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

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

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.694.694 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 694-694 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽

Nelson Spector ◽

Brian Leber ◽

Ricardo Pasquini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Minimal Residual Disease ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

The Difference ◽

Minimal Residual

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

Download Full-text

Long-Term Survival in Adult Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Who Achieved Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Response Following Anti-CD19 BiTE® Blinatumomab

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.2287.2287 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 2287-2287 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Gerhard Zugmaier ◽

Nicola Goekbuget ◽

Andreas Viardot ◽

Matthias Stelljes ◽

Svenja Neumann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-precursor ALL in adults has an unfavorable prognosis with a median overall survival of 4–8 months and a 5-year survival of <10%. Long-term follow-up data are presented from an exploratory phase 2 study with blinatumomab, an investigational bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct that directs cytotoxic T-cells to CD19-expressing target cells (Topp MS et al. Blood 2012;120(21):670). Methods: The primary endpoint was hematologic complete remission (CR) or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh*) within 2 cycles of blinatumomab. Secondary endpoints included rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) response (defined as < 10-4), overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Blinatumomab was administered by continuous intravenous infusion for 28 days followed by a 14-day treatment-free interval. Responding patients had the option to receive 3 additional cycles of treatment or to proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Results: 36 patients were treated; 25 (69%) responded, with 15 (42%) achieving CR and 10 (28%) CRh*. MRD response was achieved in 22 (88%) of these 25 patients with CR or CRh*. Thirteen patients with CR or CRh* proceeded to aHSCT after blinatumomab treatment. In addition, one patient with hypocellular bone marrow and MRD response after the first cycle underwent aHSCT. Follow-up for RFS is 22.4 months; median RFS is 8.8 months. Median follow-up for OS is 30.2 months; median OS is 12.9 months. Ten patients (28%) are alive at 29.7 months (Figure). We analyzed the characteristics of the 10 living long-term survivors, defined as OS of 2 years or longer, seven of whom were relapse-free. The age of these 10 patients at the time of first infusion ranged from 21 to 72 years; the blast count at screening ranged from 8% to 97% (median, 56%). Four of the 10 patients alive had received aHSCT prior to blinatumomab treatment. Of the six patients without a prior aHSCT, two were primary refractory; two had the first relapse within 12 months and two after 12 months post first diagnosis. In the 10 surviving patients blinatumomab treatment induced CR in seven patients, CRh* in two patients, and blast-free hypo-cellular bone marrow in one patient. All 10 surviving patients had an MRD response following blinatumomab treatment. The patient with hypocellular bone marrow received a transplant after the first cycle before potential recovery of blood counts qualifying for CR/CRh* could occur. Seven of the surviving patients underwent aHSCT after blinatumomab, including four patients who received a second aHSCT after they had already received an aHSCT prior to blinatumomab. One of the three patients who did not undergo aHSCT after CRh* had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome requiring resuscitation after 1 day of blinatumomab treatment and has remained in ongoing remission for 22 months without any further treatment aside from 5 cycles of blinatumomab. Another one of these three patients, who had a grade 3 neurologic event on day 2 of cycle 2, has remained in ongoing remission for 34 months without any further treatment aside from 5 cycles of blinatumomab. The third of these three patients had two CD19-positive relapses after CR following blinatumomab treatment. The patient was retreated with 3 cycles of blinatumomab, resulting twice in CR and MRD response. Two of the 10 surviving patients relapsed after blinatumomab and aHSCT; one patient with a CD 19-negative relapse achieved another hematologic remission by chemotherapy. Summary: These data show that patients with r/r ALL, who achieved MRD response and received subsequent aHSCT following blinatumomab immunotherapy may achieve long-term survival longer than 2 years. Studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm these data. Two patients with grade 3 or 4 toxicities showed long-term survival without aHSCT after blinatumomab. Figure Figure. Disclosures Zugmaier: Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Off Label Use: This presentation will discuss the off-label use of blinatumomab, as this agent is not approved for use by the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authorities.. Goekbuget:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viardot:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel support Other; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel support, Travel support Other; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Travel support Other. Horst:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Brueggemann:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Holland:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmidt:Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Mergen:Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Bargou:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Topp:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Plus Three Cycles of Dexamethasone In the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): a Pilot Study.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.3697.3697 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 3697-3697

