High Risk Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Comparison of Aggressive Subtypes Treated with Dose Adjusted Chemotherapy-the University of Texas MD Anderson Experience

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).Nearly 50% of high-risk DLBCL patients are not cured with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (RCHOP). High risk DLBCL may be defined as double hit lymphoma (DHL, translocation of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6), double expressor lymphoma (DEL, over expression of MYC and BCL2), high risk international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5, high Ki-67, and non-germinal center subtype (non-GCB). The majority of DHL cases occur in the GCB subtype, as opposed to the majority of DEL cases which occur in non-GCB. Hence we sought to compare different high risk subsets treated with dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab (DA) EPOCH-R. In single arm phase II clinical trials, dose adjusted (DA) EPOCH-R has shown promising results, with potential greater efficacy in the GCB subtype in subset analyses (Wilson et al, Hematologica 2012). A randomized phase III study comparing RCHOP with (DA) EPOCH-R in newly diagnosed DLBCL has completed accrual, with highly anticipated results due in late 2016. Methods: We conducted a retrospective reviewof all consecutive, newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010 to 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or greater, had high-risk DLBCL as determined by the treating physician, and had available data of treatment and response. The cell of origin subtype was determined by immunohistochemistry using Hans algorithm, and MYC and BCL2 positivity were defined as BCL2 positive in at least 70% and MYC positive in at least 40% of cells. DHL was defined as rearrangement of MYC and BCL2 or BCL6 by fluorescent in situ hybridization. The objectives were to analyze demographic, prognostic, and treatment variables in comparison with clinical response and survival outcomes in three sub groups which included 1. DHL (GCB) 2. DLBCL without MYC and BCL2 expression (GCB), and 3. DEL (GCB and non GCB). Complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated using standard methods. Statistical analysis was done using Fishers exact test or Chi-square test / Kruskal-Wallis test. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analysis including overall survival and progression free survival. The Log-rank test was used to evaluate the difference in time-to-event endpoints between patient groups. Results: We identified 233 high risk DLBCL patients treated with (DA) EPOCH-R. After filtering the data to identify patients which were included in our three groups, we identified 22 patients with DHL (GCB), 46 patients with non DEL (GCB), and 16 with DEL. The demographic features and outcomes are mentioned in the table 1 below. The DHL group had more frequent bone marrow (BM) involvement, and the DHL and DEL groups were more frequently age >60 years and high IPI in comparison to the non DEL GCB group. The CR rate, OS and PFS at 1 year were not significantly different between these three groups. Figure 1 highlights the OS (A) and PFS (B) results of each group. Conclusions: (DA) EPOCH-R is highly effective in patients with subsets of patients with high-risk DLBCL and may be able to overcome prognostic factors which have been shown to be adverse with RCHOP therapy. The results of this retrospective study suggest that OS in DHL, DEL and non DEL (GCB) are not statistically different. Hence, intensive chemotherapy with (DA) EPOCH-R could be considered as a frontline treatment option for patients with high risk DLBCL, pending further confirmation in randomized trials. Disclosures Oki: Novartis: Research Funding. Fowler:Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Westin:ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

TP53 and MYD88 Mutations As Detected By Liquid Biopsy in the Prediction of Progression-Free Survival in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-148122 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4480-4480

Author(s):

