Rituximab-CHOP21 Plus Lenalidomide (LR-CHOP21) Is Effective and Feasible in Elderly Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Results of Phase II REAL07 Study of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 903-903
Author(s):  
Annalisa Chiappella ◽  
Silvia Franceschetti ◽  
Alessia Castellino ◽  
Angelo Michele Carella ◽  
Ileana Baldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Grade Iii

Abstract Abstract 903 Introduction. R-CHOP21 is the standard treatment for untreated elderly DLBCL, however up to 40% of patients fail. There is a need to improve the efficacy of R-CHOP21; an option may be the addition of novel drugs in first line induction therapy. Lenalidomide has a complex mechanism of action as immunemodulation, antiangiogenesis, restoration of immunesynapses and direct antitumor effects. Lenalidomide monotherapy exhibits significant activity in patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell NHL and has in vitro synergy with rituximab and cytotoxic therapy. This rationale prompted FIL to conduct a prospective multicenter dose finding phase I-II trial aimed at evaluating toxicity and activity of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP21 (LR-CHOP21) in elderly untreated DLBCL (NCT00907348). In the dose-finding phase I study, 21 patients were enrolled, and 15 mg lenalidomide from day 1 to day 14 was identified as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in combination with R-CHOP21 (Vitolo, Ann Oncol 2011;22(4):331a). Patients and Methods. Based on the phase I results, 15 mg of lenalidomide in combination to R-CHOP21 was tested in a phase II study. Phase II was designed according to Simon's two stage design; primary endpoint was an improvement of overall response rate (ORR) of 15% in LR-CHOP21 compared to 70% of standard R-CHOP21 and the study would be considered of interest if at least 16/23 in step 1 and 39/49 in step 2 responses occurred. Response was evaluated according to 2007 Cheson criteria. PET scan was mandatory at the end of the treatment; patients in partial remission (PR) who underwent radiotherapy were considered as failure in progression free survival (PFS) analysis. Inclusion criteria were: age 60–80 FIT at the comprehensive geriatric assessment; untreated CD20+ DLBCL; Ann Arbor stage II/III/IV; IPI at LI/IH/H risk. Treatment plan was: R-CHOP21 plus 15 mg lenalidomide from day 1 to 14 for 6 courses. Mandatory supportive care included: GCSF or PegGCSF, cotrimoxazole as Pneumocystis Jiroveci prophylaxis and low molecular weight heparin or low dose aspirin as deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. Results. From April 2010 to May 2011, 49 patients were enrolled in the phase II study including 9 patients treated at the MTD during phase I. Clinical characteristics were: median age 69 years (range 61–80); stage III/IV 43 (88%), performance status >1 31 (63%), IPI IH/H 30 (61%). The step-1 of the trial showed an ORR of 22/23. At the end of 6 LR-CHOP21, ORR was 45/49 (92%). Complete remissions (CR) were 42 (86%) and PR 3 (6%); 3 patients (6%) did not respond and one (2%) died for violent death. At a median follow-up of 18 months, overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI: 82–98) and PFS was 75% (95% CI: 57–86). (Figure 1). Of the 294 planned courses of LR-CHOP21, 277 (94%) were administered, of which 221 (75%) with lenalidomide as planned, 40 (14%) with dose and/or day reduction and 16 (5%) without lenalidomide. Median dose of lenalidomide delivered in 49 patients was 1185 mg (IQR 900–1260), i.e. 94% of the planned dose (1260 mg). The most frequent cause of lenalidomide reduction or withdrawal was neutropenia. At least 90% of the planned dose of doxorubicine, cyclophosphamide and vincristine were administered, in: 91%, 95% and 83% of the R-CHOP21 courses, respectively. Median interval time between R-CHOP21 courses was 21 days (range 19–48). Hematological toxicity was mild: grade III/IV thrombocytopenia occurred in 13% of courses, anemia in 5% and neutropenia in 33%, with only 4% of febrile neutropenia. No grade IV extra-hematological toxicities were observed. Grade III non-hematological toxicities were reported in 7 patients: cardiologic, gastroenteric and renal in one patient respectively, grade III neurological toxicities, sensory and motorial neuropathy in two, thromboembolic event in one not receiving anti-thrombotic prophylaxis, and skin rash in one. No toxic deaths occurred during treatment. One patient died three months off therapy while in CR, due to aeromonas hydrophila sepsis and multi-organ failure. Conclusions. The addition of 15 mg lenalidomide on days 1–14 to R-CHOP21 is safe, feasible and effective in elderly untreated DLBCL. The primary objective of the phase II study was met, with 92% of ORR of which 86% CR and promising PFS rates. The addition of lenalidomide did not impair the administration of R-CHOP21. Based on these data, the efficacy of LR-CHOP21 needs to be investigated in a large phase III randomized trial in elderly DLBCL. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Trial partially supported by a research grant by Celgene. Lenalidomide was provided free by Celgene. The use of Lenalidomide is off-label in untreated DLBCL. Dreyling:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitolo:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

