Efficacy and Safety Of Ponatinib Following Failure Of Nilotinib In Patients With Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) In The PACE Trial

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2738-2738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽  
Philipp D. le Coutre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Stock Options ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Anticancer Therapy ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Group I ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Information is generally lacking regarding the efficacy and safety of subsequent TKIs after failure of nilotinib. This post-hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of ponatinib, a potent oral pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor, following failure of nilotinib in CP-CML patients in the phase 2 PACE trial. Methods The PACE trial enrolled 449 patients, including 270 with CP-CML. Patients had to be resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib, or have the T315I mutation at baseline. The primary end point in CP-CML was MCyR at any time within 12 months after treatment initiation. The trial is ongoing. Data as of 1 April 2013 are reported, with a minimum follow-up of 18 months for patients remaining on study. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib (45 mg QD) in 106 CP-CML patients following failure of nilotinib as the most recent prior anticancer therapy, irrespective of other TKI therapy, is presented (Group N). Eleven patients who experienced failure of nilotinib but received ≥1 anticancer therapy, other than hydroxyurea or anagrelide, prior to ponatinib treatment were excluded from the analyses. Data are also presented for 2 subsets of Group N: 33 patients whose only TKI therapy was imatinib followed by nilotinib (Group I-N), and 68 patients whose only TKI therapy was imatinib, then dasatinib, and then nilotinib (Group I-D-N). An analysis of cross-intolerance was also conducted in 43 patients with prior nilotinib treatment at any time who discontinued nilotinib due to intolerance. Results Baseline characteristics are shown in the table. Group I-N tended to be younger, with less time since diagnosis versus Group I-D-N. At the time of analysis, 59%, 64%, and 56% of patients in Groups N, I-N, and I-D-N remained on study. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; 12%, 12%, 13%) and progressive disease (9%, 6%, 9%) in Groups N, I-N, and I-D-N. Efficacy endpoints are shown in the table. In Group N, MCyR was observed in patients with the following nilotinib-resistant mutations at baseline: Y253H, 1/2 (50%); E255K, 5/6 (83%); T315I, 12/22 (55%); F359V, 3/7 (43%); F359C, 1/2 (50%); F359I, 2/3 (67%). The most common treatment-related AEs were thrombocytopenia (38%, 33%, 40%), rash (35%, 30%, 37%), and dry skin (35%, 42%, 31%) in Groups N, I-N, and I-D-N. Serious cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular AEs occurred in 6%, 4%, and 2% of patients in Group N (treatment-related: 3%, 1%, 2%). Forty-four of 184 patients discontinued prior nilotinib at any time due to intolerance. Of these 44 patients, 24 experienced the same AE(s) with ponatinib that led to nilotinib intolerance; 12 patients had grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, 6 patients had other grade 3 AEs (2 with dyspnea, 1 each with atrial fibrillation, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, pain in extremity), 6 patients had grade 1/2 AEs. 7 of the 24 patients discontinued ponatinib due to the same AE that led to nilotinib intolerance. Thrombocytopenia (5 patients) was the primary AE involved in cross-intolerance; atrial fibrillation and pain in extremity each occurred once. Conclusions Ponatinib has substantial activity in patients with CP-CML following failure of nilotinib, with a safety profile reflective of this heavily pretreated population. Cross-intolerance between nilotinib and ponatinib was infrequent. Disclosures: Kantarjian: ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Cortes:Ariad, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy; Ariad, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Research Funding. Kim:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; IL-Yang: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding; Novatis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Paquette:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Chuah:Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Apperley:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding; Ariad, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeAngelo:ARIAD: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy. Rea:Pfizer: Honoraria; ARIAD: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Baccarani:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Müller:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. ARIAD: Employment. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment. Clackson:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Turner: ARIAD: Employment. Haluska: ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD: advisory board, advisory board Other, Consultancy; Novartis: advisory board, advisory board Other, Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldman:Ariad: Honoraria. Shah:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Efficacy and Safety Of Ponatinib Following Failure Of Dasatinib In Patients (pts) With Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) In The PACE Trial

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1498-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽  
Philipp D le Coutre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pleural Effusion ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Stock Options ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Group I ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Group D