Maher Albitar ◽

Andrew Ip ◽

Hong Zhang ◽

Andrew L. Pecora ◽

Jeffrey Justin Estella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Leadership Role ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction: Liquid biopsy has been reported to be useful in predicting residual disease in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Most of the studies focused on quantifying the level of circulating lymphoma-specific DNA. We explored the clinical relevance of the specific mutated genes in predicting progression in patients with DLBCL. Method: Peripheral blood samples were collected from patients with DLBCL based on their visit to clinic without other specific selection. Median age of patients is 69 (range 28-91), with 51% of the patients being male. These patients were treated on multiple protocols including R-CHOP, R-EPOCH, Magrath, HCVAD, CAR-T (#2 patients), and others. cfDNA was extracted and sequenced by next generation sequencing using 177 gene panel. The panel uses single primer extension (SPE) approach with UMI. Sequencing depth is increased to more than 2000X after removing duplicates. Low level mutations are confirmed by inspecting BAM file. Results: A total of 86 sample from 61 patients were collected post clinical remission at different time points (median 28 weeks, range: 1-994 weeks). Of these samples, 56 (65%) from 46 patients (75%) were positive. However, 6 of these samples from 4 patients had germline mutations or mutations in TET2, ASXL1, or DNMT3A that are consistent with CHIP (clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential). The remaining 50 positive samples from 42 patients had 8 repeats on the same patients collected at different time points. Comparing the 19 negative patients with the 42 positive patients post-remission, patients with residual molecular disease were significantly older than patients without residual disease (P=0.01). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, ethnic background, LDH, cell of origin classification, or TP53 positivity by IHC. Patients with residual disease showed tendency for short progression-free survival (P=0.08). Focusing on patients with specific mutations detected in the cfDNA showed that 14 (23%) patients had mutations either in TP53 or MYD88. There was no significant difference in age between these two groups or any of the other clinical variables. However, patients with TP53/MYD88 mutations had significantly shorter survival (P=0.04). Conclusion: Post-remission residual disease as measured by circulating cfDNA is an independent predictor of potential relapse in patients with DLBCL. However, presence of it is important to determine the aggressiveness of the residual circulating clone. Residual circulating lymphoma DNA with TP53 or MYD88 mutations is a strong predictor of earlier relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pecora: Genetic testing cooperative: Other: equity investor; Genetic testing cooperative: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Goy: Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elsevier's Practice Update Oncology, Intellisphere, LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Michael J Hennessey Associates INC: Consultancy; Elsevier PracticeUpdate: Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Hoffman la Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive Peer Exchange: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rosewell Park: Consultancy; LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Genomic Testing Cooperative: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Xcenda: Consultancy; Hoffman la Roche: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Vincerx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Physicians' Education Resource: Consultancy, Other: Meeting/travel support; COTA (Cancer Outcome Tracking Analysis): Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Hackensack Meridian Health, Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment.

Download Full-text

Novel Prognostic Scoring System for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AHCT) in Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126646 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 783-783 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Binod Dhakal ◽

Raphael Fraser ◽

Zhubin Gahvari ◽

Aric C. Hall ◽

Natalie Scott Callander ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Scoring System ◽

Research Funding ◽

Validation Cohort ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Low Risk ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Final Model ◽

Free Survival

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) <10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p<0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Multi-Institutional Outcomes Analysis of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with Ibrutinib

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1115.1115 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1115-1115 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Allison Marie Winter ◽