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

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

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

A Phase I/II Study of Escalating Doses of Thalidomide (Thal) in Conjunction with Bortezomib (Vel) and High Dose Melphalan (Mel) As A Conditioning Regimen for Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (PBSCT) in Patients with Advanced Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3104-3104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung H Hong ◽  
David S Siegel ◽  
Michele L Donato ◽  
David H. Vesole ◽  
Andrew L Pecora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Abstract 3104 Thalidomide is an active agent in the treatment of MM and shows additive and/or synergistic effects when combined with various chemotherapeutics in pre-clinical and clinical models. We conducted a phase I/II study of Thal in combination with Vel and high dose Mel with PBSCT in patients (pts) with either disease progression or less than complete response after a prior PBSCT. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of MM and the availability of adequate PBSC. Exclusion criteria were dose-intense therapy within 56 days, uncontrolled infections, uncontrolled CNS metastases, known cardiac amyloid deposition, severe organ dysfunction, Karnofsky score <70%, or severe sensory neuropathy. Conditioning for PBSCT consisted of Vel 1.6 mg/m2 IVP on days -4 and -1 with Mel 200 mg/m2 on day -2. Thal was given on days -5 through -1. Thal was administered in a planned dose escalation steps of 600, 800 and 1000 mg (in cohorts of 3 pts) daily for 5 days. Dexamethasone (Dex) 10–20 mg was given prior to Vel and Mel. All pts received G-CSF every other day starting day +3 until engraftment. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were graded according to CTCAE ver 3. No dose limiting toxicities (≥ grade IV non-hematological SAE) occurred in the phase I portion of this study allowing full dose escalation with 9 pts enrolled. All pts experienced somnolence, more prominent at the 800 mg/day dose. Subsequently, Dex 40 mg was given with first dose of Thal at the 1000 mg level with improvement in sedation. In the phase II portion of the study, an additional 19 pts were treated with Thal 1000 mg daily. No regimen related mortality occurred in either phase I or phase II portion of the study. All SAEs except lethargy and dizziness occurred after PBSCT and were not attributed to Thal. All transplant-related SAEs resolved by day +28 after transplantation. All pts achieved prompt hematological recovery with the median time to ANC >500/uL 10 days (range, 8–14 days), ANC >1000/uL 10 days (range 9–14 days), and plt >20,000 12 days (range 9–25 days). 28 pts (median age, 56) were enrolled in the phase I and phase II portions of the study. 18 pts were treated for disease progression after prior autologous transplant (median lines of prior therapy =2; range, 1–5); only 22% of pts achieved ≥PR to the most recent therapy prior to PBSCT. 7 pts were enrolled after achieving <CR after prior PBSCT. Restaging evaluation was completed at 1, 2, and 3 months and every 3 months thereafter using the modified IMWG criteria. At three months after PBSCT (compared to immediate pre-transplant) the overall response rate ≥PR was 44% (1 CR, 4 VGPR, and 6 PR). An additional 10 pt achieved SD and 4 pts experienced disease progression. 4 subjects subsequently underwent allogeneic transplant and are not evaluable for long term response. The median event-free (EFS) was 7 months. The median overall survival (OS) has not yet been reached. The estimated EFS and OS probabilities at 2 years are 5% and 60%, respectably. Our results indicate that high-dose Thal can be safely added up to 1000 mg daily for 5 days to dose-intense Mel and Vel with acceptable toxicities. Confirmation of potential synergistic effects of this combination regimen will require an appropriately designed phase III study. Disclosures: Siegel: Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vesole:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

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.

