Enestpath: A Phase III Study to Assess the Effect of Nilotinib Treatment Duration on Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) in Chronic Phase-Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) Patients (pts) Previously Treated with Imatinib: Interim Analysis from the First Year of Induction Phase

Abstract Background Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard of care for pts with CP-CML. Current recommendation is to continue TKI therapy indefinitely but previous studies indicate that pts with deep and sustained molecular responses (MRs) on imatinib (IM) may achieve long-lasting TFR. Nilotinib (NIL) at 300mg BID induces higher rates of deep MRs compared to IM and high dose NIL (400mg BID) enables a substantial proportion of pts who do not obtain MR4 (BCR-ABL1IS £ 0.01%) or MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS £ 0.0032%) with IM to reach such deep MRs levels, potentially compatible with TFR. However, optimal duration of treatment with NIL to ensure the highest rate of TFR after treatment discontinuation is unknown. Objective ENESTPath was designed to assess the optimal duration of NIL therapy that is necessary to achieve and maintain TFR upon treatment discontinuation in pts pretreated with IM. Methods ENESTPath is a randomized, phase III study enrolling CP-CML pts who after at least 2 years (yrs) of IM therapy achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), but not yet a MR4. After enrollment, pts were assigned to receive NIL at 300 mg BID for 2 yrs or 3 yrs (Arm 1 and Arm 2, respectively). Patients who will obtain a stable MR4 or better for at least 12 months (mo) will enter the TFR phase. Primary endpoint is to evaluate the proportion of pts in both arms who will remain in TFR for ≥1 yr after NIL discontinuation. Results 620 pts were enrolled in the study between May-2013 & Apr-2015. In this interim analysis, the first 300 pts (mean age 50.8 yrs; 63.7% male) enrolled and treated with NIL for ≥1 yr have been included. Baseline characteristics are detailed in the Table. By 12 mo of NIL treatment, cumulative incidences of newly acquired MR4 and MR4.5 were 57.4% and 30.5%, respectively. Further analysis of MR4 achievement showed that pts with a major molecular response (MMR: BCR-ABL1IS >0.01% - ≤0.1%) at baseline had a higher probability to achieve a MR4 than those lacking MMR at baseline, with a cumulative incidence of MR4 by 12 months of 64.8% and 30.8%, respectively (Figure). Adverse events (AEs) were mostly of grade 1-2, manageable with supportive care or NIL dose interruption/reduction and included pruritus (19%), headache (9%), skin rash (9%), upper abdominal pain (8%) and constipation (7%). Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were uncommon. The incidence of grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities was low: lipase increase, hyperglycemia, ALT and AST increase, hyperbilirubinemia and hypercholesterolemia reported in 3.7%, 1.3%, 1%, 0.7%, 0.3%, 0.3% pts, respectively. Grade 3-4 ischemic cardiovascular events were experienced by 5% of pts including peripheral artery occlusive disease (1.7%) and coronary artery disease (3.7%) (1 pt experienced both AEs). Sub-analyses aiming to evaluate the impact of baseline SCOREa CV risk factor on the onset of arterial ischemic events are currently ongoing. Results on 168 pts showed grade 3-4 ischemic CV events in 19% of pts who were at very high or high risk (n = 47) compared to 1.7% of in pts with moderate or low risk (n = 121). During the first 12 mo, 48 (16%) pts discontinued NIL therapy: 32 discontinued due to AEs/laboratory abnormalities, 12 withdrew consent, 4 due to other reasons (protocol deviation, pregnancy and non-compliance). No patients left the study due to progression to AP/BP. Till date there were no on-treatment deaths. Conclusions This interim analysis shows that a switch to NIL at lower doses than in prior studies (300mg BID instead of 400mg BID) induces high rates of MR4 and MR4.5 in pts without such MR levels on IM. The safety profile of NIL at 300mg BID is consistent with that described in other prospective studies.Thus a switch to NIL for pts not achieving a deep MR during IM therapy is predicted to substantially increase the probability of achieving TFR requirements. A longer follow-up is necessary to assess what may be the best duration of NIL prior to treatment discontinuation. aRisk factors evaluated by applying the SCORE chart proposed by the European Society of Cardiology Table 1. Table 1. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Rea: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Rosti:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cross:Qiagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hellman:Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Almeida:Shire: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Meyer Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Dezzani:Novartis: Employment. Pellegrino:Novartis: Employment. Costantini:Novartis: Employment. Walasek:Novartis: Employment. Saglio:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Steegmann:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding. Baccarani:NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Update on a Phase III Study of Panobinostat with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: PANORAMA 1,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3976.3976 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3976-3976 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jesús F. San-Miguel ◽