Daniel J. Landsburg ◽

Francisco J. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri ◽

Nishitha Reddy ◽

Stephen Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

De Novo ◽

Molecular Subtype ◽

Single Agent ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease with distinct survival differences according to molecular subtype with superior outcomes in patients with the germinal center B cell-like (GC) subtype as compared to those with the activated B cell-like (ABC) subtype. Efficacy data for single-agent ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL are limited to a single clinical trial of 80 patients. In that study, higher response rates were observed for r/r ABC-DLBCL compared to GC-DLBCL (37% vs. 5%), when assigned by gene expression profiling (GEP). The response rate of those with unknown/unclassifiable DLBCL was 22%. Despite biologic rationale for selective cytotoxicity of ibrutinib for ABC-DLBCL, it is not clear that such preferential activity will be observed when subtyping based on immunohistochemical (IHC) staining is used, as the correlation with subtype determined by GEP and IHC is imperfect. Furthermore, GEP is time consuming and expensive so IHC is used in clinical practice to differentiate GC from non-GC, the latter of which includes both ABC and unclassifiable DLBCL. We retrospectively analyzed outcomes of patients with r/r DLBCL treated with ibrutinib at a number of large academic medical centers. Methods: We reviewed medical records of all patients with DLBCL treated with ibrutinib at five U.S. tertiary-care cancer centers from 2013 to 2016. We included patients with de novo DLBCL as well as those transformed from indolent lymphoma if the ibrutinib was given for the DLBCL histology. Patients were excluded if they received ibrutinib for ≤ 14 days. Molecular subtype (GC vs non-GC) was determined by local pathology findings and/or the investigator's application of the Hans algorithm. Categorical variables were compared between groups using the Chi-square test. Outcomes were calculated from the date of initiation of ibrutinib. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: Thirty five patients met inclusion criteria (27 de novo and 8 transformed DLBCL). The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (range 38-88) with 66% men.By Hans IHC criteria, there were 21 cases of non-GC, 9 GC and 5 were unknown.The median number of treatments prior to ibrutinib was 3 (range 1-8). 30% of patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplant. Characteristics including age, gender, transformed versus de novo, relapsed versus refractory, number of prior therapies, and prior use of transplant did not significantly differ between subgroups. The overall response rate (ORR) to ibrutinib was 29% with 4 patients achieving a complete response (CR) and 6 achieving a partial response (PR). When evaluated by subtype assigned by IHC, GC-DLBCL patients had an ORR of 44% and non-GC-DLBCL patients had an ORR of 19%. There was no significant difference in the rates of CR, PR, stable disease, or progressive disease between the subtypes (p=0.185) or between de novo ortransformed disease (P = 0.114). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was comparable for patients with the GC, non-GC, and unknown subtype (3.9, 2.2, and 4.1 months, respectively, P = 0.382, Figure). The median overall survival (OS) was longer for patients with the GC subtype (10.5 months) compared to 5.5 months for patients with the non-GC subtype, and 9.7 months for those with unknown subtype but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.564). Figure: Progression Free Survival of r/r DLBCL Patients Treated with Ibrutinib, based on Hans Algorithm Subtype Conclusions: Responserates to single agent ibrutinib in the GC and non-GC subtypes of r/r DLBCL do not appear different when using Hans algorithm to assign subtypes. PFS and OS were modest in both groups and not statistically different. In conclusion, until GEP or other molecular technologies such as Nanostring are in more widespread use for routine subtyping of DLBCL, caution is advised when selecting patients for subtype-specific therapy, as clinical outcomes for patients receiving ibrutinib may not differ by cell of origin as determined by IHC. Figure Figure. Disclosures Reddy: celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GILEAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; INFINITY: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shadman:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Smith:Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Prolonged Progression-Free Survival Is Possible in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Receiving > 1 Salvage Therapies before Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.5825.5825 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 5825-5825

Author(s):

Abigail G Kettle ◽

Jeffrey Switchenko ◽

Oscar Calzada ◽

Anh Thuy Phan ◽

Monique Farone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Radiation Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Salvage Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Salvage Treatment ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Introduction While 50-60% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are cured with initial chemoimmunotherapy such as R-CHOP, many patients will relapse and require additional therapy. Historically, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been utilized in chemo-sensitive patients with relapsed DLBCL although the role of ASCT in patients who require > 1 salvage treatment to achieve remission is less defined due to concerns about the likelihood of long-term remission in that population. We evaluated the outcome of ASCT in patients who required >1 salvage therapy. Methods We included all patients undergoing ASCT for relapsed/refractory DLBCL at our site between 2005-2016 who received > 1 salvage treatment before transplant, with radiation therapy considered a salvage treatment if given after relapse but before ASCT. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory and pathologic data on all patients. We defined progression-free survival (PFS) as time from ASCT to date of progression or death from any cause and overall survival (OS) as time from ASCT to date of death from any cause. Living patients were censored at the time of their last follow up. Univariate Cox proportional hazards models of PFS and OS were fit and Kaplan-Meier plots were developed to estimate the impact of variables of interest on survival. Results Out of 259 patients undergoing ASCT for DLBCL, 43 received > 1 salvage treatment, the median age was 51 years and 23 patients were male. Twenty patients had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis. The median time to relapse from the time of diagnosis was 9.3 months, and 42% of patients experienced a relapse > 12 months after diagnosis. Twenty-six patients (60%) received radiation as one of their salvage therapies, 25 patients (58%) received R-ICE as their first salvage therapy and 10 (23%) patients received R-ICE as their second salvage treatment. All patients received either 2 (n=39) or 3 (n=4) salvage therapies before ASCT, and the response to the initial salvage therapy received was CR in 4 patients, PR in 14 patients, SD in 1 patient, and PD in 14 patients, with initial response to salvage therapy missing in 10 patients. The median PFS for all patients was 15.9 months and the median OS was 57.2 months (Figure 1a). Receipt of radiation and having disease sensitive to treatment at the time of ASCT were the only factors associated with prolonged PFS and OS. Median PFS has not been achieved in patients who received radiation while patients who did not receive radiation had a median PFS of 4.2 months (HR = 0.36, p = 0.014; Figure 1b). Patients who had a chemo sensitive disease status at transplant had a median PFS of 22.6 months; however, patients with refractory disease at transplant only achieved a median PFS of 3.6 months (HR = 0.30, p=0.008). Remaining factors including conditioning regimen, time to relapse, and number of salvage therapies were not significantly associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions ASCT can result in prolonged PFS/OS in patients requiring > 1 salvage therapy especially in the case of sensitive disease. Radiation as an additional line of therapy is associated with improved PFS/OS, suggesting this can be included to induce remission in patients who fail to achieve CR with initial salvage treatment. While uncommon, patients with chemo-refractory disease can also have durable survival and should not be excluded from transplant. Figure 1a Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy. Figure 1a. Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy. Figure 1b Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy based on receipt of radiation therapy. Figure 1b. Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy based on receipt of radiation therapy. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: 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.

