Long-Term Molecular Results Of The Gimema VEL-03-096 Trial: Molecular Remission Achievement and Loss Are Major Outcome Predictors

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2077-2077
Author(s):  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
Marco Ladetto ◽  
Daniela Drandi ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Elisa Genuardi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and aims The extensive use of new drugs in multiple myeloma (MM) allowed the achievement of unprecedented levels of cytoreduction and major advantages in survival rates, though almost all patients still relapse after a successful treatment. PCR-based minimal residual disease (MRD) studies are powerful prognostic tools, able to indentify patients at high risk of relapse. Thus, there is a growing interest in MRD to modulate therapy also in MM, as already happens in other lymphoid neoplasms. However available reports have a too short follow-up to be conclusive. In particular some points need to be addressed: 1) which is the long-term outcome of patients achieving molecular remission (MR) in the absence of further treatment? 2) What is the prognostic impact of MR loss? 3) How long is the window between MR loss and clinical relapse? These issues have been addressed based on the mature results of the GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial [EudraCT Number 2004-000531-28], which currently has a median follow-up (mFU) of 93 months. Patients and methods Inclusion criteria and treatment schedule have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010]. MRD was assessed on bone marrow at diagnosis, study entry, after two VTD courses, at the end of treatment and then every six months up to clinical relapse. Patients underwent MRD detection using both qualitative nested PCR and Real Time Quantitative (RQ)-PCR, employing immunoglobulin heavy chain-derived patient specific primers, as described [Voena et al., Leukemia 1997; Ladetto et al., Biol Bone Marrow Transpl 2000; van der Velden et al., Leukemia 2007]. MR was defined as negative MRD results by nested-PCR or less than 1EE-04 by RQ-PCR. Loss of MR was defined as an increase of MRD levels of at least one log in consecutive samples at whenever timepoint. For survival analysis duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TNT) and overall survival (OS) rates were used, as detailed in IMWG criteria [Rajkumar et al., Blood 2011]. Results Thirty-nine patients were enrolled. So far 27 serological progressions, 22 clinical relapses needing salvage treatment and 12 deaths (two non-MM-related) were observed. Median PFS was 60 months, median TNT 67 months and OS at mFU was 64%. 270 of the planned samples for MRD monitoring (86%) were actually received by the centralized lab. Currently, 26 MR and 11 MR losses have been registered. The achievement of MR was strongly associated with a better outcome, in terms of median DOR (62 vs 9 months, p<0.001), PFS (67 vs 22 months, p<0.001), TNT (108 vs 30 months, p<0.001) and resulted significant for OS, too (72% vs 48% at mFU, p=0.04, Figure 1A-B). Moreover, patients with ongoing MR, MR loss or not achieving MR at all showed increasing risk of relapse, respectively (DOR not reached vs 38 vs 9 months, PFS 92 vs 63 vs 22 months, TNT not reached vs 72 vs 30 months, each p<0.001, Figure 2). Interestingly, the time lag between MR loss and clinical relapse for patients achieving and then loosing MR was comparable to that between end of consolidation and clinical relapse for patients never obtaining MR (TNT 19 vs 11 months p=0.34). Finally, analyzing the relationship between MR achievement, MR loss and need for a salvage treatment, of the 26 patients who obtained MR only 11 (42%) received a retreatment at a median time of 42 months (range: 22-87 months). Of these 11 clinical relapses, 7 were anticipated by a molecular relapse (64%), occurring at a median time of 9 months (range: 2-39 months). The 4 relapses not anticipated by MR loss occurred in cases with inadequate follow-up sampling or at least two years after the end of the planned molecular follow-up. Conclusions Besides confirming the strong prognostic value of PCR-based MRD monitoring in MM, our long-term results indicate the following: 1) the 42 months TNT of patients achieving MR underlines the excellent disease control of MM patients once obtained MR; 2) the occurrence of MR loss heralds relapse, with a TNT from MR loss comparable to TNT of patients not achieving MR; 3) there is a 9 months lag between MR loss and need for salvage treatment. These observations will have increasing relevance considering that ongoing methodological developments will allow effective MRD monitoring in the vast majority of MM patients. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Bortezomib and thalidomide as post-transplant consolidation during first-line treatment of multiple myeloma. Ladetto:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cavallo:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jannsen Cilag: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 259-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano J. Costa ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Marcelo C. Pasquini ◽  
Riddhi Modi ◽  
Luisa Giaccone ◽  
...  