Vânia Tietsche de Moraes Hungria ◽

Sung-Soo Yoon ◽

Wieslaw Wiktor-Jedrzejczak ◽

Ashraf Elghandour ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Safety Data ◽

Treatment Phase ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Clinical Activity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Study ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3976 Background: The outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved in recent years mainly because of the availability of 2 novel classes of drugs: immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; thalidomide and lenalidomide) and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib). However, a subset of MM patients is refractory to these agents, and responding patients often relapse or progress. Therefore, novel salvage treatments are needed. Panobinostat is an oral pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that has demonstrated synergy in combination with bortezomib in preclinical MM studies. This synergy is thought to occur through inhibition of protein metabolism via targeting of the aggresome and proteasome pathways. Significant clinical activity, including complete responses, was observed in a phase Ib study of panobinostat + bortezomib in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM (San-Miguel et al, EHA 2011, abstract 0314). In addition, responses were observed in patients with bortezomib-refractory MM. Based on these preliminary data, a phase II and III clinical study program of panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM was initiated—PANobinostat ORAl in Multiple myelomA (PANORAMA). PANORAMA 1 is an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III study of panobinostat (or placebo) + bortezomib + dexamethasone. PANORAMA 2 is a single-arm, open-label, phase II study in bortezomib-refractory patients conducted in the United States. Preliminary response data from PANORAMA 2 were available in 20 patients, and met the predefined threshold allowing, together with early tolerability data, continuation and completion of study enrollment (Schlossman et al, EHA 2011, abstract 0900). Here we present the preliminary demographic and blinded safety results of the phase III study (PANORAMA 1) in patients with relapsed MM. Methods: A total of 672 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM (1–3 prior lines of therapy) will be enrolled to the trial. Patients with prior bortezomib-based therapy are eligible; however, patients with bortezomib-refractory MM (not achieving at least a minimal response or progressed on or within 60 days of the last bortezomib-containing regimen) are excluded from this trial. PANORAMA 1 comprises 2 treatment phases. Treatment phase 1 consists of eight 3-week cycles of panobinostat (oral 20 mg) or placebo administered thrice weekly and bortezomib (intravenous 1.3 mg/m2) administered twice weekly, each for 2 of 3 weeks. Dexamethasone (oral 20 mg) is administered on the days of and after bortezomib dosing. If clinical benefit is observed, patients proceed to treatment phase 2, which consists of four 6-week cycles with a modified (once-weekly) bortezomib schedule. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and the key secondary endpoint is overall survival. Results: Blinded data from 273 enrolled patients in a planned safety analysis are available (data cutoff 31 January 2011). Median age was 64 years (range 32–79 years), and 45% of patients were ≥ 65 years of age. Approximately half of the patients (51%) had received 1 prior line of therapy, whereas 49% received 2–3 prior lines of therapy. Most patients (60%) had also received prior stem cell transplantation. Previous treatment included thalidomide (35%), bortezomib (32%), and lenalidomide (14%). Preliminary pooled safety data (blinded) were available in 267 patients who received 1 dose of treatment. The most commonly affected organ class was the gastrointestinal system (all grade, 59% vs grade 3/4, 15.4%), of which diarrhea was most common (all grade, 36% vs grade 3/4, 10%). Other common AEs (all grade vs grade 3/4) were thrombocytopenia (41% vs 29%), anemia (24% vs 10%), fatigue (24% vs 9%), and neutropenia (12% vs 8%). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade was observed in 19% of patients, with grade 3/4 observed in 3% of patients. Conclusions: Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib has shown clinical activity in relapsed and refractory MM patients. Preliminary analysis of pooled safety data (blinded) from the first 267 patients treated in PANORAMA 1 demonstrated no new or unexpected AEs. Updated demographics and safety data for approximately 500 patients will be presented. The results of PANORAMA 1 and PANORAMA 2 will help determine the potential role of panobinostat in the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures: San-Miguel: Celgene: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yoon:Celgene: Consultancy; NK Bio: Consultancy. Wiktor-Jedrzejczak:Janssen-Cilag Polska: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Siritanaratkul:Novartis: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Corradini:Celgene: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria. Günther:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Yong:Janssen-Cilag UK: Honoraria. Wroclawska-Swacha:Novartis: Employment. Weber:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bourquelot:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hou:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Einsele:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Richardson:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in >75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p<0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Andrew Spencer ◽