Abstract Background The efficacy and safety of subsequent TKIs in pts who have experienced failure of dasatinib is not fully known. Ponatinib, a pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor, was evaluated in a phase 2, international, open-label clinical trial (PACE). This post-hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of ponatinib following failure of dasatinib in CP-CML pts in the PACE trial. Methods The PACE trial enrolled 449 pts, including 270 with CP-CML. Pts had to be resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib, or they had to have the T315I mutation at baseline. The primary endpoint in CP-CML was major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time within 12 months after treatment initiation. The trial is ongoing. Data as of 1 April 2013 are reported, with a minimum follow-up of 18 months for pts remaining on study. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib (45 mg QD) in 107 CP-CML pts following failure of dasatinib as the most recent prior therapy, irrespective of other TKI therapy, is presented (Group D). Eighteen pts who experienced failure of dasatinib but received ≥1 anticancer therapy, other than hydroxyurea or anagrelide, prior to ponatinib treatment were excluded from the analyses. Data are also presented for 2 subsets of Group D: 52 pts whose only TKI therapy was imatinib followed by dasatinib (Group I-D), and 46 pts whose only TKI therapy was imatinib, then nilotinib, and then dasatinib (Group I-N-D). An analysis of cross-intolerance was also conducted in 69 pts with prior dasatinib treatment at any time who discontinued dasatinib due to intolerance. Results Baseline characteristics are shown in the table. Group I-D tended to be younger, with less time since diagnosis versus Group I-N-D. At the time of analysis, 60%, 65%, and 54% of pts in Groups D, I-D, and I-N-D remained on study. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; 16%, 15%, 17%) and progressive disease (9%, 6%, 11%) in Groups D, I-D, and I-N-D. Efficacy end points are shown in the table. In Group D, MCyR was seen in pts with the following dasatinib-resistant mutations at baseline: V299L, 3/4 (75%); T315I, 17/23 (74%); F317L, 3/10 (30%). The most common treatment-related AEs were thrombocytopenia (44%, 37%, 57%), rash (39%, 39%, 39%), and dry skin (39%, 29%, 52%) in Groups D, I-D, and I-N-D. Serious cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular AEs occurred in 6%, 3%, and 3% of pts in Group D (treatment-related: 3%, 1%, 0%). Seventy-three of 217 pts receiving prior dasatinib at any time discontinued dasatinib due to intolerance. Of these 73 pts, 27 experienced the same AE(s) with ponatinib that led to dasatinib intolerance; 12 pts had grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, 6 pts had other grade 3/4 AEs (3 with neutropenia, 1 each with pleural effusion, dyspnea, pulmonary hypertension), 8 pts had grade 1/2 AEs. Six of these 27 pts discontinued ponatinib due to the same AE that led to dasatinib intolerance. Thrombocytopenia was the primary AE involved in cross-intolerance (4 pts); congestive cardiac failure (grade 5) and pleural effusion each occurred once. Conclusions Ponatinib has substantial activity in pts with CP-CML following failure of dasatinib, with a safety profile reflective of this heavily pretreated population. Cross-intolerance between dasatinib and ponatinib was infrequent. Disclosures: Hochhaus: Ariad, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Cortes:Ariad, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy; Ariad, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Research Funding. Kim:BMS, Novartis,IL-Yang: Consultancy; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer,ARIAD,IL-Yang: Research Funding; BMS, Novartis,Pfizer,IL-Yang: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis,Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis, Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis, Ariad, BMS and Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding; Novatis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Paquette:ARIAD, BMS, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Chuah:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Nicolini:Novartis, Ariad and Teva: Consultancy; Novartis & Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Teva, Pfizer, Ariad: Honoraria; Novartis, BMS, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Ariad, Teva, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Apperley:Novartis: Research Funding; Ariad, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding; Ariad, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeAngelo:Araid, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy. Rea:BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Ariad, Teva: Honoraria. Baccarani:Ariad, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Müller:Novartis, BMS, Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, BMS: Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer, BMS: Honoraria. Lustgarten:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment. Clackson:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Turner:ARIAD: Employment. Haluska:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Hughes:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldman:Ariad: Honoraria. Shah:Ariad, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian:RIAD, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Frontline Treatment with Ibrutinib Plus Rituximab (IR) Followed By Short Course R-Hypercvad/MTX Is Extremely Potent and Safe in Patients (age ≤ 65 years) with Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) - Results of Phase-II Window-1 Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3987-3987 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Wang ◽  
Preetesh Jain ◽  
Hun Ju Lee ◽  
F. B. Hagemeister ◽  
Felipe Samaniego ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Ki 67 ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Short Course ◽  
Free Induction ◽  
Grade 3

Background - Combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) has generated significant efficacy and safety data in relapsed patients (pts) with MCL. In this single institution phase II trial, we investigated the efficacy and safety of using an IR combination followed by short course (4 cycles) of R-HCVAD/MTX-ara-C as consolidation in previously untreated young (age ≤ 65 years) pts with MCL. We hypothesized that using a chemo-free induction will mitigate the toxicities and risk of second cancers which are associated with the use of intensive chemoimmunotherapy regimen in these pts. Methods - We enrolled 131 previously untreated young (≤65 years) pts with MCL. This study is registered with a ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT02427620. Pts received IR induction (part-A), until they achieved complete remission (CR) for up to a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by a maximum of 4 cycles of R-HCVAD/R-MTX-ara-C (part-B) as consolidation. None of the patients received stem cell transplant or maintenance therapy. The primary objective was to assess overall response rate (ORR), [defined as either a partial response (PR) or a complete response (CR)] after part A. Adverse events were coded as per CTCAE version 4. Among evaluable samples, minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry at best response, clonal evolution using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline somatic mutations and baseline gene expression profile (GEP) are being evaluated. Results - Among the 131 pts, the median follow up was 22 