Author(s):

Rebecca Elstrom ◽

Soo Y. Lee ◽

James B. Bussel

Keyword(s):

Platelet Count ◽

Pilot Study ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Almost All

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.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1578.1578 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1578-1578 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Franck E. Nicolini ◽

Gabriel Etienne ◽

Viviane Dubruille ◽

Lydia Roy ◽

Françoise Huguet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Pegylated Interferon ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

Log Reduction

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

Download Full-text

Nilotinib Versus Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP): ENESTnd 36-Month (mo) Follow-up

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.452.452 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 452-452 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Philipp D. LeCoutre ◽

Ricardo Pasquini ◽

Saengsuree Jootar ◽

Hirohisa Nakamae ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Philadelphia Chromosome ◽

Safety Data ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 452FN2 Background: In ENESTnd, pts treated with nilotinib demonstrated higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular response (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), and complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) along with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 12 and 24 mo. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 24 mo; however, efficacy and safety data based on considerably longer follow-up of ≥ 36 mo will be presented. As demonstrated in IRIS and other imatinib trials, most pts who progress on imatinib do so within the first 3 years of therapy. Thus, this 36-mo update of ENESTnd will be important to further verify the benefits of nilotinib in newly-diagnosed pts. Methods: 846 adult pts with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD) (n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC on treatment, progression-free survival (PFS) on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: By 24 mo, both doses of nilotinib demonstrated significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 vs imatinib (Table). Nilotinib-treated pts achieved median BCR-ABLIS levels of 0.09% (300 mg BID) and 0.10% (400 mg BID) by 12 mo, while this level of reduction was not observed before 24 mo on imatinib. More pts with CCyR achieved MMR at 12 and 24 mo with either dose of nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Regardless of Sokal risk, rates of MMR and MR4.5 were higher for nilotinib at both doses vs imatinib (Table). Progression to AP/BC (excluding clonal evolution [CE]) on treatment was significantly lower for nilotinib vs imatinib (2 pts and 3 pts with nilotinib 300 mg BID [P = .0059] and 400 mg BID [P =.0196]), respectively vs 12 pts with imatinib). After achieving CCyR, 4 pts treated with imatinib progressed to AP/BC and 2 pts treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed after achieving both CCyR and MMR (1 also achieved MR4). No pt who achieved MR4.5 progressed at any time. All but 1 pt who progressed to AP/BC on treatment were in the intermediate and high Sokal risk groups; 1 pt treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed in the low Sokal risk group who had an E255V mutation at progression. When considering progression events of pts after discontinuation of treatment, an additional 7, 2, and 6 events (excluding CE) were observed with nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively. Twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 20) vs nilotinib (n = 10 on 300 mg BID; n = 8 on 400 mg BID). At 24 mo, OS remained similar in all groups, but there were fewer CML-related deaths in both nilotinib 300 mg BID (5 pts) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (3 pts) arms vs imatinib (10 pts). Both drugs were well tolerated and few new adverse events (AEs) and lab abnormalities were observed between 12- and 24-mo of follow-up. Nilotinib 300 mg BID had the fewest discontinuations due to AEs/lab abnormalities (9% vs 13% and 10% with nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively). Conclusions: With a minimum follow-up of 24 mo, nilotinib continued to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib with faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. These data support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly-diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Saglio: Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Nilotinib is a safe and effective treatment for patients with CML. LeCoutre:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Pasquini:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Flinn:nOVARTIS: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Kim:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1676.1676 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1676-1676 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Surapol Issaragrisil ◽

Richard E Clark ◽

Josy Reiffers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Molecular Responses ◽

The Difference ◽

The Impact

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

Download Full-text

Long-Term Outcome of Ruxolitinib Treatment in Patients with Myelofibrosis: Durable Reductions in Spleen Volume, Improvements in Quality of Life, and Overall Survival Advantage in COMFORT-I