Francesco Di Raimondo ◽

Adam Zdenek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

European Post-Approval Safety Study (PASS) of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Safety, Including SPM, in a Large Cohort of Patients Treated with Lenalidomide, Thalidomide, and Bortezomib

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3331.3331 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3331-3331

Author(s):

Barbara Gamberi ◽

Miguel Hernandez ◽

Christian Berthou ◽

Eleni Tholouli ◽

Elena Zamagni ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Performance Status ◽

Treatment Discontinuation ◽

Second Primary ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Noninterventional Study ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Background: EU PASS is an observational, noninterventional study designed to investigate the safety of lenalidomide (LEN) and other agents in the treatment of RRMM in a real-world setting. Aims:To assess the incidence of adverse events (AEs) of special interest, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism (VTE), peripheral neuropathy (PN), and second primary malignancies (SPMs) in RRMM patients (pts) treated with LEN and other antimyeloma therapies according to current clinical practice. Methods: Pts with RRMM who were commencing LEN treatment were enrolled at the investigator's discretion into a LEN cohort (LEN + dexamethasone, the approved combination for the treatment of RRMM); pts who received ≥ 1 prior therapy and were commencing a non-LEN-based therapy were enrolled into a background cohort (all other treatments, including novel agents). Thromboprophylaxis was per local standard practice. AEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). SPMs were defined using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms under the category Neoplasms SOC. Following protocol amendment in 2011, assessments for SPMs were to be conducted up to 36 mos after treatment discontinuation. Results: As of June 2016, 3632 pts across 269 institutions in 17 European countries were included in the safety population. Of those, 59.2% received LEN (n = 2151), 32.7% received bortezomib (BORT; n = 1188), 3.8% received thalidomide (THAL; n = 137), and 4.3% received other therapies (n = 156). The majority of pts had discontinued from treatment (97.9%; n = 3556); of the 2.1% (n = 76) ongoing pts, 66 are treated with LEN, 6 with BORT, 0 with THAL, and 4 with other substances. Baseline characteristics were similar across the cohorts. Median age was 70 yrs (range, 25-95 yrs) and 54.0% were male. Of 2985 pts with available ECOG data, 2865 (96.0%) had good performance status (ECOG score 0-2), and the remaining 4.0% had an ECOG score of 3/4. The median number of prior therapies was 1 (range, 1-6) but was higher in the LEN cohort (2; range, 1-6) than in the BORT (1; range, 1-6) and THAL (1; range, 1-5) cohorts; the proportion of pts with only 1 prior treatment was also lower in the LEN cohort (44.3%), whereas BORT was 70.8% and THAL 56.2%. Overall, 50.7% of pts (n = 1842) had grade 3/4 AEs. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 17.1%, 3.5%, and 4.4% of pts in the LEN, BORT, and THAL cohorts, respectively, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 9.2%, 7.3%, and 3.6%. The incidence rate of SPM was 3.63 per 100 pt-yrs, with 3.18 per 100 pt-yrs in the LEN cohort, 5.23 per 100 pt-yrs in the BORT cohort, 2.73 per 100 pt-yrs in THAL, and 6.48 per 100 pt-yrs in others. AEs of interest of all grades are listed in Table 1. The median duration on study treatment was 6.6 mos (range, 0.1-81.6 mos) for LEN, 4.1 mos (range, 0-63.6 mos) for BORT, and 4.6 mos (range, 0.2-36.9 mos) for THAL. Treatment discontinuation rate due to AEs was similar in each cohort (22.1% in the LEN, 20.0% in the BORT, and 21.2% in the THAL cohorts). In the LEN cohort, dose reductions occurred in 38.1% of pts, with a median time to first dose reduction due to AEs of 12.4 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to dose reductions were similar across cohorts, with 23.7% in the LEN cohort, 21.4% in the BORT cohort, and 17.5% in the THAL cohort. Conclusions: Results of this noninterventional study in RRMM show that AEs were similar across cohorts except for higher rates of neutropenia and lower rates of PN with LEN compared with THAL or BORT. Higher rates of neutropenia did not translate into increased febrile neutropenia. Infections, independent from neutrophil counts, occurred in all cohorts, but few pts developed serious infections such as pneumonia. VTEs as well as myocardial infarctions were low throughout all cohorts. The occurrence of SPMs was generally low and comparable between cohorts. LEN was generally well tolerated. Disclosures Tholouli: Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Giles: Speakers Bureau. Hájek:Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Minnema:Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jansen Cilag: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Frost Andersen:Celgene: Research Funding. Waage:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Amgen, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Crotty:BMS, Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Kueenburg:Celgene International Sarl: Consultancy, Honoraria. Di Micco:Celgene: Employment. Bacon:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Phase III Trial of Melphalan and Dexamethasone (MDex) Versus Bortezomib, Melphalan and Dexamethasone (BMDex) for Untreated Patients with AL Amyloidosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.646.646 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 646-646 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Efstathios Kastritis ◽