Download Full-text

Phase II Trial of Combination of Elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-154 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 154-154 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Chia-jen Liu ◽

Irene M. Ghobrial ◽

Mark Bustoros ◽

Kaitlen Reyes ◽

Kalvis Hornburg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Therapeutic Intervention ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Genomic Studies ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the benefit of early therapeutic intervention with the combination of elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02279394. Aims The overarching objective of this trial is to determine progression free survival to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). Furthermore, the study examined whether genomic studies can help in determining patients who would benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Methods Patients enrolled in this study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al, Blood 2014. Patients were administered weekly elotuzumab (10 mg/kg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for the first two 28-day cycles while receiving lenalidomide on days 1-21. For cycles 3-8, patients were administered elotuzumab infusions on days 1, 8, and 15. dexamethasone (40mg) was given on days 1, 8 and 15 to 40 of the 50 enrolled patients. After 8 cycles or best response, patients were given the option to mobilize with either cyclophosphamide or plerixafor and collect stem cells for future transplant. Patients were then allowed to continue on maintenance therapy where they were administered elotuzumab (20 mg/kg) on day 1, in combination with lenalidomide days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow (BM) samples of 32 patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment and whole exome sequencing (WES) of plasma cells. Results In total, 50 patients were enrolled on this study from January 2015 and completed accrual in December 2016, with the participation of eight sites. The median age of enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 29-79) with 18 males (36%) and 32 females (64%). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) detected high-risk cytogenetics (defined by the presence of 17p deletion, t(4;14), and 1q gain) in 20 patients. The median time to response was 2.8 months (range, 1.8-4.6). The most common toxicities were fatigue (92%), followed by diarrhea (72%), and hyperglycemia (62%). The most common grade 3 or more adverse events were hypophosphatemia (34%), neutropenia (26%), and lymphocyte count decreased (22%). Three patients (6%) had grade 4 hypophosphatemia during treatment. Additionally, grade 4 cholecystitis, cataract, lymphocyte count increase, hyperglycemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in one patient (2%). Diabetic Ketoacidosis and sepsis led to death in a patient (2%). Stem cell collection was successful in all mobilized patients to date. As of this abstract date, the overall response rate is 84% (41/49). There were 3 complete responses (6%), 18 very good partial responses (37%), 20 partial responses (41%), 5 minimal responses (10%), 3 stable disease (6%), and 2 unevaluable patients. All the study participants except for three have finished treatment and are currently under follow up. None of the patients showed progression to overt MM to date. We continue to collect data for progression free survival. WES was performed on 32 samples at the time of initiation of therapy. Recurrent mutations in the MAPK pathway (KRAS, NRAS) and tumor suppressor gene, TP53, were detected in 40% of the cases (16% and 24%, respectively), while mutations in the NF-KB and plasma cell differentiation pathways were present in 13% of patients. Somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) were called based on WES: 1q duplication, 13q, 17p, and 1p deletions were identified in 25, 31, 12, and 7% of cases, respectively. Interestingly, in 6 patients, high-risk SCNAs (1q gain and 17p deletion) were not reported in iFISH but were detected by WES. The analysis of these 32 samples showed that patients who are harboring mutations in the DNA repair pathway genes, had modest response to treatment. Finally, we are analyzing the transcriptomic profile of CD138 negative cells, which represent the BM microenvironment cells (immune and stromal cells) to characterize the BM microenvironment at baseline and end of treatment, and thus, elucidate the role of these cells in the differential response to therapy. Conclusion The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is well tolerated and demonstrates a high response rate with no progression to overt MM to date. Correlation with genomic studies can help define patients who benefit the most from this early therapeutic intervention. Disclosures Ghobrial: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Bustoros:Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Badros:GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Rosenblatt:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Coelum: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Munshi:OncoPep: Other: Board of director. Anderson:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; OncoPep: Equity Ownership, Other: Scientific founder; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Evomela® Significantly Increases the Risk of Engraftment Syndrome in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-132114 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3316-3316 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Marshall McKenna ◽