Introduction: Tandem autologous transplant (auto- auto) has been studied as a method to increase remission rates and reduce relapse in the upfront therapy of MM. The use of autologous followed by reduced intensity conditioning allogenic transplantation (auto-allo) offers the potential of long-term graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect, but with the risk of graft versus host disease and potentially higher non-relapse mortality (NRM). Trials comparing these two strategies relied on availability of HLA-matched sibling donors for arm allocation (biological "randomization") and have yielded conflicting results, in part due to trial size or limited follow up. A pooled analysis of multiple trials with extended follow up provides the best opportunity to compare these two transplant strategies. Methods: We obtained individual patient data from participants of 4 trials comparing auto-auto vs. auto-allo after brief induction therapy, namely BMT CTN 0102 (N=709), NMAM2000 (N=357), PETHEMA/GEM2000 (N=110), and the Torino consortium trial (N=162). In all 4 trials arm allocation was by biological "randomization". Patients were designated high risk if beta-2 microglobulin ≥ 4.0 mg/L at diagnosis or presence of deletion of chromosome 13 by metaphase karyotyping. Time to event outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, from the time of first autologous transplant. Main outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes analyzed were NRM and risk of relapse, treated as competing risks, and post relapse survival. Results: There were 1,338 patients included in the analysis, 899 in auto-auto and 439 in auto-allo. Median follow up of survivors is 118.5 months. Characteristics of the two arms are displayed in Table 1. Median OS was 78.0 months in auto-auto and 98.3 months in auto-allo (HR= 0.85, P=0.003, Figure 1). OS was 59.8 % vs. 62.3% at 5-years (P=0.37) and 36.4% vs. 44.1% at 10 years (P=0.01) for auto-auto and auto-allo respectively. PFS was also improved in auto-allo (HR= 0.84, P=0.004) with 5-year PFS of 23.4 vs. 30.1% (P=0.01) and 10-year PFS of 14.4% vs. 18.7% (P=0.06). For the 214 high risk patients (125 auto-auto, 89 auto-allo) there was superior 5-year and 10-year PFS with auto-allo, but no difference in OS. Risk of NRM was higher in auto-allo (10 year 8.3% vs. 19.7%, P&lt;0.001), while risk of disease progression was higher in auto-auto (10 year 77.2% vs. 61.6%, P&lt;0.001). There were 685 progressions in auto-auto and 266 in auto-allo. Median post relapse overall survival was 41.5 months in auto-auto and 62.3 months in auto-allo (HR= 0.71, P&lt;0.001, Figure 2). Five years post relapse, 37.0% of patients were alive in auto-auto vs. 51.1% in auto-allo (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Long-term follow up using a large pooled dataset of 4 trials indicates durable, long-term disease control with an auto-allo strategy. Despite higher NRM, there was a reduction in the risk of relapse and superior post relapse survival in auto-allo. This supports the hypothesis of a durable GVM effect enhancing myeloma control with subsequent therapies. Disclosures Costa: Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pasquini:Pfizer: Consultancy; Medigene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Bladé:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Irctures: Honoraria. Schonland:Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria; Medac: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giralt:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Patriarca:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stadtmauer:Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tmunity: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Krishnan:Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, BMS: Consultancy; Sutro BioPharma, zPredicta: Consultancy; Amgen, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Z Predicta: Other: Stock Ownership; Takeda: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1912-1912
Author(s):  
Brett Grieb ◽  
Jithma Prasad Abeykoon ◽  