Xavier Leleu ◽

Bertrand Arnulf ◽

Elena Zamagni ◽

María Teresa Cibeira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Cardiac Response ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Hematologic Response ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background. Current upfront treatment of light chain (AL) amyloidosis is often based on bortezomib in patients. However, data on the safety and efficacy of bortezomib in this setting mostly derive from uncontrolled, retrospective series, that are difficult to compare due to different proportion of patients with advanced disease. Here we report the analysis of a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing MDex, a current standard of care, and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex) in newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis that was performed in Europe and Australia (EMN-03 study, NCT01277016). Patients and Methods. Main eligibility criteria included measurable disease (M-protein >10 g/L or dFLC >50 mg/L), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ³30 mL/min, and adequate liver function. Previously treated patients, those who had >30% bone marrow plasma cell or lytic bone lesions, NYHA class >II heart failure, grade 3 sensory or grade 1 painful peripheral neuropathy, or ECOG performance status >2 were excluded. In January 2013 the protocol was amended to include Mayo stage III patients, provided their NT-proBNP was <8500 ng/L (stage IIIa). Patients were randomized to receive either MDex (melphalan at 0.22 mg/kg and dexamethasone at 40 mg daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (bortezomib added at 1.3 mg/m2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in cycles 1 and 2, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the following cycles). The primary endpoint was overall hematologic response at 3 months. Treatment was continued until completion of MDex cycle 9 or BMDex cycle 8, or achievement of CR or of at least partial response (PR) plus organ response after cycle 6, and was discontinued in case PR was not achieved by cycle 3. Enrollment is now completed (110 patients) with the last patient enrolled in February 2016 (database lock: July 25, 2016). Results. Patients' characteristics are reported in the Table. The proportion of patients experiencing at least 1 grade 3-4 severe adverse events (SAE) was similar in the MDex and BMDex arms (49% vs. 60%, P=0.11). The total number of reported adverse events per cycle was lower in the MDex group (10% vs 23%, P<0.01). Most common SAEs (MDex vs. BMDex) were cytopenia (4% vs. 7%, P=0.04), fluid retention (3% vs. 6%, P=0.02), and neuropathy (0 vs. 2%, P<0.01). One patient died within 3 months in the MDex arm and 3 in the BMDex group (P=0.28). Response was evaluated by intent to treat. Hematologic response rates after cycle 3 were 51% and 78% (P=0.001), with 28% and 53% complete response (CR) /very good partial response (VGPR) (P=0.003), in the MDex and BMDex arms, respectively. Overall hematologic response at the end of treatment, after a median of 5 cycles, was 56% and 81% (P=0.001), with 38% and 64% CR/VGPR in the MDex and BMDex arms, respectively (P=0.002). Cardiac response was reached in 8 of 33 evaluable patients treated with MDex (24%) and 10 of 26 (38%) who received BMDex (P=0.119). Renal response was attained in 17 of 35 patients (48%) in both arms. However, there was a higher proportion of cardiac progression in the MDex arm with borderline statistical significance (32% vs. 15%, P=0.054). After a median follow-up of living patients of 25 months, 26 patients (24%) died, 16 in the MDex arm and 10 in the BMDex arm with no significant difference in survival (Figure 1a). Achievement of hematologic and cardiac response at 3 months significantly improved survival (Figures 1b and 1c). Conclusion. This is the first prospective randomized trial of novel agents in AL amyloidosis. The criteria of hematologic and cardiac response are validated in the prospective setting for the first time. The primary endpoint, hematologic response at 3 months has been reached, showing more frequent and more profound hematologic responses with BMDex, preventing progression of cardiac dysfunction, with a modest increase in toxicity. This regimen can be proposed as a new standard of care in AL amyloidosis. We would like to acknowledge the European Myeloma Network, the Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group and the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia for their ongoing support, and Janssen-Cilag for partially funding the trial and providing the study drug. Disclosures Kastritis: Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mollee:Celgene: 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; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nilelse: Research Funding. Hajek:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS: Honoraria. Wechalekar:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Merlini:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Palladini:Prothena: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Overall Survival and Subgroup Analysis from a Randomized Phase III Study of Intravenous Rigosertib Versus Best Supportive Care (BSC) in Patients (pts) with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (HR-MDS) after Failure of Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.163.163 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 163-163 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Pierre Fenaux ◽