Phyllis McKiernan ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

Scott D. Rowley ◽

Noa Biran ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Engraftment Syndrome ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Evomela, a Melphalan bioequivalent, was approved by the FDA in 2016 for high-dose conditioning treatment prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Evomela has increased solubility and stability compared to traditional Melphalan which requires propylene glycol, a stabilizing agent. A retrospective review (Miller et al. 2019) showed that there was no difference in outcomes or short term morbidity in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) recipients conditioned with either Melphalan or Evomela. There was, however, an increased incidence of C. difficile-negative diarrhea in the Evomela group. Engraftment syndrome (ES) is a well characterized, although poorly understood, conglomerate of symptoms occurring in the autologous peri-engraftment period. We have previously demonstrated (McKiernan et al. 2017) that patients with ES have an adverse overall outcome. This study aims to evaluate the effect of Evomela conditioning on patients with MM receiving ASCT. Methods: Our study cohort included 644 patients with MM who received ASCT between January 2008 and December 2018. Evomela conditioning was administered to all patients treated on or after September 4, 2016, defining the Melphalan and Evomela cohorts. ES was defined as diarrhea, rash, non-infectious fever, hepatic dysfunction, pulmonary infiltrates, or encephalopathy not attributed to other causes from 3 days prior to 15 days post engraftment. High-risk disease (HRD) was defined as del 17p, 1q gain, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) by FISH, monosomy 13, del 13q or hypodiploidy by standard cytogenetics, or high-risk gene expression profiling. Response criteria from the International Myeloma Working Group was used to determine response. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated using log rank or Wilcoxon tests. Cox hazard regression model was examined for factors influencing ES. Results: Of the 644 patients, 78 were conditioned with Evomela and 554 were conditioned with Melphalan. Thirty five percent of the total patient population had HRD, 234 (36%) were age 65 or older, and 369 (57%) were males. A total of 197 (30%) patients developed ES with 171 (87%) receiving treatment with corticosteroids. Conditioning with Evomela was associated with a significantly higher incidence of ES 15 days post ASCT compared to Melphalan (40.3% vs 24.8%, p=0.0006). Multivariate analysis showed that patients conditioned with Evomela were 60% more likely (HR-1.597, 95% CI, 1.116-2.285, p=0.0105) to develop ES than traditional Melphalan. Across both cohorts, higher median CD34+ stem cell doses (5.22 vs 5.85 x 10e6/kg, p=0.0026) were protective against ES. Age greater than 65 was associated with increased 15 day post ASCT incidence of ES (HR-1.903, 95% CI, 1.435-2.523, p=<0.0001). There was no PFS (p=0.2996) or OS (p=0.2778) difference between the Evomela group and the Melphalan group. There was a trend towards decreased OS (p=0.0914) among patients with ES, but it was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant progression difference between ES and non-ES groups (p=0.9739). Conclusion: Patients conditioned with Evomela are significantly more likely to develop ES than patients conditioned with traditional Melphalan. We were not able to show any survival or progression-free survival advantage for patients treated with Evomela. We would caution the use of Evomela in patients with other risk factors for ES. More studies are needed to further understand the differences between Melphalan and Evomela. Disclosures Siegel: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rowley:Allergan: Equity Ownership; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy. Biran:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldberg:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; COTA: Equity Ownership; Cancer Outcomes Tracking and Analysis (COTA) Inc.: Equity Ownership. Goy:Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Safety and Clinical Activity of Temsirolimus in Combination with Rituximab and DHAP in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma - Report of the Prospective, Multicenter Phase II STORM Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3028.3028 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3028-3028

Author(s):