Saurabh Zanwar ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved significantly over the past two decades with the introduction of novel treatment agents. However, MM is still largely considered an incurable malignancy with a relapsing-remitting course. A follow-up of at least 10 years from active disease is required to determine whether a plateau in progression-free survival has been attained. Prior literature has used 10 years as a cutoff for "long-term survivorship". In this study, we have assessed the biological disease characteristics and outcomes of long-term survivors with MM (≥10 years from active disease). Methods All patients with active MM evaluated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1, 1999 and July 1, 2008 were included in the study after approval of the Institutional Review Board. Patients with smoldering multiple myeloma were excluded. The overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of symptomatic disease requiring treatment. Patients were then divided into two cohorts: (1) long-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of at least 10 years; and (2) short-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of less than 5 years from the diagnosis of active MM. The baseline characteristics between these two groups were compared using Wilcoxon, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test as applicable. All time-to-event analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the survival curves were compared using Log-Rank test. Results During the time frame of the study, 2,125 patients were identified who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for active MM. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 12.6 years (95% CI: 12.5-13.4).The median OS for the entire cohort was 4.4 years (95% CI: 4.2-4.7 years). Three-hundred and ninety nine (18.7%) patients survived at least 10 years whereas 872 patients (41%) survived less than 5 years from the date of initial diagnosis. The median OS was 14.1 years for the long-term survivors (95% CI: 13.9-14.6 years) and 2.1 years for the short-term survivors (95% CI: 1.8-2.2 years). The clinical features at diagnosis comparing long-term survivors and short-term survivors are shown in Table 1. Among long-term survivors (n=399), based on the available data regarding remission and ongoing treatment status, 331 patients were categorized into 6 cohorts (Table 2). The MM specific survival data of these 6 cohorts is depicted in Table 2.Figure 1 shows survival outcomes from the 10-year landmark. Of the 6 cohorts, 38 patients in Cohort 1 and 19 patients in Cohort 2 (total 57; 17% of long term survivors, ~3% of the entire cohort ) have been off therapy for at least 5 years and remain in remission, representing a distinct group of patients with 100% 15-year survival. Conclusion In our large database with prolonged follow-up, long-term survivors appear to have distinct baseline characteristics, but also constitute a heterogenous group of patients with disparate outcomes. A small subset (17% of long-term survivors) was identified that may represent patients closest to being considered as 'operationally cured'. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Teva: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: 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, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1839-1839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Peter M. Voorhees ◽  
Torben Plesner ◽  
Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist ◽  
Brandi Reeves ◽  
...  

Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have relapsed after conventional treatment have limited therapeutic options for long-term disease control. Melflufen is a lipophilic peptide-conjugated alkylator that rapidly delivers a highly cytotoxic payload into myeloma cells through peptidase activity. In the first report of efficacy and safety for the phase 1/2 study O-12-M1 (median follow-up, 28 months), melflufen and dexamethasone demonstrated an overall response rate of 31%, a median PFS of 5.7 months, and a median OS of 20.7 months, with acceptable safety for patients with RRMM (Richardson PG, et al. Blood. 2017; Abstract 3150). Here, updated OS and PFS results from the O-12-M1 study are reported, with 18 months of additional follow-up of the patients who were still participating in long-term follow-up at the time of the final database lock in November 2017. Methods: Eligible patients had RRMM, measurable disease, and ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and lenalidomide. Patients must have had progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of last therapy. Patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and oral dexamethasone 40 mg weekly for up to 8 cycles or longer at the discretion of the investigator and sponsor. Treatment continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were followed up for 2 years after PD or start of subsequent therapy. PFS and OS were secondary end points in this study. Time to next treatment (TTNT), an exploratory end point defined as the time from start of melflufen and dexamethasone to first subsequent therapy or death, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: As of 15 May 2019, 45 patients were treated. Median age was 66 years (range, 47-78); 60% of patients had International Staging System stage II/III at study entry, and 44% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or gain(1q)]. The median time since initial diagnosis was 5.0 years (range, 1-21). Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 2-14). All patients were exposed to IMiDs, 98% to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 93% to alkylators (any dose of melphalan, cyclophosphamide, or bendamustine), and 80% to melphalan; 87% were refractory to last line of therapy, and 91%, 67%, and 7% were single (IMiD or PI), double (IMiD and PI), and triple (IMiD, PI, and daratumumab) refractory, respectively. After a median follow-up of 30.1 months, median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-9.3; 98% events). Median OS was 20.7 months (95% CI, 13.6-not reached; 58% events; Figure). Updated PFS, OS, and TTNT data will be presented. No new adverse events (AEs) were reported. Conclusion: Melflufen and dexamethasone resulted in sustained long-term benefits (median OS, 20.7 months) and no new AEs with 1.5 years of additional follow-up of patients with late-stage, heavily pretreated RRMM who have relapsed on conventional therapy including bortezomib and lenalidomide. Further trials are ongoing to evaluate efficacy and safety of melflufen, including the phase 3 study OCEAN (OP-103; NCT03151811) of melflufen plus dexamethasone versus pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with RRMM refractory to lenalidomide. Figure Disclosures Bringhen: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Voorhees:Novartis: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TeneoBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Plesner:AbbVie: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mellqvist:Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Sandoz, Takeda: Honoraria. Reeves:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Byrne:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Nordström:Oncopeptides: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harmenberg:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Obermüller:Oncopeptides: Employment. Richardson:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: This is a Phase 1/2 investigational study of melflufen in RRMM


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 27-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
Hans-Juergen Salwender ◽  
Bronno Van Der Holt ◽  
Laila el Jarari ◽  
Uta Bertsch ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: We reported better PFS and OS in transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) who were treated with bortezomib during induction and maintenance, when compared with standard treatment in the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial. (P. Sonneveld et al., J Clin Oncol 30:2946-2955, 2012). Here the long-term follow up data are presented. Methods: 827 eligible patients were randomized to induction therapy with VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) or PAD (bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) followed by high-dose melphalan (once or twice) and autologous stem cell transplant. Maintenance consisted of daily thalidomide (T) 50 mg (VAD arm) or 2-weekly bortezomib (B) 1.3 mg/m2 (PAD arm) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) adjusted for ISS stage. Results: After a median follow up of 91.4 months (maximum 119) 410 patients are alive. Response rates were VAD/HDM/T: CR 25%, ≥VGPR 56%, ≥PR 83%; PAD/HDM/B: CR 37%, ≥VGPR 76%%, ≥PR 91%, The median duration of maintenance therapy was 14 months (thalidomide) and 23 months (bortezomib), respectively. Main reasons for discontinuation were toxicity (T: 31%; B: 11%), disease progression (T: 33%; B: 36%) or normal completion (T: 28%; B: 48%). Of 827 patients in the analysis, 206 are alive without progression/relapse. PFS was significantly better in the bortezomib arm, i.e. median 34 versus 28 months (HR=0.77, 95% CI=0.65-0.90, p=0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 90 months in the bortezomib arm vs 83 months in the control arm, but 42% at 9 years in both arms. We used the restricted mean survival time (RMST) method to compare OS between the two treatment arms In univariate analysis. The difference in RMST8y was 4.8 months (95% CI 0.2-9.5, p=0.04) in favor of the bortezomib arm. A landmark analysis in patients who had received HDM starting at 12 