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.800.800 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 800-800 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Ruben A. Mesa ◽

Jason Gotlib ◽

Richard S. Levy ◽

Vikas Gupta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Survival Advantage ◽

Primary Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 800 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, reduced spleen volume (SV), improved myelofibrosis (MF)-associated symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and appeared to exhibit a survival advantage over placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with MF regardless of JAK2V617F mutation status in the phase III COMFORT-I study. We describe long-term efficacy and safety of RUX from COMFORT-I, with 1 year of additional follow up beyond previously published data. Methods: Eligible pts (N=309) were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. The primary analysis occurred when all pts completed 24 weeks (wks) and when half the pts completed 36 wks of treatment. All pts receiving PBO were eligible for crossover to RUX after the primary analysis; crossover before wk 24 was permitted if pts met protocol-defined criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The proportion of pts with ≥35% SV reduction at 24 wks (primary endpoint) and durability of SV response were assessed. Although symptom burden (measured daily using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0) was only measured up to wk 24, QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 (every 24 wks) using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Overall survival (OS) was assessed according to original randomized treatment. Results: In this updated analysis, median follow-up of pts randomized to RUX was 102 wks. All pts receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis. Of 134 pts randomized to RUX who remained on treatment after the primary data analysis, 100 continue on study. Mean SV reduction in pts randomized to RUX was 31.6% at wk 24 and has remained stable with additional follow up through wk 96 (Table). In pts who achieved a ≥35% SV reduction, response was durable, with a median response duration of 108 wks. RUX treatment was also associated with durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL (Table) and the 5 functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Twenty-seven (27) pts randomized to RUX and 41 pts randomized to PBO died, representing a continued OS benefit in favor of RUX (HR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.95; P = 0.028; Fig 1) similar in magnitude to that previously reported. OS favored RUX across subgroups including starting dose as well as baseline risk status and hemoglobin (Hgb). Of 34 pts randomized to RUX who discontinued after the primary analysis, 4 discontinued for an adverse event (AE). In pts who continued on RUX, anemia and thrombocytopenia remained the most frequently reported AEs. New onset of grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported in only 12 and 5 pts, respectively. One pt discontinued for anemia. Overall, among all pts randomized to RUX, Grade 3 and 4 anemia regardless of baseline Hgb was reported in 37.4% and 14.8% of pts, respectively. Similarly, Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 11.0% and 5.2% of pts, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported in the primary analysis. By wk 36, the proportion of pts receiving red blood cell transfusions decreased to the level seen with PBO and remained stable thereafter (Fig 2). Rates of nonhematologic AEs adjusted for increased follow-up duration remain similar to those seen at the time of the primary data analysis. No additional cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pts randomized to RUX were reported. Two pts originally randomized to PBO developed AML, 21 and 178 days after crossover to RUX. There continued to be no reports of a withdrawal syndrome after RUX discontinuation. Conclusions: RUX provides durable reductions in SV and improvements in QoL. Although all pts randomized to PBO crossed over to RUX shortly after the primary analysis, with 1 year of additional follow up, RUX continues to be associated with a survival advantage over PBO. RUX continues to be well tolerated; the AE profile with long-term treatment is consistent with that previously reported. The proportion of pts receiving transfusions decreased over time to rates similar to PBO, and there were no reports of a specific withdrawal syndrome or cytokine rebound phenomenon after RUX discontinuation. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, travel to congress Other. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofiå]Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Catalano:Incyte: Consultancy. Deininger:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, development of educational presentations Other; Incyte: development of educational presentations, development of educational presentations Other. Talpaz:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; B.M.S.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte: Consultancy. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: grant support Other.