Mathias Witzens-Harig ◽

Andreas Viardot ◽

Ulrich Keller ◽

Christian Buske ◽

Anne Crombé ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Multicenter Phase

Abstract Purpose. To evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the combination of the mTOR inhibitor Temsirolimus and a standard salvage regimen (R-DHAP) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large cell B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods. This is a prospective, multicenter, phase II, open-label study. Patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with a maximum of two prior treatment lines were eligible. The STORM regimen consisted of Rituximab 375 mg/m² (day 2) and DHAP (Dexamethasone 40mg day 3-6, Cisplatine 100 mg/m² day 3, Cytarabine 2x2 g/m² day 4) with Temsirolimus added on day 1 and 8 of a 21 d cycle, with 2-4 cycles planned. In part I, dose levels of 25, 50, 75 and 100 mg for Temsirolimus were predefined. Based on the observed toxicity profile, the independent data safety committee recommended a Temsirolimus dose of 25 mg given on day 1 and 8 for the part II extension cohort of the trial. Results. We here report on 46 patients (pts), 15 from part I and 31 from part II. Seven pts were not evaluable for response. Of the evaluable 39 patients, median age was 63 and median number of prior regimen was 1. Temsirolimus dose was 50 mg on day 1 and 8 in 7 pts from the part I of the trial and 25 mg in the remaining 39 pts. The overall response rate was 82% (32/39pts) with 22 partial and 10 complete responses. After a median follow up of 10 months for the total study population, median PFS and OS have not been reached (Figure 1A and 1B). Early safety analysis includes preliminary data of 22 pts. The most frequent non-hematologic side effects were nausea (14 pts, 64%), epistaxis (11 pts, 50%), fatigue (12 pts, 55%), fever (11 pts, 50%) and diarrhea (11 pts, 50%). Frequent grade 3/4 events (n>2) included leukopenia (21 pts, 95%), thrombocytopenia (20 pts, 91%), lymphopenia (11pts, 50%), anemia (8 pts, 36%), neutropenia (10 pts, 45%), renal failure (3 pts, 20%) and infections (7 pts, 32%, bladder infection, esophagus infection, central venous access infection, soft tissue infection, mucositis). Two therapy-related deaths occurred (one patient died from sepsis during neutropenia, another from cerebral bleeding, both events occurring after cycle 3). Conclusion. Temsirolimus can be safely added to DHAP and Rituximab with promising activity. Figure 1 Progression free survival Figure 1. Progression free survival Figure 2 Overall survival Figure 2. Overall survival Disclosures Witzens-Harig: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Viardot:Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: travel support; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Keller:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buske:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Meissner:Amgen: Other: Travel Support; Takeda: Other: Travel Support; Teva: Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Other: Travel Support. LaRosee:Pfizer: Honoraria. Marks:Pfizer: Honoraria. Hess:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche, CTI, Pfizer, Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Noninvasive Detection of BCL2, BCL6, and MYC Translocations in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2930.2930 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2930-2930 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