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

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

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

Final Results of the Phase I/II Trial of Weekly Bortezomib In Combination with Temsirolimus (CCI-779) In Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Specifically In Patients Refractory to Bortezomib

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 990-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Edie Weller ◽  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Nikhil C. Munshi ◽  
Ranjit Banwait ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Phase I And Ii

Abstract Abstract 990 Introduction: This study aimed to determine activity and safety of weekly bortezomib (Takeda Inc) and temsirolimus (Pfizer Inc) in patients with relapsed/refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM). Methods: Eligibility criteria included: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM with any prior lines of therapy including bortezomib, 2) no chemotherapy within 3 weeks, or biological/novel therapy within 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was the percent of patients with at least a minimal response (MR). Results: Twenty patients were enrolled on the phase I study and 43 on the phase II study. The MTD was determined at 1.6 mg/m2 bortezomib Days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 35 days in combination with 25 mg IV temsirolimus Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29 every 35 days. Twenty % were stage III by ISS staging system in the phase I, and 21% in the phase II. The overall response rate of MR or better in the Phase II study was 20/43 (47%, 95%CI: 33,60), with 5% CR, 9% VGPR, 19% PR and 14% MR. Progression without any response occurred in just 1 patient (3%). One patient had an unconfirmed PR, but was included in the stable disease category. An additional 3 (6%) patients were unevaluable in the phase II trial because they did not complete their first cycle of therapy and had no follow up laboratory results for response. If these patients are excluded, the ORR including MR improves to 50% (95% CI: 36,64). The overall response rate in the phase I study was 20% with responses occurring in all the stages of the dose escalation. If three patients who were unevaluable in the phase I trial are excluded, then the response rate of evaluable phase I patients is 24% (95% CI: 9,46). Response was also evaluated by whether patients were bortezomib-refractory or not. These were defined as progressing while on therapy or progressing within 60 days of completing bortezomib therapy. Fifty-one patients had received bortezomib as part of prior treatment. Of these patients, 32 were refractory to bortezomib therapy immediately prior to study entry, and an additional 2 pts were refractory at prior time points. Responses observed among the 32 patients refractory to their most recent bortezomib therapy include 3 PR and 3 MR (ORR: 19%, 95% CI: 9,34). Another 21 patients had SD, 2 PD and 3 patients were unevaluable. Of the evaluable patients, the ORR was 6/29 (21%). Responses observed among the 19 patients who were not refractory to their last bortezomib treatment include 2 VGPR, 5 PR and 3 MR with 6 patients with SD, 0 PD and 3 unevaluable. The ORR among the evaluable patients who received bortezomib but were not refractory was 62%. Median time to response of MR or better (min, max) among all patients was 1.7 months (0.5,14.2) and among phase II patients 1.3 months (0.5,8.0). Median duration of MR or better (min, max) among all patients is 5.2 months (0.5,15.8) and among phase II patients is 4.6 months (0.5,10.8). Median duration of PR or better response (min, max) among all patients is 6.0 months (1.8,15.8) and among phase II patients is 5.2 months (1.8,10.8). The median time to progression for all patients in the phase I and II studies was 7.3 months (95% CI: 5.7 –17.2) and the median progression free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.8–7.4). The median overall survival in all phase I and II patients was 11.4 months (95%CI: 8.6-undetermined). Three deaths occurred during therapy in the phase I and II studies, 1 of septic shock, 1 with H1N1 infection, and 1 with cardiac amyloid and ventricular arrhythmia. The most common G1-4 toxicities that occurred in > 25% of patients included cytopenias, hypertrigyceridemia and diarrhea. Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 48% of patients in the phase I and II studies, G3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 36%, and anemia in 26% of phase I and II patients. G3 and 4 hypertriglyceridemia occurred in 5% and diarrhea in 9%. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was rare with no G3 or 4 neuropathy reported. Overall, there was 34% grade 1 and 2 PN seen. Conclusions: The combination of weekly bortezomib and temsirolimus showed an encouraging response rate in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory MM, with an overall response rate in evaluable patients as part of the phase II portion of the trial of 50%, and a 21% ORR including MR or better in evaluable bortezomib refractory patients. Cytopenias were the most common toxicities, specifically thrombocytopenia, as well as GI toxicity, with side effects proving manageable. Significant PN was rare in this study. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Novartis: Honoraria; Eisai: Speakers Bureau. Munshi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anderson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. 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.