months (1.4-48.70). Eighty percent were males. Median age was 56 yrs (range - 35-65). Forty nine percent had high Ki-67 (≥30%), 80% had low risk simplified MIPI score and 85% pts had initial marrow involvement. Fifteen pts had aggressive MCL (blastoid/pleomorphic), 17 pts had complex karyotype and 83% had positive SOX-11 expression. Median number of cycles on IR in part A was 7 (1-12). At week 16 on part A, the ORR was 95% (22% CR and 73% PR) and 5% pts had stable disease. Overall best response (ORR) on part A of therapy was 100% (88% CR and 12% PR) and at the time of last follow up after completion of part A and part B, ORR was 100% (94% CR). Among evaluable pts, MRD- negative CR rate assessed by bone marrow flow cytometry performed at best response at any phase of treatment was 78%. Among the 10 pts with TP53 mutations, 70% had a CR on part A alone. Overall, the median PFS and OS were not reached (3 year 85% and 97% respectively). Nine pts had relapsed after treatment, including 3 who transformed. Among these 9 pts, 7/9 pts had Ki-67% ≥ 30% and 3/9 pts had aggressive histology MCL. The PFS and OS were not significantly different among pts with high and low Ki-67% and among pts with/without achieving CR on part A and while PFS was significantly shorter in pts with aggressive MCL histology (p=0.005) but not the OS. Overall 3 pts died (one on study due to splenic hematoma, cardio-pulmonary arrest and was on IR for 1 month, one expired outside and was off study after discontinuation due to encephalitis and another expired outside and discontinued due to disease transformation). Twenty one pts came off study for various reasons [nine disease progression (including 3 transformation), 8 pt choice, 3 intolerance and one second cancer]. Grade 3-4 toxicities on part A were 4% myelosuppression and 8% each with fatigue, myalgia and rashes and 4% mucositis. None had grade 3-4 atrial fibrillation or bleeding. GEP was performed in 18 pts (2 PR, 16 CR on part A). Pts in PR had higher expression of HES1 while those in CR had significantly higher expression of CTLA4 and ITK genes compared with those in PR. Targeted DNA sequencing was done in 18 pts at baseline, one pt with PR had NSD2, KMT2C and another pt had TP53 mutations and had CR. Conclusions - Excellent responses were observed with IR combination which is a chemo-free induction treatment strategy for young pts with MCL. This treatment approach has a strong potential to change the treatment paradigm in MCL pts to minimize the toxicity from chemoimmunotherapy without compromising the treatment efficacy and safety. Disclosures Wang: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lee:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Westin:Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Neelapu:Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding. Fowler:TG Therapeutics: 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: 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.

A Phase I Study of Bendamustine Combined with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Patients with Refractory or Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1856-1856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lentzsch ◽  
Amy O’Sullivan ◽  
Silvana Lalo ◽  
Carrie Kruppa ◽  
Diane Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1856 Poster Board I-882 Background: Lenalidomide is an analog of thalidomide that has shown significant clinical activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), both as a single agent and in combination with dexamethasone. Bendamustine is a bifunctional alkylating agent that is approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that has progressed during or relapsed within 6 months following a rituximab-containing regimen. Bendamustine combined with lenalidomide may be an effective treatment option for MM patients, particularly those with preexisting or bortezomib-induced neuropathy. Our primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety profile of bendamustine and lenalidomide when administered with dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed, measurable stage 2 or 3 MM that was refractory to or progressed after 1 or more prior therapies, including lenalidomide, received bendamustine by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 2, oral lenalidomide on days 1–21, and oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until a plateau of best response, as determined by the IBMTR/ABMTR, was reached. Study drug doses were escalated through 4 levels (Table), with 3–6 patients enrolled at each level depending on the rate of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). After determining the MTD, up to an additional 12 patients will be enrolled in an MTD expansion arm to better evaluate toxicity and clinical activity. Secondary endpoints included preliminary efficacy, as evidenced by objective response, time to disease progression, and overall survival. Results: To date, 11 patients have been enrolled, with a median age of 63 years (range, 38–75 years). The MTD of bendamustine and lenalidomide has not been identified at this point; currently, patients are enrolling on dose level 3 with 100 mg/m2 bendamustine and 10 mg lenalidomide. Thus far, DLT included 1 grade 4 neutropenia at dose level 2. Nine of 11 patients are currently eligible for response assessment. A partial response was observed in 67% of patients, including 1 very good partial response and 5 partial responses (PR). Two patients experienced stable disease and 1 exhibited progressive disease. Grade 3/4 adverse events included grade 3 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, and prolonged QTC, and 1 grade 4 neutropenia. Conclusions: Bendamustine, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone form a well-tolerated and highly active regimen even in heavily pretreated MM patients, with a PR rate of 67%. Additional updates on response and MTD will be available at the time of presentation. Disclosures: Lentzsch: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Bendamustine is not FDA approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma in the USA. Burt:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mapara:Resolvyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Spouse is consultant , has received research funding, and participates on advisory board; Cephalon: Spouse has received funding for clinical trial and participates on advisory board. Redner:Biogen: Equity Ownership; Wyeth: Equity Ownership; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Acceleron: Consultancy. Zonder:Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cephalon: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Speaking (CME only); no promotional talks.