months showed a significant PFS advantage of bortezomib in all patients (p=0.02), in patients in VGPR/PR (p=0.02) but not in CR (p=0.19). For OS there was no advantage for bortezomib in either group. PFS at 60 months in bortezomib treated patients was not different when single vs double HDM/ASCT was administered, i.e. 28% vs 27%. However, OS at 60 months was 71% vs 60% in favor of double HDM/ASCT (p=0.04). Subgroup analysis was performed based on presence/absence of adverse FISH (CA) in 395 patients treated with double HDM/ASCT. PFS at 60 months for each abnormality (CA or no CA) in bortezomib vs standard arm is given in Table 1 Table 1.PFS at 60 months, %OS at 60 months, %FISHnBortezomib armpStandard armBortezomib armpStandard Armt(4;14) yes/no50/29516% vs 27%0.048% vs 24%52% vs 75%0.0133% vs 64%add(1q) yes/no113/23116% vs 32%0.00510% vs 28%57% vs 79%0.00143% vs 70%del(17p) yes/no39/31222% vs 27%0.475% vs 24%65% vs 72%0.4818% vs 66% These data show that bortezomib treatment combined with double HDM/ASCT significantly improves PFS and OS in patients with del(17p) and almost abrogates the negative impact of this CA. In t(4;14) and add(1q) some improvement is observed, however the negative impact remains significant. In high-risk patients presenting with elevated creatinine >2 mg/dL bortezomib significantly improved PFS at 60 months (32% vs 5%) (p=0.001) and OS at 60 months (66% vs 21% months (p<0.001)). OS at 8 years was 46% vs 12%. Finally, OS from progression/relapse was not different between patients treated in the bortezomib vs standard arm (OS at 72 months: 33% vs 35%, p=0.73) Conclusions: We conclude that bortezomib leads to a significant and lasting improvement of PFS and OS. Bortezomib significantly reduces the high-risk impact of del(17p) and renal impairment on survival. This trial was registered as NTR213; EudraCT no. 2004-000944-26.and supported by the Dutch Cancer Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The GMMG group received grants for this trial by Novartis, AMGEN, Chugai and Roche. Disclosures Sonneveld: SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Salwender:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol Meyer Sqibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Blau:MSD: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Honoraria; JAZZ pharm: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; takeda millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; onyx: Honoraria. Weisel:Noxxon: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Broijl:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scheid:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Potamianou:Janssen: Employment. Hose:Takeda: Other: Travel grant; EngMab AG: Research Funding. Kersten:takeda millennium: Research Funding; janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Duehrsen:Alexion: Honoraria; janssen: Honoraria. Lokhorst:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2155-2155
Author(s):  
Nidhi Sharma ◽  
Nita Williams ◽  
Ashley E. Rosko ◽  
Don M. Benson ◽  
Maria Chaudhry ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Post autologous transplant maintenance therapy with lenalidomide for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is standard of care (McCarthy et al, NEJM, 2012). Vorinostat (SAHA, Zolinza) is a HDAC inhibitor and preclinical data suggested that HDAC-I's increase MHC class I and class II expression, rendering tumor cells more susceptible to host innate immune killing. Lenalidomide activates NK cells via PP2A inhibition and induces CD56 expression in CD16+CD56- cells thereby enhancing NK cell-mediated ADCC. Initiating lenalidomide to enhance NK cell activity against tumor cells in the early post autologous transplant period may be particularly effective when the NK:myeloma cell ratios favor NK killing, especially if administered after increased MHC class I expression induced by HDAC-I pretreatment. We hypothesized that the combination of vorinostat and lenalidomide would be both tolerable and effective in the post-transplant setting. We have published the initial report of this combination (Sborov, BJH, 2015). We now present the long term follow up. Methods: This was a non-randomized, open-label phase I trial for patients with myeloma who have received high dose IV melphalan followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (ASCT) following the three-and-three up-and-down phase I design. Vorinostat was administered beginning at 200 mg starting day +90 after HSCT for days 1-7 and 15-21 of a 28-day cycle combined with lenalidomide 10 mg days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle until progression or clinically significant toxicity. The initial dose of lenalidomide could be increased from 10 mg after cycle 1 and escalated as tolerated up to 25 mg. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled after autologous transplant with a median age 58 y.o. (range 41-67), with a median number of prior therapies at enrollment of 2 (range 1-8) and mean ISS stage 1.5 (range 1-3). Twelve patients had trisomies on CD138-selected FISH, one patient had normal cytogenetics, and three patients had high risk features [complicated karyotype, t(4;14), or abnormal chromosome 1]. All patients started with 10 mg of lenalidomide and 14 patients received more than one cycle of therapy. 11/14 (78%) were able to escalate the lenalidomide dose. 4/11 (36%) were able to escalate to 25 mg of lenalidomide. The tolerability, toxicities and adverse events have been previously reported (Sborov, BJH, 2015). With a median follow up of 84 months (range 17 - 88), 9 patients (56%) have progressed and 5(31%) have died due to disease progression. Seven patients (44%) remain in complete remission with 5 currently on continued maintenance more than 72 months from ASCT. The median progression-free survival (PFS) is 46.5 months (range 2 - 88) and the median overall survival (OS) has not been reached (17 to NR) (Figure 1). Conclusions: The combination of lenalidomide and vorinostat is well tolerated, with prolonged PFS and OS. Details on the current seven patients still in remission and on continued maintenance will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Hofmeister: Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4112-4112
Author(s):  
Charline Moulin ◽  
Romain Morizot ◽  
Thomas Remen ◽  
Hélène Augé ◽  
Florian Bouclet ◽  
...  

Introduction: About 2 to 10% of patients (pts) diagnosed with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) develop diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, so-called Richter transformation (RT)) over long-term follow-up. The outcomes of pts with RT are variable and poorly understood and there is no consensus on the best therapeutic approach. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical characteristics, outcomes and factors predictive of survival in a large series of RT from the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO). Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT (limited to DLBCL and excluding Hodgkin lymphoma) diagnosed from 2001 to 2018 were identified from eight FILO centers. Clinical and biological characteristics of CLL and RT at diagnosis, including cytogenetics, clonal relation with the pre-existing CLL, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status, cell of origin (COO) analyzed by immunohistochemistry and RT score (Tsimberidou AM et al, J Clin Oncol, 2006) were analyzed as well as treatment and outcomes. Overall survivals (OS) were defined as time from CLL and RT diagnosis to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4. Results: A total of 70 CLL pts who developed RT were identified. The median age at CLL diagnosis was 62 years old (range 35-82), and 50 (71.4 %) were male. The median time to transformation was 5.5 years (range 0 to 22 years), with 12 simultaneous diagnosis of CLL and RT. Prior to RT, 20 (29%) pts had not been treated for CLL, 50 received one (n=21) or more (n= 29) line of treatment ; 6 pts had received a novel agent (ibrutinib, idelalisib or venetoclax). The median age at RT diagnosis was 68 years old (range 42-88). All biopsies were centrally reviewed; 38/58 pts (66%) had elevated LDH (>1.5N) ; 35/65 pts (54 %) had bulky disease (≥ 5 cm); 10/54 (18.5%) pts had del(17p) or TP53 mutation ; 9/42 pts (21%) had a complex karyotype (at least 3 abnormalities). The CLL and RT were clonally related in 27/27 (100%) tested pts. COO by Hans algorithm was non germinal center B cell-like (GCB) in 26/28 pts (93%). EBV was positive or detected in 5/40 (12.5%) pts. The median of Ki67 positivity was 70% (range 30% to 100%). The RT score (based at RT diagnosis on ECOG performance status 2-4, LDH >1.5 x normal, platelets<100 x 109/L, tumor size >5 cm and >1 prior therapy for CLL) was : low risk in 17 pts (31%), low-intermediate risk in 10 pts (19%), high-intermediate risk in 14 pts (25%) and high risk in 14 pts (25%). The most common first-line treatment of RT was immunochemotherapy (n=57, 87%) including R-CHOP-like regimen (n=48, 73%). Autologous or allogeneic transplantation was performed for 7 pts (11%). Response to first-line treatment was complete or partial response in 26 pts (40%), and stable disease