Download Full-text

Ahead Study: A 3 Year Follow-up of 522 Severe and Moderate Hemophilia a Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3786.3786 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3786-3786

Author(s):

Johannes Oldenburg ◽

Dimitrios Tsakiris ◽

Cedric R. Hermans ◽

RI Liesner ◽

Kate Khair ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hemophilia A ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Prophylaxis Group ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Long-term, real-world data on natural history of hemophilia A patients, safety and treatment outcome are still insufficient, particularly as far as the impact of bleeding on patient lives is concerned, as most of clinical trials and PASS studies are limited in study population size and length of follow-up, often no longer than 12 months. Methods: The AHEAD study is a non-interventional, prospective long-term cohort study including severe and moderate hemophilia A patients treated with ADVATE. Study endpoints include long-term joint health outcomes, annualized (joint) bleeding rates (ABR/AJBR), factor consumption, quality of life and safety data. Globally, AHEAD aims to evaluate data on approximately 1,000 patients, with a maximum follow-up period of up to 8 years. This interim data report includes 3 years of follow-up after study start. Results: The interim data report includes 522 patients from 21 countries (German study arm is not included in this analysis), for overall 1160 patient years. Of these, 334 completed year 1, 238 year 2 and 136 year 3 study visits. Median age at screening was 17 years (min-max: 0 - 78) and 57% of patients had severe HA (FVIII<1%); 78% were on prophylaxis, 21% were on demand (OD) and 1% on ITI treatment. The median ABRs in year 1, 2 and 3 were 1.2/1.2/1.9 respectively in patients on prophylaxis and 8.4/10.0/7.2, respectively in patients on OD. Median AJBRs were 0.9/0.9/1.0 in the prophylaxis group and 6.4/5.5/5.9 for patients on OD in the first three years of observation. Very similar data were reported taking only severe hemophilia A patients on prophylaxis into account (ABR: 1.9/1.7/2.5 and AJBR: 1.0/1.0/1.1) Overall, 56% of patients on prophylaxis and 32% of patients OD had an AJBR <1 in the first year, 54% and 33% in the second year and 52% and 22% in the third year. In the OD group about half of the patients had an AJBR ≥ 6, in the 3 years of follow up, while only 10% of patients in the prophylaxis group. Median annualized total dose in the prophylaxis group was consistently approximately 245,000IU while the FVIII consumption in the OD group was ranging from 26,000 to 47,000. Effectiveness of prophylaxis assessed by investigators was excellent/good in 93-96% of cases in the three years of observation. Functionality assessment using the hemophilia activity level (HAL) questionnaire showed a median summary score of 77.3-86.7 for patients on prophylaxis and 67.9-71.3 in patients OD over the 3 year follow up period. Differences of health related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the SF-12 were found in the domain physical functioning (median score of 75-100 vs. 50-75 in patients on prophylaxis and OD, respectively) and role physical (median scores of 75 vs. 62.5-75 in patients on prophylaxis and OD, respectively). There were 7 treatment-related adverse events (AEs): 6 serious AEs (5 transient low titer inhibitors and 1 transient high titer inhibitor). The remaining non serious treatment-related adverse event was a mild allergic cutaneous reaction with rhinitis. All patients continued to receive ADVATE. Conclusion: Interim read-out of 3 year follow-up of patients enrolled in the AHEAD study show a clinically meaningful difference in ABR/AJBR, HAL, HRQoL of patients on prophylaxis or OD treatment. This study represents the largest cohort of hemophilia patients with the longest follow-up period. Disclosures Tsakiris: Baxalta, now part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Switzerland GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hermans:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Investigator Clinical Studies. Liesner:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BPL: Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Khair:Pfizer: Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Baxalta, now part of Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Study Investigator, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Study Investigator, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sobi/Biogen: Research Funding. Mazzucconi:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; NovoNordisk: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Steinitz-Trost:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Employment. Spotts:Shire: Employment. Reininger:Baxalta, now part of Shire: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gringeri:Shire: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Outcome of Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Treated with Nilotinib Front-Line

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139921 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 44-45

Author(s):

Franck E Nicolini ◽

Vincent Alcazer ◽

Pascale Cony-Makhoul ◽

Stephanie Dulucq ◽

Sandrine Hayette ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Front Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Long Term Outcome