Aref Al-Kali ◽

Maria R. Baer ◽

Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Study ◽

Very High

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPNs) on Patients' Quality of Life and Productivity: Results from the International MPN Landmark Survey

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4267.4267 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4267-4267

Author(s):

Claire N. Harrison ◽

Steffen Koschmieder ◽

Lynda Foltz ◽

Paola Guglielmelli ◽

Tina Flindt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms ◽

Well Being ◽

Ability To Work ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Past ◽

Night Sweats ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) whose associated disease burden includes a range of debilitating symptoms, thrombosis, hemorrhage, and shortened survival. To enhance patient care, it is important to understand the impact of MPNs in patients' lives; however, little is known regarding how these conditions affect patients' quality of life (QOL), activities of daily living, productivity, and emotional well-being. The US LANDMARK survey (Mesa et al. BMC Cancer 2016) captured data for US patients. Here, we present an interim analysis of results of another MPN LANDMARK survey conducted in the rest of the world. Methodology MPN LANDMARK survey is a cross-sectional survey of MPN patients across 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, and UK). Patients completed an online questionnaire to measure MPN related symptoms experienced over the past 12 months and the impact of their condition on their QOL and ability to work. Additional questions related to employment productivity and activity impairment (including absenteeism and loss of productivity over the past 7 days). Patients included in this interim analysis had completed the survey by July 18, 2016, with enrollment continuing in all countries. Results Patients: Overall, 437 patients had completed the survey (98 MF, 121 PV, 218 ET). For MF and PV, the male to female gender split was relatively even (54% male for each), whereas an expected greater proportion of ET patients was female (70%). Patients with MF were significantly older than PV and ET patients (mean ages, 62, 59, and 55 years, respectively) and more had been diagnosed within 2 years of experiencing their symptoms (83% MF, 67% PV, 71% ET). MPN Symptoms (Table): Most patients (94%) experienced MPN-related symptoms in the past 12 months. The most commonly reported symptom among all subtypes was fatigue (69% MF, 62% PV, 73% ET), incidence of other common symptoms varied depending on disease subtype (MF: shortness of breath [38%], bruising [36%], night sweats [35%], early satiety [33%]; PV: night sweats [36%], trouble concentrating [36%], trouble sleeping [34%], dizziness [34%]; ET: trouble sleeping [37%], dizziness [37%], bruising [35%], night sweats [35%]). When asked which symptom patients would most like to have resolved, most patients preferred to have feeling of fatigue/tiredness improved across all disease subtypes (31% MF, 30% PV, 33% ET). Patients experienced an average of 6.4 symptoms at diagnosis but this progressed to an average of 7.6 symptoms since diagnosis after a median time of 6 years. QOL: A majority of patients indicated that they experienced a reduction in QOL due to MPN symptoms (87% MF, 71% PV, 73% ET) with 33% and 26% of MF and ET patients expressing that their condition has caused emotional hardship, and one-third of patients with PV reporting that they have felt worried or anxious about their disease (39%). MPN Impact on Activity/Employment: Patients reported a high impact on their ability to work, 12% reported voluntarily leaving their job, 10% had taken early retirement, 10% had moved onto disability living allowance, 8% moved to a lower paid job, and 2% experienced involuntary loss of work (Table). Of the patients who were in full-time or part-time employment at the time of the survey (MF [n=17]), PV [n=41], ET [n=98]), approximately, 40% had been absent from work within the past 7 days; this was the highest in MF patients (41% MF, 38% PV, 33% ET). On an average, over the past 7 days, MF patients had missed 3.1 hours from work, PV patients 2.3 hours and ET patients 2 hours. Across all subgroups, a substantial proportion of patients reported impairment in work (mean: 34% MF, 33% PV, 31% ET) and overall activity (mean: 46% MF, 42% PV, 39% ET). Conclusions This interim analysis from the MPN LANDMARK survey indicates that MPN patients experience a high burden of disease, including a high prevalence of symptoms, an increase in the number of symptoms from diagnosis and reduction of their emotional well-being, QOL, and ability to work. These results are consistent with those from the previous US LANDMARK survey with the addition of novel data on how MPNs impact work. When treating MPN patients, care should be taken in trying to manage a patient's disease burden, so as to minimize the impact on a patient's daily life. Further results from additional survey responses will be presented at the congress. Disclosures Harrison: Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Koschmieder:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Foltz:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Koehler:Novartis Inc. (Germany): Consultancy, Other: Training. Komatsu:Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Boothroyd:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Spierer:Novartis: Employment. Ronco:Novartis: Employment. Taylor-Stokes:Adelphi Real World: Employment. Waller:Adelphi Real World: Employment. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Once Weekly Bortezomib In Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.3029.3029 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 3029-3029 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Alessandra Larocca ◽

