% (+/-6.5% SE) and 71.1% (+/-6.1% SE), respectively. Overall, considering both mR and hR, 26 pts (31.3%) relapsed after a median of 13.5 mo after CR; 24/26 pts received a salvage treatment and 14 (53.8%) (median age 49y, 27-64) could proceed to HSCT after a median of 2.9 mo (5 too old, 7 early progression). Salvage treatment before HSCT was i-T in 7/14 and non-i-T in 7/14 pts (2 ATRA and 5 D-actinomycin, Falini 2015) for a median of 3 cycles (range 2-4). Disease status at HSCT was: mCR in 3 pts, CR with detectable MRD (median NPM1: 125*10^4/ABL, range 17.8-3849) in 9, refractory in 2 pts. Nine/14 HSCT pts (64.2%) are alive and in remission at a median of 29.6 mo (13-49) from HSCT, 2 pts died of sepsis in c-GVDH at 6.2 and 37.5 mo after HSCT, 1 died of VOD and 2 of disease progression. At 3 months after HSCT all MRD positive pts were NPM1 negative. mR occurred in 3 pts at 8, 12 and 15 mo after HSCT and was successfully treated with early pre-emptive donor lymphocyte infusions. With the limits of small numbers, age, type (mR or hR) or timing of relapse (early or late), disease status at HSCT, donor source and conditioning intensity didn't influence survival. Our study shows that PCR monitoring during treatment can identify pts at higher RR according to the transcript levels in BM and PB samples. In NPM1+ AML, molecular monitoring in PB during follow-up is of crucial importance in detecting late molecular relapse allowing to use less toxic molecular-oriented treatments as a bridge to HSCT. Further studies on larger cohorts hopefully will help to confirm its usefulness to guide the treatment approach. Disclosures Rossi: Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; 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; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: D-actinomicin

Download Full-text