or progression in 39 pts (60%). After a median follow-up of 8 years, 51/64 pts (80%) have died. The main causes of death were progressive DLBCL (n=36, 71%), infection (n=8, 16%) or progressive CLL (n=2, 4%). The median OS of the cohort from CLL and RT diagnosis (Figure 1) were 7.8 years and 9.5 months, respectively. In univariate analysis, patients with TP53 disruption at CLL stage, low platelets count, elevated LDH, elevated beta2-microglobulin, high ECOG score, high RT score, EBV positivity and absence of response to first-line RT treatment had worse OS. The ECOG score, platelets count and TP53 disruption remain significant in multivariate Cox-regression. Last, we compared the clinical and biological parameters of two Richter groups defined as: (i) short-term survivors (<12 months, n = 34) and (ii) long-term survivors (>48 months, n = 18). Long survival was significantly associated with elevated platelets count, low LDH, low ECOG, low RT score and response to RT first-line treatment. Discussion: The clinical outcomes of RT patients is poor and novel treatment options are needed. However, a group of long-term survivors was identified, characterized by elevated platelets count, low LDH, low ECOG, low RT score and response to immunochemotherapy. Disclosures Leblond: Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Thieblemont:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cymbalista:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria. Guièze:Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Broseus:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Feugier:gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3697-3697
Author(s):  
Rebecca Elstrom ◽  
Soo Y. Lee ◽  
James B. Bussel

Abstract Abstract 3697 Introduction: Rituximab has been a useful treatment for patients with ITP; many hundreds of patients have been treated. 30–40% of patients will achieve a complete remission (CR: platelet count >150 × 109/l) with initial treatment and, of this group, the CR will last at least a year in almost all patients. However, emerging data suggests that at least 40% of these patients in CR will relapse between 1 and 3 years from initial treatment suggesting that long-term “cures” only occur in 20% of the initial patients. Therefore it would be desirable if CR's could be achieved in more patients and especially if these would be durable in more than 20%. One approach would be to use rituximab maintenance, however it results in suppression of B-cells for more than 2 years. Dexamethasone has also been used to achieve “cure” in ITP especially in adults at or near diagnosis. Cheng's study suggested that approximately 50% of patients would achieve a long-term response with only one 4-day cycle of high dose (40 mg/day) dexamethasone (N Engl J Med, 2003). A follow up study from GIMEMA suggested that 3–4 cycles of dexamethasone would be better than 1 cycle (Blood, 2007). Finally, Zaja's study suggested that rituximab plus one cycle of dexamethasone was superior to dexamethasone alone with a > 50% CR rate at 6 months (Blood, 2010). Therefore, we elected to perform a pilot study to explore the combination of rituximab with three cycles of dexamethasone at 14 day intervals. Methods: Patients with ITP with platelet counts < 30,000 off therapy and in need of treatment were enrolled. The standard dose (4 infusions of 375mg/m2) rituximab was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg (adjusted for size) on days 1–4, 15–18, and 29–32. Results: Fourteen patients between the ages of 4 and 53 years with ITP were treated with rituximab and dexamethasone (R&D) (Table 1). All had received previous steroid therapy as well as other treatments. The median platelet count was 40,000 at initiation of rituximab (range 7,000-230,000); several patients with low counts started with dexamethasone prior to initiating Rituximab to sustain their counts during initial treatment. Patients received rituximab weekly for between 2 and 4 doses and dexamethasone for either 2 or 3 courses at intervals between 1 and 8 weeks (median 2 week intervals). A summary of the results is shown in table 2 demonstrating short-lived platelet increases in response to dexamethasone in almost all patients. With short follow up, there were 7 CR's, 3 PR's and 4 NR's. If this was divided by duration of ITP prior to R&D, there were 4 CR's and 1 NR for ≤ 12 months and 3 CR, 3 PR, and 3 NR for > 12 months. More of the children who were treated had chronic disease than did adults explaining their apparently poorer response. Observed toxicities included hyperglycemia, grade 1 and 2 liver function abnormalities, weight gain, and 1 episode of colitis requiring hospitalization. Three patients opted to skip the third cycle of dexamethasone. Conclusion: A regimen of rituximab + 2–3 courses of dexamethasone is active in patients with pretreated ITP with appreciable but usually manageable toxicity. It appears to yield superior results if administered to patients within one year of diagnosis. This combination merits further exploration in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures: Bussel: Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cangene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3077-3077