Davide Rossi ◽

Alessandra Romano ◽

Mariella Genuardi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Severe Thrombocytopenia ◽

Weekly Schedule ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

The Impact ◽

Weekly Group ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Abstract 3029 Background. In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib–melphalan – prednisone–thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib–thalidomide (VMPT-VT) demonstrated superior efficacy compared with VMP. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was the most important dose limiting toxicity. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions. This post-hoc analysis assessed the impact of bortezomib dose-modification schedule on clinical outcomes and safety. Methods. Patients (N=511) older than 65 years were randomized to receive nine 6-week cycles of VMPT-VT (N=254; induction:V 1.3 mg/m2, d 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1–4, d 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5–9; M 9 mg/m2 d 1–4, P 60 mg/m2, d 1–4, T 50 mg d 1–42; maintenance: V 1.3 mg/m2 every 14 days and T 50 mg/day) or VMP (N=257) alone. In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT-VT and VMP induction schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (1.3 mg/m2 d 1,8,15,22, all cycles). Patients receiving VMPT-VT and VMP were pooled together and stratified according to the once-weekly or twice-weekly infusion modality; analyses were also conducted for patients receiving VMP only, to eliminate the influence of thalidomide and of maintenance on efficacy and safety. Results. Patients were evaluated in intention-to-treat: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib infusion. Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups, median age was 71 years. The efficacy data did not appear to be affected by the bortezomib schedule. Overall response rates were 85% with once weekly and 86% with twice- weekly schedule (P = .78), including CR rates of 30% and 35% (P = .27).Three-year PFS was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P = 1.00), and 3-year OS was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). Similar outcome was seen in the analyses restricted to VMP patients: CR rates were 23% with once-weekly and 27% with twice-weekly schedule (P = .54), 3-years PFS was 46% in once-weekly and 39% (P = .86) in twice-weekly group and 3-years OS was 87% and 89% (P = .47), respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was similar in the two groups (44% vs 45%, P = .83), but severe thrombocytopenia was slightly less common in the once-weekly patients (19% vs 26%, P = .08).The incidence of non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events was significantly reduced in the once-weekly: 35% vs 51% (P = .003). Grade 3/4 gastrointestinal events (6% vs 11%, P = .08), severe systemic events (4% vs 7%, P = .09) and grade 3/4 dermatologic events (2% vs 7%, P = .006) were less frequent in patients receiving once-weekly bortezomib. There was a significantly reduced overall incidence of grade 3/4 PN (8% vs 28%, P < .001) in the once-weekly group. The median time to onset of grade 3/4 sensory PN was 4.3 months in the once-weekly group and 3.2 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .10). The cumulative incidence of sensory PN appeared to plateau after 12 months of therapy in both groups. Rates of discontinuations (5% versus 15%) and dose reductions (15% versus 41%) due to PN were also significantly lower in the once-weekly group (P < .001). These results were reflected in analysis restricted to VMP patients, in which the incidence of grade 3/4 PN (7% vs 29%, P < .001), the discontinuation rate (4% vs 16%, P = 0.002), and the dose reductions rate (15% vs 41% P < 0.001) were significantly lower in once-weekly group. Despite the cumulative planned dose being lower in the once-weekly group (46.8 vs 67.6 mg/m2), the delivered cumulative dose of bortezomib was similar in the two groups (39.4 mg/m2 vs 40.1 mg/m2). No association of PN with age or other baseline characteristics was outlined. The only significant factor influencing the incidence of PN was the reduction of bortezomib infusion from twice- to once-weekly (p<0.001). Low dose thalidomide did not affect grade 3/4 PN rate (p=0.16). Conclusion. These results demonstrate that 1. both once-weekly and twice-weekly schedules in combination with MP ± thalidomide are highly effective in patients ≥ 65 years; 2. once-weekly schedule significantly reduced the incidence of PN and decreased the rate of discontinuation, resulting in similar cumulative bortezomib doses in the two groups; 3. the improvement in the safety profile was not associated with any reduction in the efficacy. Disclosures: Bringhen: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Leoni:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Patriarca:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Elice:Celgene: Honoraria; Novatis: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia and Immune Mediated Thrombocytopenia in the Phase III RESONATETM Study of Ibrutinib Vs Ofatumumab in Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma, Including a Case Report