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

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

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

Phase I/II Clinical Trial of Temsirolimus and Lenalidomide in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Lymphomas

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 43-44
Author(s):  
Ajay Major ◽  
Justin Kline ◽  
Theodore G. Karrison ◽  
Paul A S Fishkin ◽  
Amy S Kimball ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
The Other ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Background Targeting the PI3K/Akt/mTOR axis in relapsed lymphomas is of interest based on constitutive activation in many lymphoma subtypes, and has had varying degrees of success. We previously showed that the first generation mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus (TEM), has activity across histologies with an acceptable toxicity profile (Smith, et al., JCO 2010). Lenalidomide (LEN) is currently approved for use in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and has several potential synergistic and overlapping targets with PI3K/mTOR/Akt inhibition. We designed this phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of TEM and LEN in relapsed/refractory lymphomas. Methods The phase I dose-finding study utilized a standard "3+3" design and was open to all patients with mature B-cell malignancies. TEM was 25 mg IV weekly for all dose levels. LEN was dosed orally on D1-D21 every 28 days at three dose levels: 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg. The phase II study accrued patients in a two-stage "minimax" design with stratification into three histologically-defined cohorts: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other lymphomas. Primary endpoints of the phase II study were rates of complete (CR) and overall response (ORR), and secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results In the phase I study, 18 patients were enrolled and available for toxicity assessment. Patients were treated to intolerance, progression, or discontinuation at physician discretion. Of these, 15 patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment. At dose level 3, there were 2 DLTs: grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 HSV mucositis. Dose level 2 was thus established as the recommended phase II dose: TEM 25 mg weekly and LEN 20 mg on D1-D21 every 28 days. Of the 18 patients, there were 5 partial responses, 4 stable disease, 3 progressive disease, 4 on active treatment, and 2 not adequately assessed. The phase II study enrolled an additional 93 patients (Table 1): 39 DLBCL, 15 FL, and 39 other lymphomas which included 20 relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. The median number of prior treatments was 4 (range, 1-14), and 31 patients (33%) had relapsed following prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The median number of cycles delivered was 4 (range, 1-21). The FL cohort closed prematurely due to slow accrual. The ORR were 25.6% (12.8% CR) and 64.1% (17.9% CR) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The ORR for HL patients in the other lymphoma cohort, the majority of whom had relapsed after brentuximab vedotin (BV) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), was 80% (35% CR). Eight HL patients (40%) proceeded to allogeneic transplantation after TEM and LEN therapy. The high response rate in the other lymphoma cohort was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of a 30% response rate under the minimax design. Median PFS was 7.0 mo (90% CI 3.5-8.0) and 7.0 mo (90% CI 4.6-9.9) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median OS was 9.1 mo (90% CI 6.0-16.0) and 25.5 mo (90% CI 10.8-60.6) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median DOR was 13.8 mo (90% CI 4.1-19.0) and 5.5 mo (90% CI 2.6-23.7) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median PFS, OS and DOR for HL patients in the other lymphoma cohort were 9.2 mo (90% CI 4.6-25.5), 39.6 mo (90% CI 17.4-NR), and 8.1 mo (90% CI 5.1-38.3), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves are displayed in Figure 1. Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events (AE) related to treatment were uncommon, with no cases of pneumonitis and one grade 3 thromboembolism. Grade ≥3 hematologic AEs were common and reversible. Three Grade 5 AEs occurred (colonic perforation, myocardial infarction and sepsis). Conclusions Combination therapy with TEM and LEN demonstrated encouraging activity in heavily-pretreated and relapsed/refractory lymphomas. Survival in the other lymphoma cohort was primarily driven by favorable activity in relapsed/refractory HL. TEM and LEN may be a suitable option for treatment of HL after BV and ASCT, including as a bridge to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Further study of PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibition in combination with lenalidomide is warranted, particularly in relapsed HL. Disclosures Kline: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kimball:Amgen: Current Employment; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Petrich:Daiichi-Sankyo: Current Employment; AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Temsirolimus is FDA-approved for renal cell carcinoma.

scholarly journals LYMRIT 37-01: A Phase I/II Study of 177lu-Lilotomab Satetraxetan (Betalutin®) Antibody-Radionuclide-Conjugate (ARC) for the Treatment of Relapsed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) — Analysis with 6-Month Follow-up