Author(s):  
Sascha Dietrich ◽  
Damien Roos-Weil ◽  
Ariane Boumendil ◽  
Emanuelle Polge ◽  
Jian-Jian Luan ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3077 Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDC), formerly known as blastic NK cell lymphoma, is a rare hematopoietic malignancy preferentially involving the skin, bone marrow and lymph nodes. The overall prognosis of BPDC is dismal. Most patients show an initial response to acute leukemia-like chemotherapy, but relapses with subsequent drug resistance occur in virtually all patients resulting in a median overall survival of only 9–13 months. However, anecdotal long-term remissions have been reported in young patients who received early myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of patients identified in the EBMT registry in order to evaluate the outcome of autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) or alloSCT for BPDC. Eligible were all patients who had been registered with a diagnosis of BPDC or Blastic NK cell lymphoma and had received autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) or alloSCT in 2000–2009. Centres were contacted to provide a written histopathology and immunophenotyping report and information about treatment and follow-up details. Patients who did not have a diagnostic score ≥ 2 as proposed by Garnache-Ottou et al. (BJH 2009) were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 139 patients could be identified in the database who fulfilled the inclusion criteria (alloSCT 100, autoSCT 39). Of 74 patients for whom the requested additional information could be obtained, central review confirmed the diagnosis of BPDC in 39 patients (34 alloSCT, 5 autoSCT). The 34 patients who had undergone alloSCT had a median age of 41 years (range: 10–70 years), were transplanted from a related (n=11) or unrelated donor (n=23); received peripheral blood stem cells (n=9), bone marrow stem cells (n=19) or cord blood (n=6); and had been treated with a reduced intensity conditioning regimen (RIC, n=9) or myeloablative conditioning (MAC, n=25). Nineteen of 34 patients were transplanted in CR1. After a median follow up time of 28 months (range: 4–77+ months), 11 patients relapsed (median time to relapse: 8 months, range: 2–27 months) of whom 8 died due to disease progression. 9 patients died in the absence of relapse. No relapse occurred later than 27 months after transplant. Median disease free survival (DFS) was 15 months (range: 4–77+ months) and median overall survival (OS) was 22 months (range: 8–77+ months; Figure 1a). However, long-term remissions of up to 77 months after alloSCT could be observed. Patients allografted in CR1 tended to have a superior DFS (p=0.119) and OS (p=0.057; Figure 1b). MAC was associated with a better OS (p=0.001) which was attributable to the significantly higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) rate of patients after RIC (p=0.014), who had been significantly older (age RIC: 56 years, age MAC: 36 years, p=0.0014). The relapse rate was not different in patients after RIC and MAC, respectively. However, there was no survivor after RIC. Median age in the autoSCT group was 47 years (range: 14–62 years). Three of 5 patients were transplanted in CR1 of whom 1 patient relapsed after 8 months, 1 patient experienced treatment related mortality and 1 patient remained in CR for 28 months. The 2 remaining patients had more advanced disease at autoSCT and relapsed 4 and 8 months thereafter. CONCLUSION: AlloSCT is effective in BPDC and might provide curative potential in this otherwise incurable disease, especially when performed in CR1. However, it remains to be shown by prospective studies if the potential benefit of alloSCT in BPDC is largely due to conditioning intensity, or if there is a relevant contribution of graft-versus-leukemia activity. Disclosures: Tilly: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Speakers Bureau.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document