Efficacy and Safety of Retreatment with Bortezomib in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Interim Results From RETRIEVE, a Prospective International Phase 2 Study.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3866-3866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Igor W. Blau ◽  
Paolo Corradini ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Johannes Drach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bortezomib Treatment ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3866 Poster Board III-802 Bortezomib (Velcade®) retreatment has been shown to be active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) in a number of retrospective studies and a small prospective phase 4 study (EVEREST). This large, prospective, international, multi-center, open-label phase 2 study was conducted to confirm the efficacy and safety of retreatment with bortezomib in MM patients who had previously responded (at least partial response [PR]) to bortezomib-based therapy as their most recent prior treatment. Patients had to have previously tolerated bortezomib 1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2 alone or in combination and have had a treatment-free interval (TFI; time from last dose of initial bortezomib treatment to first dose of bortezomib retreatment) of ≥6 months. Additional eligibility criteria included progressive disease or relapse from complete response (CR) by EBMT criteria, no MM therapy (except maintenance with dexamethasone, thalidomide, or interferon) since the last dose of initial bortezomib treatment, KPS ≥60, and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function; patients with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy or neuropathic pain (as defined by NCI CTCAE v3.0) were excluded. Patients received bortezomib at the last tolerated dose (1.0 or 1.3 mg/m2) during initial treatment on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for up to eight 21-day cycles, either alone or in combination with dexamethasone at the investigator's discretion. Response was assessed by EBMT criteria every 6 weeks during treatment and then every 2 months until disease progression. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCI CTCAE v3.0. A total of 130 patients received at least 1 dose of bortezomib retreatment and were included in the safety population. Patients had a median age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 16% had KPS '70%. Median time from diagnosis of MM was 4.5 years (range 0–14 years); median number of prior therapies was 2; 15, 80, 23, and 12 patients had received 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 prior lines of therapy (excluding initial bortezomib therapy). Best response by EBMT criteria to initial bortezomib treatment was CR in 26% and PR in 74% of patients; median time to progression and TFI after initial bortezomib treatment were 17.9 months and 14.3 months, respectively. Last tolerated dose of previous bortezomib therapy was 1.3 mg/m2 and 1.0 mg/m2 for 62% and 29% of patients, respectively; 9% received another dose. Patients received a median 7.0 (range 1–8) cycles of bortezomib retreatment (23% of patients completed all 8 cycles); 72% of patients received concomitant dexamethasone. A total of 126 patients were evaluable for response. In the 126 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR; CR+PR) by best confirmed response (EBMT criteria) was 40%; in addition, 18% of patients achieved minimal response (MR), to give a CR+PR+MR rate of 58%. After a planned secondary efficacy analysis, the ORR (CR+PR) by single best response was 55% (75% ≥MR). Median time to best confirmed response (≥MR) was 2.9 months; time to first response was 1.5 months. Analysis of ORR by patient subgroups showed comparable results in patients who did versus did not receive concomitant dexamethasone (42% vs 32%), in those who received ≤1.0 mg/m2 vs 1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib (35% vs 41%), and in those aged ≤65 years vs >65 years (45% vs 36%). ORR was 67%, 39%, 33%, and 25% in patients who had received 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 prior lines of therapy (excluding initial bortezomib), respectively. Analysis of best confirmed responses according to response to initial bortezomib showed that 63% and 52% of patients who achieved a CR or PR, respectively, to initial bortezomib treatment responded to retreatment. Most (98%) patients experienced a treatment-emergent AE; 60% experienced a grade 3/4 AE, and 32% experienced a serious AE; there were 8 deaths, 2 of which (due to sepsis and stroke) were possibly treatment-related. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (35%), neutropenia (7%), diarrhea (7%), and pneumonia (5%). AEs leading to dose reductions or discontinuations were reported for 22% and 12% of patients, respectively. The incidence of neuropathy was 39%, including 9% grade 3; 4% of patients discontinued treatment due to PN; 61% of neuropathy events resolved or improved within a median 1.3 months. These results confirm that bortezomib retreatment is a well-tolerated, feasible, and active therapeutic option for heavily pretreated MM patients without evidence of cumulative toxicity. Disclosures: Petrucci: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria. Drach:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Efficacy and Safety of Nilotinib in Elderly Patients with Imatinib-Resistant or -;Intolerant Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in Chronic Phase (CP): A Sub-Analysis of the ENACT (Expanding Nilotinib Access in Clinical Trials) Study.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3286-3286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp D. le Coutre ◽  
Anna Turkina ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Bernadeta Ceglarek ◽  