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2879-2879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Kolstad ◽  
Ulf Madsbu ◽  
Matthew Beasley ◽  
Michael Bayne ◽  
Tim M. Illidge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract Introduction: Most indolent NHL patients (pts) have advanced stage disease at diagnosis, and no curative therapy exists. The mainstay of both first- and second-line (2L) therapy is anti-CD20 chemo-immunotherapy, and although initially effective, most pts relapse, with median PFS decreasing markedly after 2L and 3rd-line therapies. In addition, many pts eventually develop resistance to rituximab (RTX)/RTX-containing regimens, thus therapeutic targets other than CD20 are important. Those who develop resistance to RTX, especially the elderly, need new treatment approaches. With a median age at diagnosis of 67 (seer.gov), NHL is a disease of the elderly, who are at risk of developing cumulative myelosuppression, cardiac toxicity, and severe infections with currently available therapies. CD37 is highly expressed (>90%) in B-cell NHL, providing an alternative target to CD20. Lutetium (177Lu) lilotomab satetraxetan (Betalutin®) is a beta-emitting anti-CD37 ARC in a ready-to-use formulation. LYMRIT 37-01 is a phase I/II open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and preliminary efficacy of a single dose of Betalutin in pts with relapsed iNHL, and to establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). We present updated efficacy and safety data for the phase I/IIa part of the study (Part A) as of 22 June 2018; all pts have ≥ 6 months (m) of follow-up, except for 3 (will be completed in August). Methods: Pts with histologically confirmed iNHL relapsing after ≥1 prior therapy with <25% bone marrow involvement, platelets (plt) >150 x 109/L, no prior SCT/RIT, and a life expectancy of ≥3 months were enrolled into 1 of 4 dose-escalation arms (Part A) to determine the optimal lilotomab pre-dose and Betalutin dose for further evaluation in an expanded phase II cohort. A fifth arm collected additional PK data. All pts received pre-treatment with RTX. Responses were assessed using Cheson IWG response criteria (including CT and FDG PET/CT scans) beginning at week 12. Results: 74 pts [57 follicular (FL), 7 mantle cell (MCL), 9 marginal zone (MZL), 1 small lymphocytic (SLL)] were enrolled at 13 sites from Dec 2012 to Feb 2018. Median age was 68 (range 38-87; 55% ≥ 65); the median no. of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-9); 48 pts (65%) had received ≥2 prior therapies. Two RP2Ds emerged: a lilotomab pre-dose of 40 mg + 15 MBq/kg Betalutin ("40/15"; Arm 1) and a lilotomab pre-dose of 100 mg/m2 + 20 MBq/kg Betalutin ("100/20"; Arm 4). For all pts, the overall response rate (ORR) was 61%, with 26% complete responses (CR). By subtype, the ORR was 65% (CR 24%) for FL, and 78% (CR 44%) for MZL. FL with ≥2 prior therapies (n=37) had an ORR of 70% (CR 27%). With a median follow-up of 9.1 m (range 4.9-49.5 m), the median duration of response for all pts is 13.3 m (20.5 m for those with a CR); 26 pts (35%) have remained free of disease progression for >12 m [CR(15)/PR(5)/SD(6)]. For the 36 pts receiving the "40/15" regimen, the ORR was 58% (CR 28%), and 64% (CR 28%) for FL (n=25). The ORR was 63% (CR 21%) for 19 pts receiving the "100/20" regimen, and 69% (CR 19%) for FL (n=16). Betalutinwas well-tolerated. The most common grade (G) 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (53%) and thrombocytopenia (48%); 5 pts (7%) had G3/4 infections (pneumonia, UTI, pharyngitis (G3), 2 G4 sepsis). No febrile neutropenia was reported. Four pts had plt transfusions [low plt count (2), epistaxis (1), hematuria (1)]; 3 received G-CSF. Two pts had infusion reactions; both were related to RTX. SAEs occurred in 14 pts (19%); SAEs in ≥2 pts were atrial fibrillation, thrombocytopenia, lymphoma progression and sepsis (all n=2). Five pts developed transient anti-drug antibodies. One case of CMML occurred 24 m after Betalutin (18 m after subsequent bendamustine-RTX therapy). There were no study drug-related deaths in the treatment period. G3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 56%/56% (40/15 regimen) and 47%/42% (100/20 regimen). Conclusions: Betalutin is well tolerated and has promising antitumor activity in recurrent iNHL, especially in FL and MZL. Use of a higher lilotomab pre-dose resulted in a lower incidence of G3/4 hematologic AEs. With a single administration, Betalutin has the potential to be a novel, safe, and effective therapy for pts with B-cell malignancies. The 2 RP2Ds from Part A of the study are now being compared in a randomized phase 2b cohort (Part B: "PARADIGME") in relapsed, RTX/anti-CD20 refractory FL pts who have received ≥2 prior therapies. Disclosures Kolstad: Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Illidge:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jurczak:European Medicines Agency: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy; Afimed: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Rojkjaer:Nordic Nanovector: Employment. Østengen:Nordic Nanovector: Employment.