Nilotinib (NIL) 600 mg daily has demonstrated its superiority over Imatinib 400 mg daily in terms of response and incidence of deep molecular response in the front-line chronic phase (CP) CML setting. In this observational study we have retrospectively analyzed the outcome of in- and out-study 202 patients (pts) treated in this setting with NIL 600 mg front-line, in "real-life" conditions. All pts with newly diagnosed adult CP-CML receiving NIL 300 mg BID alone front-line between 10/2007 and 06/2020, were eligible for this study. Data were retrospectively collected according to the current French regulations with pts' information. All pts were assessed and followed according to ELN recommendations 2003, 2006, and 2009 along treatment and to the recommendations from the French group of CML (D. Rea et al., Cancer 2018) in case of TFR. In this regard, a TKI was resumed if loss of MMR. All BCR-ABL1 assessments were performed in the 3 reference laboratories, standardised and expressed in % (IS) with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control. The primary endpoints were the rate of molecular responses in the long-term and the (vascular) safety of Nilotinib. Secondary endpoints were the kinetics of molecular response, survival and safety of Nilotinib. Survival (OS, PFS & EFS) was defined according to ELN (J. Guilhot et al. Blood 2012). Two hundred and two patients were reported with 44% females and 56% males with a median age at diagnosis of 50.4 (17.5-83) years, and 26% of them had cardiovascular risk factors at onset (tobacco abuse 11%, hypercholesterolemia 9.3%, diabetes 1.45%, none with past history of cardiovascular events [CVE]). ELTS scores were high in 14%, intermediate in 31% and low in 55% of pts. Twenty-four (12%) pts harboured additional chromosomal abnormalities at diagnosis. The median follow-up after NIL initiation was 61.5 (1-147.5) months. At last follow-up 113 pts (55%) are not on NIL anymore for toxicities, TFR or resistance reasons. Twenty-eight (14%) pts present an arterial event on NIL (18% PAOD, 14% angina pectoralis, 7% myocardial infarction, 14% stroke, 47% others such as atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy...), that occurred after a median of 26 (0.6-98.5) months on NIL. Forty-six (22.5%) pts reached TFR criteria and stopped NIL after a median of 58.5 (27-126) months. The cumulative incidence (CI) rates of MMR at 1, 2 and 5 years were 64 (57-71)%, 79.4 (75.45-83.35)% and 95 (92-98.5)% respectively. For MR4, those were 35.5 (29-42)%, 60 (52-67)% and 82 (74.5-89)% respectively; and for MR4.5, were 14 (9-19)%, 31 (24-28)% and 62 (54-70.5)% respectively. The CI of sustained MR4.5 (i. e. patients eligible for TFR: MR4.5 ≥2 years) was observed in 30 (23-37)% at 3 years, 45.5 (36-55)% at 5 years and 52.5 (41.5-64)% at 6 years (Figure). The CI of patients entering TFR was 16.75 (10.5-23)% at 5 years and 51.94 (37.31-66.57)% at 10 years with a survival without MMR loss of 70.7 (58- 86)% at 1 year and 65.26 (50.6-84)% at 5 years. Nine (4.5%) pts progressed towards accelerated phase (4 pts) or BC (2 lymphoid, 3 myeloid) responsible for 5 deaths at latest follow-up. Among NIL resistant patients screened, 15 were harbouring ABL1 mutations (5 Y253H, 3 E255K, 3 T315I, 1 M244V, 1 G250E, 1 F359V, 1 V299L). Overall, 10 patients died (5 from CML, 5 from unrelated causes). The probability of OS was 95.75 [95%CI: 92.9-98.7]% at 2 years and 94.8 [91.5-98.3]% at 5 years, for PFS it was 94.92 [91.7-98.2]% at 2 years and 89.5 [84.7-94.6]% at 5 years, and EFS it was 78 [72.3-84]% at 2 years and 60.25 [53.3-68.1]% at 5 years. Regarding sustained MR4.5, univariate analysis showed that female gender (HR=2.46 [1.50-4.02], p<0.001) and low ELTS (HR=0.41 [0.22-0.76], p<0.004) had a significant impact, while multivariate analysis confirmed the role of these 2 factors (HR=2.31 [1.41- 3.79], p=0.001 and HR= 0.52 [0.30- 0.90], p=0.02) in addition to high ELTS (HR= 0.28 [0.14- 0.58], p<0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that only age impacted on the CI of CVE (HR= 1.07 [1.04-1.10], p<0.001, and HR=1.07 [1.04-1.10], p<0.001). NIL first-line efficiently limits progression of newly diagnosed CP-CML patients and provides high rates of sustained MR4.5, allowing TFR in a substantial proportion of pts. However, the onset of arterial occlusive events, especially in the elderly is a matter of concern in the choice of this compound at treatment initiation. Disclosures Nicolini: Incyte: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd: Consultancy. Cony-Makhoul:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Biosciences: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Dulucq:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Cayuela:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Rea:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mahon:ARIAD: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne:Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Incorporation of Thiotepa in a Reduced Intensity Conditioning Regimen Leads to Improved Engraftment after Stem Cell Transplant for Patients with Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-132120 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3273-3273