David M. Kurtz ◽

Florian Scherer ◽

Aaron M Newman ◽

Alexander Craig ◽

Michael Jin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Plasma Samples ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Md Anderson ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, where almost half of patients fail to fully respond to therapy and have poor outcomes. Prognostic molecular markers, including translocations in BCL2, BCL6, and MYC, can help identify patients at high risk for treatment failure. However, these markers rely on diagnostic tumor samples which must be obtained invasively and are not universally available. Circulating tumor-specific DNA (ctDNA) could provide a source of material for detection of these translocations directly from the blood. We sought to examine the performance for detection of these translocations from ctDNA, as well as their association with eventual clinical outcomes. Methods: We profiled tumor and plasma samples from patients with DLBCL receiving combination immunochemotherapy at Stanford University and MD Anderson Cancer Center. As the clinical gold standard, tumor samples were assessed with break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to detect breaks in BCL2, BCL6, and MYC. DNA from tumor and plasma samples was then sequenced using CAPP-Seq, a targeted next-generation sequencing based method for detection of ctDNA (Newman AM et al, Nature Medicine 2014). Translocations were identified from paired-end reads using FACTERA (Newman AM et al, Bioinformatics 2014). We compared the technical performance of our sequencing-based approach to FISH from tumor samples. Finally, we assessed the prognostic value of our method in relation to clinical outcomes. Results: We prospectively enrolled 86 patients with DLBCL as two cohorts, either at Stanford University (n=40) or at MD Anderson Cancer Center (n=46). We first profiled tumor samples from 40 patients (Stanford cohort) for translocations using FISH as part of the clinical standard of care, identifying 24 translocations in total (12 in BCL2, 7 in BCL6, and 5 in MYC). All patients had tumor and plasma available for sequencing. By analyzing DNA from tumor samples with CAPP-Seq, we identified 92% of all translocations previously identified by FISH (11/12 BCL2, 7/7 BCL6, 4/5 MYC). Furthermore, without prior knowledge of tumor genotypes, we were able to identify 79% (19/24) translocations directly from the plasma (10/12 BCL2, 4/7 BCL6, 5/5 MYC). The performance of genotyping translocations from ctDNA improved with increasing tumor burden, such that 95% (19/20) of translocations were detected in samples with >16pg/mL (e.g. 5 genome equivalents/mL) of ctDNA. We next validated the performance of noninvasive genotyping for translocations in an independent cohort of 46 pretreatment plasma samples (MD Anderson Cancer Center cohort). In patients with detectable ctDNA, we successfully identified 78% (18/23) of translocations previously seen by FISH. Furthermore, in two patients, we detected translocations previously missed by FISH from FFPE tissue specimens (BCL6-IGH and MYC-IGH). In addition to known translocation partners, we observed several novel partner genes for MYC (e.g. PTMA and 7p15.2) and BCL6 (e.g. IRF1). Importantly, across both cohorts, we identified 82% (9/11) of patients with both MYC and BCL2/BCL6 translocations (double-hit lymphoma, DHL) directly from the plasma without knowledge of the tumor. Moreover, DHL detected noninvasively significantly predicted both progression-free and overall survival (p<0.0001, Figure 1). Conclusions: Identification of translocations from plasma without tissue samples is feasible with high sensitivity for all clinically relevant genes. Detection of translocations from plasma is prognostic of eventual outcomes, including overall survival. This technique has potential clinical utility in patients without easily accessible tissue, as well as for monitoring evolution of tumor genotypes over time. Disclosures Newman: Roche: Consultancy. Levy:Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Five Prime Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Dynavax: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Westin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ProNAi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diehn:Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Quanticel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Varian Medical Systems: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase III Study Of Enzastaurin In Patients With High-Risk Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Following Response To Primary Treatment: The Prelude Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.371.371 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 371-371 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Michael Crump ◽