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.5654.5654 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 5654-5654 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Marco Montillo ◽

Susan O'Brien ◽

Alessandra Tedeschi ◽

Peter Hillmen ◽

Claire Dearden ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Entry ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Immune Mediated ◽

History Of ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) and immune mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) are frequent complications of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL) that may evolve independently or occur at any stage of disease progression. Ibrutinib (Imbruvica®), a first-in-class BTK inhibitor, is a once-daily single-agent approved by the US FDA for CLL patients (pts) who had received ≥1 prior therapy, and for CLL pts with deletion 17p. Comprehensive efficacy and safety results from the interim analysis of the phase III RESONATE (PCYC-1112) study have previously been reported, demonstrating that improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were seen with ibrutinib (ibr) as compared to ofatumumab (ofa) in pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Interim analysis data from the Phase III RESONATETM study are presented for pts with autoimmune complications, including that of a case report in which recurrent AIHA/ITP episodes resolved following initiation of ibr. Methods: History of AIHA and ITP along with status on study entry and resolution date when applicable were collected from 386 enrolled pts in both arms (ibr n=195; ofa n=191) who received study treatment. Ibr was administered at 420 mg once daily until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Ofa was administered at 300 mg followed by 2000 mg dose for up to 12 doses. Treatment emergent adverse events of ITP and AIHA are summarized for treated pts based on randomized arm as of the interim analysis. Pts with uncontrolled AIHA or ITP, defined as declining counts in the 4 weeks prior to randomization or requirement for steroids >20 mg/daily were excluded per study eligibility criteria. In addition, detailed medical history was reviewed for RESONATE patient MXC, as this patient was diagnosed with rapidly progressing CLL at its inception complicated by recurrent AIHA/ITP episodes over a 10-year course of CLL treatment. Results: In the RESONATE trial, median age was 67 years with 40% ≥70 years, and median number of prior therapies was 3 (ibr) vs 2 (ofa). In all treated pts (ibr n=195; ofa n=191), 29 (15%) pts in ibr arm had a history of AIHA with 20 (10%) ongoing at study entry, compared to 30 (16%) pts in the ofa arm with only 9 (5%) ongoing at study entry. 18 (9%) pts in ibr arm had a history of ITP with 12 (6%) ongoing at study entry, compared to 20 (10%) pts in ofa arm with 10 (5%) ongoing at study entry. Nine ibr and 8 ofa pts reported both AIHA and ITP at baseline, including patient MXC. No pts on the ibr arm developed treatment-emergent AIHA or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Two pts on the ofa arm developed AIHA, 1 of which was Grade 3/4. Two pts on the ofa arm developed idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, both of which were Grade 3/4. Case history showed that patient MXC underwent first-line fludarabine followed by alemtuzumab as consolidation treatment for rapidly progressing CLL diagnosed in 2004. Patient had unmutated IGHV status and deletion 17p. In 2005, the patient underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant. First AIHA episode was noted in 2007, followed by ITP in 2008 despite prior steroid and IVIG treatment. Recurrent episodes of AIHA (n=6) and ITP (n=3) transpired over the course of CLL, not always related to simultaneous disease progression. After several treatment failures during the 3rd AIHA episode and 2nd ITP episode, splenectomy was performed to obtain temporary clinical control of autoimmune events, and low dose steroids were successfully administered. In March 2013, patient was randomized to ibr as part of the RESONATE trial, steroid use was discontinued, and no further episodes of AIHA/ITP have been observed since ibr initiation. The patient showed Coombs test negativity after only a few weeks following ibr treatment, and no CLL progression has been observed to date. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety of ibrutinib has been evaluated in CLL/SLL pts including pts with ongoing AIHA/ ITP, both frequently noted complications of this disease. Data from the Phase III RESONATE study suggest that these CLL disease-related autoimmune complications did not limit ibrutinib treatment. This is supported by the lack of AIHA and ITP adverse events on the ibrutinib arm despite 19% having a history of these complications and further exemplified by a case report from the RESONATE study, where sequential episodes of severe AIHA/ITP ceased following ibrutinib initiation in the setting of disease control. Disclosures Montillo: Janssen: Honoraria. O'Brien:Amgen, Celgene, GSK: Consultancy; CLL Global Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Emergent, Genentech, Gilead, Infinity, Pharmacyclics, Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dearden:Roche, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Napp: Honoraria. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mulligan:Roche, Abbvie : Consultancy, Honoraria. Furman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cymbalista:Janssen, Roche, GSK, Gilead, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Plascencia:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Chang:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Hsu:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Byrd:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