Author(s):

Swati Naik ◽

Olive S. Eckstein ◽

Ghadir Sasa ◽

Robert A. Krance ◽

Carl E. Allen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Graft Failure ◽

Unrelated Donor ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Donor Chimerism ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) following myeloablative conditioning regimens (MAC) is associated with high rates of non-relapse mortality. A previously reported prospective, phase 2 multi-center trial (RICHI) using using RIC strategy of fludarabine, melphalan and alemtuzumab (day -14) for HLH and primary immune deficiency syndromes (PIDS) demonstrated improved mortality rates but fewer than half the patients with HLH (41%) successfully engrafted without secondary graft failure, need for donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) or second transplant. Incorporation of thiotepa during conditioning has been to shown to be safe and improve engraftment. We report the results of a retrospective analysis of nine consecutive patient treated with the inclusion of thiotepa into the RICHI backbone (RICHI+TT). Methods: Patients received a single additional dose of thiotepa 10mg/kg on day -3 added to the fludarabine/melphalan/alemtuzumab backbone (RICHI+TT) with the same graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis of methyprednisolone through day +28 and cyclosporine through day 180. To determine sustained engraftment, we used the same parameters the RICHI study defined as > 5 % donor chimerism without any intervention and alive at 1 year post-transplant. Results: Our cohort consisted of 8 males and 1 female with a median age of 7 years (range 1-18 years). Seven patients had HLH with proven pathogenic genetic mutations (biallelic PRF1 - 2, UNC13D - 2, STXBP1- 1, RAB27A-1, STAT3 gain of function-1), while the other 2 patients had HLH without identified pathogenic mutations (1- chronic active EBV, 1- juvenile idiopathic arthritis with refractory macrophage activation syndrome).The majority of patients received a bone marrow product (n = 8), one patient received a peripheral blood stem cell product; 6 patients received a graft from a matched related donor , two from a mismatched unrelated donor, and one from a matched unrelated donor. All patients engrafted at a median of 15 days post-transplant (8 patients at 100% donor chimera; 1 patient at 99% donor chimera at initial engraftment). Six of the 9 patients were evaluable to assess donor chimerism at 1 year as per study definitions with a median follow up of 875 days (range: 366 -1000 days). All 6 patients had > 5% donor chimerism and were alive at 1 year. Five of the 6 evaluable patients met criteria for sustained donor engraftment without need for intervention and all maintained 100% donor chimerism at last follow-up (Table 1). Only one of the six patients had evidence of falling donor chimerism; this stabilized at 40% donor chimerism after DLI. No patients had primary or secondary graft failure. Three patients were not evaluable for long-term assessment due to death prior to 1 year. Six of the 9 patients described here are alive and disease-free with stable long-term engraftment. The incorporation of Thiotepa to the RICHI backbone improved on previously reported sustained donor engraftment (Table 2). Conclusions: The RICHI+TT approach had better long-term donor engraftment with a decreased need for DLI or second transplant without increased rates of non-relapse mortality. Prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategies for patients with HLH who require HSCT for cure. Disclosures Heslop: Cell Medica: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Marker Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allovir: Equity Ownership; Gilead Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text