Giuliana Alimena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Imatinib Resistant ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3286 Poster Board III-1 Introduction: Nilotinib, a potent and highly selective BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogeneous leukemia (Ph+ CML) in chronic phase (CML-CP) and accelerated phase (CML-AP) who are resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib. The ENACT study is a Phase IIIb, open-label, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib in adult pts with imatinib-resistant or intolerant CML in a clinical practice setting outside of a registration program. It is the largest single source of efficacy and safety information of any available tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in CML, particularly among the elderly. Methods: The present is a sub-analysis of the ENACT study on the efficacy and safety of 400 mg twice daily nilotinib in elderly (aged =60 years) pts initiating treatment in CML-CP who were resistant and/or intolerant to imatinib. Results: Of the 1,422 CML-CP pts enrolled in the ENACT study between January 2006 and October 2008, 452 (32%) were elderly (=60 years) at study initiation and 165 (37%) of these pts were =70 years [10 (2%) were =80 years]. Countries that enrolled =20 elderly pts include France, Italy, USA, Germany, UK, Spain, Canada, and Brazil. At study initiation, elderly pts had longer median durations of CML (<60: 51.1 months; =60: 69.3; =70: 66.6) and higher proportions with CML duration >5 years (<60: 43%; =60: 56%; =70: 52%). Besides imatinib, prior CML treatments received by elderly pts included dasatinib (=60: 20%; =70: 19%), cytarabine (=60: 23%; =70: 19%), busulfan (=60: 10%; =70: 7%), and interferons (=60: 50%; =70: 42%). Elderly pts were previously treated with imatinib for longer median durations (<60: 27.4 months; =60: 32.7; =70: 29.9), with higher proportions treated for >5 years (<60: 12%; =60: 19%; =70: 18%). The proportion of imatinib-intolerant to resistant elderly pts was about 1:1, which was higher than the proportion among <60 pts at about 0.6:1, such that relatively few elderly pts had prior highest imatinib dose >800 mg (<60: 34%; =60: 26%; =70: 21%). While response rates to prior imatinib were similar, among pts who required therapy after failing imatinib, elderly pts had lower cytogenetic response rates (<60: 22%; =60: 17%; =70: 19%) to prior dasatinib. During ENACT, less than 50% of elderly pts experienced nilotinib dose interruptions (=60: 46%; =70: 41%) and reductions (=60: 7%; =70: 6%) lasting >5 days, which was consistent with the overall ENACT dataset. The median duration of dose interruptions and reductions was 15 (=70: also 15) and 41 (=70: 32) days, respectively. The main reason for dose interruptions and reductions was adverse events (AEs). The median duration of nilotinib exposure was 227 days (=70: 219) and the median dose intensity was 749 mg/day (=70: 775). Efficacy was similar among elderly pts, with 39% (=70: 35%) of pts achieving complete hematologic response (CHR), 41% (=70: 39%) achieving major cytogenetic response (MCyR) and 31% (=70: 33%) achieving complete cytogenetic response (CCyR). MCyR rate was also similar among elderly hematologic responders (=60: 64%; =70: 65%). Among elderly pts requiring nilotinib therapy after both imatinib and dasatinib, and therefore have more resistant CML, CHR rate was 39% (=70: 32%), MCyR rate was 28% (=70: 29%) and CCyR rate was 20% (=70: 16%). Safety was likewise similar among elderly pts, with grade 3/4 study drug-related AEs occurring in 56% of pts (=70: 53%). The most frequent of these AEs were thrombocytopenia (=60: 24%; =70: 21%) and neutropenia (=60: 14%; =70: 11%). The most common method of managing these AEs was brief dose interruptions and/or reductions [thrombocytopenia (=60:86/108 pts; =70: 30/35), neutropenia (=60: 42/62 pts; =70: 9/18)]. Among elderly pts with prior dasatinib, 53% (=70: 58%) experienced grade 3/4 study drug-related AEs, while 7 out of 8 pts with pleural effusion on dasatinib no longer had it on nilotinib. Conclusions: In ENACT, pts aged =60 years at study initiation appear to have longer durations of CML, be more heavily pre-treated and more intolerant to imatinib than the younger cohort. Nonetheless, nilotinib induced comparable clinical responses in CML-CP pts regardless of age. Importantly, the safety profile of nilotinib is maintained in elderly pts. Disclosures: le Coutre: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Turkina:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Kim:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding. Ceglarek:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Shen:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Smith:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Szczudlo:Novartis: Employment. Berton:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wang:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wang:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nicolini:Novartis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chemgenex: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

A Phase I Study of Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone In Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Excellent Tolerability and Promising Activity In a Heavily Pretreated Population

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1951-1951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Donna Weber ◽  
Constantine S. Mitsiades ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Jean-Luc Harousseau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1951 Background: Although novel treatment combinations for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved outcomes, the disease remains incurable and new drug combinations are urgently needed. Vorinostat is an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor approved in the United States for treatment of patients (pts) with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma who failed prior therapies. Vorinostat alters gene expression and protein activity, promoting MM cell death through multiple pathways, and has been shown in preclinical studies to synergistically enhance the anti-MM activity of bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs, including lenalidomide, with or without dexamethasone. Aims: The primary objective of this Phase I study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. Secondary objectives included overall safety, tolerability, response rate, duration of response, and time to progression (TTP). Methods: Pts in this Phase I multicenter open-label study were sequentially enrolled into 1 of 5 escalating doses of the combination regimen using a standard 3 + 3 design for ≤8 cycles. Pts who tolerated treatment and experienced clinical benefit were eligible for enrollment in an extension phase. Toxicity was evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (version 3.0). Response was assessed using the modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria and International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Criteria. Safety and efficacy data were analyzed using summary statistics, except for TTP, which was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: As of July 15, 2010, 31 pts were treated and evaluable for toxicity; 4 pts remain on study. Most pts had received prior thalidomide (n=22; 71%), bortezomib (n=20; 65%), or lenalidomide (n=14; 45%), with a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1–10). The patient population contained both high-risk and low-risk pts, based on cytogenetic and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in severity. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs, experienced by 19 (61%) pts, were neutropenia (26%), thrombocytopenia (16%), diarrhea (13%), anemia (10%), and fatigue (10%); 8 pts discontinued due to toxicity. One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea lasting >48 h) was observed at the maximum assessed dose (level 5), but MTD was not reached (Table) and there were no treatment-related deaths. Among 30 pts evaluable for response, the median TTP was 32 weeks (5 mo), and 4 pts remain on study as of the data cutoff date; 26 of 30 pts (87%) have achieved at least stable disease (SD). Best single responses included 2 complete responses, 3 very good partial responses (VGPR), 11 partial responses (PR), and 5 minimal responses (MR), with 5 pts achieving SD and 4 developing progressive disease, resulting in an overall response rate (ORR; PR or better) of 53%. Of 13 evaluable pts who had previously received lenalidomide, a best single response of SD or better was observed in 9 (69%; 2 VGPR, 3 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD), resulting in a 38% ORR. Notably, SD or better (2 PR, 1 MR, 3 SD) was observed in 60% of 10 evaluable pts who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to previous lenalidomide-containing regimens. Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Phase I study suggest that vorinostat plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone is a convenient and generally well-tolerated regimen with promising activity for relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM. The MTD for this combination was not reached. Importantly, responses were observed in pts who had received prior lenalidomide, bortezomib, and thalidomide. Further evaluation of this regimen is planned in future trials. Disclosures: Richardson: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Vorinostat, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for treatment in Multiple Myeloma. Weber:Novartis-unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Merck- unpaid consultant: Consultancy; Celgene- none for at least 2 years: Honoraria; Millenium-none for 2 years: Honoraria; Celgene, Millenium, Merck: Research Funding. Mitsiades:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck & Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kosan Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centrocor: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Patents & Royalties; OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AVEO Pharma: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gloucester Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harousseau:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Houp:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Graef:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Gause:Merck Research Laboratories: Employment. Byrne:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene and Millennium: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board.

Pomalidomide (POM) with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDEX) in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Outcomes Based on Prior Treatment Exposure

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4070-4070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Craig C. Hofmeister ◽  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
David S. Siegel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Prior Exposure ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 4070 Background: There are currently limited effective treatment options for patients (pts) with RRMM with prior exposure to lenalidomide (LEN), bortezomib (BORT) and chemotherapy. In a multicenter, randomized phase 2 study, POM with or without LoDEX (n=221) was active in RRMM pts who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634); activity was also observed in those with disease refractory to LEN, BORT, or both (Vij R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:abs 8016). Here we characterize outcomes in the POM+LoDEX group (n=113) according to the prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT, and had progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At randomization, pts were stratified by age, prior number of treatments, and prior thalidomide exposure. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. All pts received thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). The endpoints in this study were progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (using European Bone Marrow Transplantation [EBMT] criteria), duration of response, time to response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Response data according to prior therapy were assessed by investigator assessment. Results: All 113 pts assigned to POM+LoDEX had prior exposure to LEN (100%), BORT (100%), and steroids (100%). Most pts had also received prior alkylator therapy (93%), stem cell transplant (SCT) (73%), and thalidomide (THAL) (68%); 49% had received prior anthracyclines. Regimens immediately prior to study entry included BORT (50%), LEN (39%), cyclophosphamide (13%), THAL (8%), vorinostat (8%), carfilzomib (5%), and melphalan (5%). The median number of exposures to LEN and BORT in prior lines was once (range 1–4) and twice (range 1–6), respectively. The majority of pts (80%) had received >3 prior therapies. The overall response rate (ORR) was 48% and 30% in pts who had received ≤3 and >3 prior therapies, respectively. Of the pts who had ≤3 vs > 3 prior therapies, 9% vs 1% pts achieved complete response (CR), 39% vs 29% pts achieved partial response (PR), 9% vs 12% pts achieved minimal response (MR) and 44% vs 36 % pts achieved stable disease (SD), respectively. ORR was 34% and appeared similar regardless of prior exposure to alkylators (33%), anthracyclines (35%), SCT (35%), or THAL (35%). Median duration of response was also similar in pts who had received prior alkylators (8.4 mos), anthracyclines (10.1 mos), SCT (7.7 mos), and THAL (7.7 mos). Of the 69 pts who had a best response of SD or PD to their last prior antimyeloma therapy, 21 pts (12 SD and 9 PD) achieved a PR and 3 pts (1 SD and 2 PD) achieved a CR with POM+LoDEX treatment. Responding pts had longer time to progression (TTP; 11.1 mos) with POM+LoDex compared with the TTP (4.4 mos) observed with their last antimyeloma regimen prior to study. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the POM+LoDEX group were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and fatigue (14%). The incidence of at least 1 grade 3–4 adverse event was 100% in pts with ≤ 3 prior therapies, and 88% in pts with >3 therapies. Conclusions: The combination of POM+LoDEX has demonstrated an ORR of 34% in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM who have been previously exposed to LEN, BORT, steroids, and other treatments. Early treatment of POM+LoDEX (≤3 prior therapies) achieved better ORR (48%) compared with pts who received POM+LoDex later (>3 prior therapies; ORR, 30%). Disclosures: Vij: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other. Jagannath:Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 801-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Cervantes ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Dietger Niederwieser ◽  
Andres Sirulnik ◽  
Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Extension Phase ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Ponatinib In Heavily Pretreated Patients With Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML): Management Of Adverse Events (AEs)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1496-1496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp D. Le Coutre ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽  
Ronald Paquette ◽  
Charles Chuah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Stock Options ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Peripheral Vascular ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Dose Modification ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Initial Onset ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Ponatinib is a potent oral pan–BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against native and mutant BCR-ABL. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib (45 mg once daily) in pts with CP-CML were evaluated in the phase 2 PACE trial. Objectives To review the management of treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) that emerged during therapy with ponatinib in the PACE trial. Methods A total of 270 CP-CML pts (267 in efficacy population) resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib or with the T315I mutation were enrolled in this ongoing, phase 2, international, open-label clinical trial. The primary endpoint was major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time within 12 mos. Safety monitoring included collection of AEs, and the following variables were evaluated: incidence, severity, time to onset, duration, and management. Select TRAEs are discussed. Data as of 01 Apr 2013 are reported, with a median follow-up of 20 (0.1–28) mos. Minimum follow-up for pts remaining on study was 18 mos. Results Median age was 60 (18-94) yrs; median time from diagnosis to first dose was 7 (0.5-27) yrs; 93% had ≥2 prior TKIs, 60% ≥3. Ponatinib demonstrated significant activity in CP-CML pts: 56% MCyR, 46% CCyR, and 36% MMR. At the time of analysis, 60% of pts remained on study. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were AEs (14%) and progression (8%). The most common hematologic TRAE was thrombocytopenia (41% any grade, 32% grade 3/4). The incidence by time to initial onset is shown below (Figure). Pts experienced thrombocytopenia for a median total duration of 166 days (64% of whom had >1 event) and typically required dose modification: 13% drug withdrawn, 40% dose reduced, 29% dose interrupted only, 17% no dose modification. Among pts with thrombocytopenia, 27% required a platelet transfusion. Thirteen percent of CP-CML pts experienced treatment-related neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. The most common nonhematologic TRAE was rash (39% any grade, 4% grade 3/4), which includes erythematous, macular, and papular rash. Pts experienced rash for a median total duration of 65 days (46% of whom had >1 event) and most did not require dose modification: 0% drug withdrawn, 15% dose reduced, 11% dose interrupted only, 73% no dose modification. One additional pt discontinued due to grade 2 treatment-related exfoliative rash. Pancreatitis was observed (7% any grade, 6% grade 3/4). Median duration was 5 days. Pts were typically managed with dose modification: 5% drug withdrawn, 58% dose reduced, 32% dose interrupted only, 5% no dose modification. Treatment-emergent cardiovascular events were observed in 8% of pts and treatment-emergent cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular events in 11%. Cardiovascular events were considered treatment-related in 4%; cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular events were also considered treatment-related in 4%. The median time to initial onset was 9 mos for cardiovascular and 11 mos for cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular events. The median duration was 6 and 97 days, respectively. Management of pts with cardiovascular AEs: 20% drug withdrawn, 10% dose reduced, 40% dose interrupted only, 30% no dose modification. Management of pts with cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular AEs: 8% drug withdrawn; 8% dose reduced; 17% dose interrupted only; 67% no dose modification. Conclusions Ponatinib has robust antileukemic activity in heavily pretreated CP-CML pts (93% of whom received ≥2 prior TKIs). Treatment-related thrombocytopenia and pancreatitis generally occurred early in therapy and were manageable with dose modification. Treatment-related rash generally occurred early in therapy, was mild-to-moderate in severity, managed without the need for dose modification, and rarely led to discontinuation. Management of treatment-related arterial thrombotic events varied; pts with predisposing cardiovascular risk factors should be monitored closely and managed accordingly. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01207440 aIncidence = (number of pts with initial onset during time interval) / (number of pts dosed during time interval [N] excluding those who previously experienced the event) X 100 Disclosures: Le Coutre: Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Kim:BMS, Novartis, IL-Yang: Consultancy; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, ARIAD, IL-Yang: Research Funding; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, IL-Yang: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis, Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis, Ariad, BMS and Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Paquette:Ariad, BMS, Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad, BMS, Novartis: Honoraria; Ariad, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Chuah:Novartis, BMS: Honoraria. Nicolini:Novartis, ARIAD, Teva: Consultancy; Novartis, BMS: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Teva, Pfizer, ARIAD: Honoraria; Novartis, BMS, TEva: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, ARIAD, Teva, Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Apperley:Novartis: Research Funding; Ariad, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding; Ariad, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeAngelo:Ariad, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy. Rea:BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Ariad, Teva: Honoraria. Baccarani:ARIAD, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy; ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria; ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Speakers Bureau. Muller:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Consultancy; Novartis, BMS: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer, BMS: Honoraria. Lustgarten:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Yanase:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other, Employment. Turner:ARIAD: Employment. Haluska:ARIAD: employees of and own stock/stock options in ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc Other, Employment. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Hochhaus:Ariad, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldman:ARIAD: Honoraria. Shah:Ariad, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Phizer: Research Funding. Cortes:Ariad, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy; Ariad, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Research Funding.

scholarly journals A Phase I/II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Obinutuzumab in Relapsed Indolent Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 348-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan H Fowler ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Collin Chin ◽  
Paolo Strati ◽  
Fredrick B. Hagemeister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Marginal Zone ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Indolent Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) can develop chemoresistance and most relapse following standard therapy. Although multiple treatment options exist, most are associated with short remission or intolerable side effects. Lenalidomide activates NK cells ± T cells and leads to in vivo expansion of immune effector cells in NHL models. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide (R2) in relapsed iNHL is highly active and was recently approved. Obinutuzumab is a glycosylated type II anti-CD20 molecule with enhanced affinity for the FcγRIIIa receptors leading to improved ADCC. The primary objective of this phase I/II study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of lenalidomide and obinutuzumab in relapsed indolent lymphoma. Methods: Patients with relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), marginal zone, and follicular lymphoma (gr 1-3a) were eligible. Patients enrolled in three predefined dose cohorts of lenalidomide (10mg,15mg, 20mg) given on days 2-22 of a 28 day cycle. Obinutuzumab was given at a fixed dose (1000mg) IV on days 1,8,15 and 22 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles for 6 cycles. The combination was given for up to 12 cycles in responding pts. Antihistamines were given in pts who developed rash. Prophylactic growth factor was not allowed. In the absence of progression or toxicity, single agent obinutuzumab was continued every 2 months for maximum of 30 months on study. Traditional 3+3 dose escalation was used with dose limiting toxicities (DLT) assessed during cycle 1. Once the MTD was established, 60 additional patients were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study. Adverse events were graded using CTCAE version 4.03. Results: 66 pts were enrolled between May 2014 until March 2019, and all are eligible for safety and response assessment. No DLTs were observed in dose escalation, and 60 pts were enrolled in the phase II portion of the study at 20mg of lenalidomide daily. Histologies included follicular lymphoma (FL) n=57, marginal zone n=4, SLL n=5. The median age was 64 (36-81), with 2 (1-5) median prior lines of treatment. For 53% of pts, the combination represented the third or greater line of treatment. The overall response (OR) rate for all pts was 98% with 72% attaining a complete response (CR). Eighteen pts (27%) had a partial response, and stable disease was noted in 1 (2%). At a median follow up of 17 months, 14 pts have progressed, with an estimated 24mo progression-free survival (PFS) of 73% (57-83% 95% CI). The estimated 24 mo PFS for ≥ third line pts was 63%. Twenty five pts (38%) remain on treatment and 95% remain alive at last follow up. The most common grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic toxicities included fatigue (5 pts), rash (4 pts), and cough (3 pts). Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11 (17%) and 7 (11%) pts respectively. Two pts stopped treatment due to adverse events, including 1 transient bradycardia and 1 grade 3 fatigue. Conclusion: The combination of 20 mg of lenalidomide and 1000mg obinutuzumab is safe and effective in patients with relapsed indolent lymphoma. Adverse events appeared similar to our prior experience with lenalidomide and rituximab and were generally well tolerated. Overall response rates were high, with many pts achieving prolonged remission, including pts who had relapsed after 2 or more lines of prior therapy. Validation studies in the frontline and salvage setting are ongoing. Disclosures Fowler: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: 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; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: 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. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Westin:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Neelapu:Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document