High Dose Imatinib Induction Therapy (800 mg/day, 6 Months) In Pre-Treated Chronic Phase CML Patients Improves Cytogenetic and Molecular Responses but Does Not Improve Overall and Progression Free Survival – Final Results of the CELSG Phase III CML11 “ISTAHIT” Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.2271.2271 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 2271-2271

Author(s):

Andreas L Petzer ◽

Dominic Fong ◽

Thomas Lion ◽

Irina Dyagil ◽

Zvenyslava Masliak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

De Novo ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Phase Iii ◽

High Dose ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2271 Introduction: Imatinib 400 mg/day represents the current standard treatment for de novo as well as pre-treated CML patients in chronic phase (CP). Recent randomized phase III trials revealed conflicting results concerning the potential higher efficacy of dose-increased imatinib in de novo treated CP-CML. Methods: We here present the final analyses including response data, OS, EFS and PFS of the multicenter, randomised, 2-arm phase III CELSG “ISTAHIT” trial evaluating imatinib high dose (HD) induction (800 mg/day, 6 months) followed by 400 mg/day as maintenance (experimental arm B) compared to continuous imatinib standard dose (400mg/day; arm A) in pre-treated CP CML patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0032726. Results: From a total of 243 patients screened for inclusion, 16 patients were not eligible (mainly due to non sufficient numbers of metaphases obtainable from the bone marrow before the start of the study). Of the remaining 227 patients, 113 patients were randomized into arm A and 114 patients into the experimental arm B. Subsequent data are presented as per protocol. No significant differences between treatment groups were observed regarding sex (55.5% female, 44.5% male), age (median: 46.3 years, range 18 –76), Sokal scores at diagnosis (30% low, 41% intermediate, 16% Sokal high risk, 13% unknown) and different pre-treatments, which included hydroxyurea (96%), interferon (72%), busulfan (17%) and “others” (26%; mainly Ara-C). The median observation time was 673 days. Cytogenetic responses were generally higher in the experimental arm B and revealed statistically significant differences in major cytogenetic responses (MCyR) at 3 and 6 months (month 3: 25.8% arm A, 48.3% arm B, p=0.002; month 6: 41.9% arm A, 58.8% arm B, p=0.029) as well as in complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) not only during imatinib HD therapy (month 3: 7.5% arm A, 29.9% arm B, p<0.001; month 6: 20.4% arm A, 47.4% arm B, p<0.001) but also thereafter (month 12: 31.8% arm A, 52.9% arm B, p=0.006). The primary endpoint of the study, the achievement of an improved MCyR at 12 month was, however, not significantly different (56.8% arm A, 64.4% arm B). In line with improved cytogenetic responses, major molecular response (MMRIS) rates were also significantly better at 3, 6 and even at 24 months in the HD arm B (month 3: 3.7% arm A, 15.9% arm B, p=0.003; month 6: 9.4% arm A, 34.6% arm B, p<0.001; month 24: 26.5% arm A, 42.5% arm B, p=0.034). Surprisingly, however, this impressing improvement in cytogenetic and molecular remissions in patients achieving high dose imatinib as induction therapy did not translate into a better OS and PFS, both of which were comparable in the two treatment arms (OS: p=0.25; EFS: p=0.37). Moreover, the EFS was even significantly worsened in the experimental arm B (p=0.014). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities during the first 6 months of therapy were comparable, whereas grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were significantly more common in the imatinib HD arm B. Conclusions: Although high dose imatinib induction induces more rapid and higher cytogenetic and molecular remission rates in pre-treated CP CML patients, OS as well as PFS were not improved and EFS was even worsened in the high dose induction arm B. Therefore we conclude that imatinib 400mg/day remains the standard of care for pre-treated CP-CML patients. Disclosures: Petzer: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Imatinib 800mg is not licensed as the initial therapy of chronic phase CML. Lion: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bogdanovic: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griskevicius: Novartis: Research Funding. Kwakkelstein: Celgene: Employment. Rancati: Novartis: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gastl: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wolf: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text