scholarly journals MCRN¯003/MYX·1: A Single Arm Phase II Study of High-Dose Weekly Carfilzomib Plus Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma after 1-3 Prior Therapies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1984-1984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Venner ◽  
Richard Leblanc ◽  
Irwindeep Sandhu ◽  
Darrell J. White ◽  
Andrew R Belch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Dosing Strategies ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Carfilzomib, a second generation proteosome inhibitor, is effective in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Recent phase II and phase III trials have demonstrated the efficacy of weekly dosing strategies. The aim of this study was to examine high dose once weekly carfilzomib in combination with weekly dexamethasone and low dose weekly cyclophosphamide (wCCD) in RRMM. It was hypothesized that this may offer a potent yet convenient and more financially viable triplet-based treatment option than existing combinations. Methods: The MCRN-003/MYX.1 multi-centre single arm phase II clinical trial is run through the Myeloma Canada Research Network (MCRN) with support from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Patients who had at least one but not more than three prior lines of therapy and who did not have proteosome inhibitor (PI) refractory disease were eligible. Treatment consists of carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 day 1 of first cycle then escalated to 70 mg/m2 for all subsequent doses) given on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, plus weekly oral dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 capped at 500 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. Treatment continues until progression or intolerance, except for cyclophosphamide which is discontinued after 12 cycles. The total sample size of 76 patients includes a 6 patient lead-in phase where safety at 70 mg/m2 was evaluated. The primary objective was to observe an overall response rate (ORR) ≥ 80% after 4 cycles of protocol therapy. Secondary endpoints include safety, toxicity, kinetics of and maximal response depth and overall survival. This analysis is based on the locked data base of 2018 July 13. Results: Of the 76 patients accrued 1 was subsequently determined to be ineligible on the basis of bortezomib refractory disease, and 1 did not receive any protocol therapy due to a cardiac event occurring post-study registration but prior to treatment commencement. All patients who received therapy were included in the analysis as per protocol inclusive of the bortezomib exposed patient. Among these 75 patients, median age was 66 years with 33% being > 70 years of age. Thirty-seven percent were female. Thirty-nine percent received 1 prior line, 44% received 2 prior lines and 17% received 3 prior lines of therapy. High risk cytogenetics [(t4;14), t(14;16) and del P53] were identified in 32%. Twenty percent had ISS stage III disease and 11% had R-ISS stage III disease. Prior PI and immunomodulatory drug exposure was noted in 87% and 81% respectively. Within the first 4 cycles of therapy 84% (95% CI, 76-92%) of patients achieved PR or better, with ≥ VGPR achieved in 52% and ≥ CR in 9% (table 1, p = 0.0006). There was a trend toward a better ORR after 4 cycles based on the presence or absence of high-risk cytogenetics (75% vs 94% respectively, p = 0.051) not meeting statistical significance. The median duration of follow-up at the time of data analysis was 13.9 months (range 0.2 to 22.8 months). 18 patients have died with an estimated 1-year OS of 80%. The cause of death as assessed by the investigator was myeloma in 13 patients with 3 dying from a cause possibly or probably related to the study intervention. During the first 4 cycles of treatment, non-hematologic toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 33% of patients; most commonly infection (16%) and fatigue (7%). Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 17%, thrombocytopenia in 33% and neutropenia in 20%. Grade 3 or greater hypertension was seen in 4%, dyspnea in 1%, pulmonary edema in 1% and thrombotic microangiopathy in 4%; all resolved with no long-term sequelae. To date 37 (49%) patients have discontinued carfilzomib, 11 due to toxicity and 16 due to disease progression. Conclusion: This prospective phase II study demonstrates that wCCD is a safe and effective regimen in the treatment of RRMM. The study met its primary endpoint demonstrating a ≥ 80% ORR after 4 cycles of therapy. These results compare favourably to published phase III data examining weekly carfilzomib and dexamethasone as well as the established twice-weekly dosing strategies. This regimen will be a useful triplet-based option for RRMM especially in patients refractory to immunomodulatory agents who would otherwise be ineligible for the carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone combination. Disclosures Venner: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Leblanc:Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sandhu:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bioverativ: Honoraria. White:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Honoraria. Chen:Amgen: Honoraria. Louzada:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria. Hay:Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document