Sirpa Leppä ◽

Luis E Fayad ◽

Je-Jung Lee ◽

Alice Di Rocco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract Background Despite improvements in outcome following the addition of rituximab (R) to CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) (R-CHOP), patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 at diagnosis have a poor outcome. Enzastaurin is a potent inhibitor of PKCβ, a component of the B-cell receptor signaling complex, with preclinical activity and clinical activity in a phase II trial in patients with relapsed DLBCL, providing the rationale for this study in the primary therapy setting. Methods PRELUDE was a multi-national, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Patients were required to have a histologic diagnosis of DLBCL, pre-treatment IPI score ≥3, and a complete response (CR) or CRu by International Working Group Criteria, or a negative FDG-PET scan after 6–8 cycles of R-CHOP. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either enzastaurin 500 mg daily or an identical placebo as maintenance therapy, for a planned treatment duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint was DFS, defined as lack of disease progression or death. Assuming a 2-year DFS rate in the control group of 70%, the primary analysis had 80% power to detect a HR of 0.67, eg, a 2-year DFS rate of 79% in the enzastaurin group. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Data were analyzed 3 years after the last enrolled patient initiated treatment. Results From May 2006–April 2010, 758 patients were enrolled (enzastaurin, n=504; placebo, n=254). Median age at enrollment was 64 years (range 21-89); at diagnosis, 65% of patients had stage IV disease, 48% had B symptoms, and 25% had a mass >10 cm; baseline disease and patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms. Fifty-seven percent had a negative PET scan following completion of R-CHOP. Median follow-up time for all patients was 48 months (range 0.03–80). At the time of analysis, 209 events had occurred. The DFS HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.22; 2-sided log-rank p=0.54). DFS at 24 and 48 months were 79% and 70% for the enzastaurin arm, and 75% and 71% for placebo, respectively. OS at 24 and 48 months was 87% and 81% for enzastaurin, and 89% and 82% for placebo; HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.47; 2-sided log-rank p=0.81). Percent of ITT population patients on therapy at 12, 24, and 36 months was 70.6%, 60.6%, and 20.1% for enzastaurin; 72.3%, 60.6%, and 22.1% for placebo. Biomarker subgroup analysis was performed and will be available at time of presentation. Treatment emergent AEs (all grades) that were possibly study drug-related and significantly different between enzastaurin and placebo included chromaturia (18.5% vs. 0.4%), QTc prolongation (10.8% vs. 3.6%), and diarrhea (10.3% vs. 2.8%). There were no significant differences in number of patients with at least 1 grade 3 or higher AE between treatment arms. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of deaths while on therapy. Conclusion Enzastaurin did not improve DFS, EFS, or OS in patients with high-risk DLBCL and CR following R-CHOP treatment. Disclosures: Crump: Roche: Honoraria; Jansen-Ortho: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Off Label Use: rituximab for maintenance therapy post autolgous transplant for lymphoma. Leppä:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Ogura:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Rifkin:Millenium, Celgene, ONYX: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackensen:Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Offner:Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Genentech, Celgene, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, Amgen/Micronet: Consultancy. Tobinai:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Hahka-Kemppinen:Eli Lilly: Employment. Thornton:Eli Lilly: Employment. Shi:Eli Lilly: Employment. Lin:Eli Lilly: Employment. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy. Savage:Eli Lilly: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Longitudinal Analyses of Diagnostic-Relapse Biopsies of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Reveal a Poor Risk Subset of ABC Patients Based on the Expression of a 30 Gene Panel

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124352 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2769-2769

Author(s):

Findlay Bewicke-Copley ◽

Koorosh Korfi ◽

Shamzah Araf ◽

Emil Arjun Kumar ◽

Thomas E C Cummin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

High Risk ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

Gene Mutations ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma

Background: Although diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured using immuno-chemotherapy, 40% of patients experience relapse or refractory disease. Large-scale profiling studies have mainly focused on DLBCL at diagnosis, resolving different outcome groups based on gene expression (e.g. cell-of-origin (COO) or molecular high grade), MYC/BCL2 translocations (double-hit lymphoma) or gene mutations and copy number aberrations (Schmitz et al, NEJM 2018; Chapuy et al, NatureMedicine 2018). In comparison, longitudinal studies have been hindered by the limited availability of sequential biopsy samples. To date, the relapse-specific gene mutations identified are limited and inconsistent across studies. In our study, we have focussed attention on the changes in gene expression profile (GEP) accompanying DLBCL relapse. Methods: We retrospectively collected archival paired diagnostic/relapse formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor biopsies from 38 de novo DLBCL patients collected from multiple UK sites treated with rituximab-based immuno-chemotherapy, where partial or complete remission was reported following treatment. COO classification was performed by the Lymph2Cx assay on NanoString to distinguish activated B-cell-like (ABC) and germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) subtypes. The Ion AmpliSeq™ Transcriptome Human Gene Expression Kit was used to measure the expression levels of > 20,000 genes on the paired samples. Results: COO remained stable from diagnosis to relapse in 17 ABC-ABC pairs, 11 GCB-GCB pairs and 4 unclassified (UNC)-UNC pairs. Frank COO switching was observed in 6 cases (1 ABC-GCB, 2 ABC-UNC, 2 GCB-UNC, 1 UNC-ABC). Pairs with stable COO were taken forward for further analysis. Gene expression analysis using the limma R package identified 163 and 136 genes as differentially expressed (DE) (p <= 0.01 and absolute log2FC > 1) between the diagnostic and relapse biopsies in ABC and GCB tumors respectively, with only a one gene overlap. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis further suggested that ABC and GCB relapses are mediated via different mechanisms, with tumor growth and proliferation signatures enriched in ABC relapses, whilst adaptive immunity-related signatures accompanied GCB relapses. Next, we aimed to utilise our relapse-specific genes to identify outcome predictors at diagnosis using publicly available GEP datasets. In order to increase our discovery power and accuracy, a larger set of DE genes from the paired differential analysis (796 genes in ABC pairs and 387 from GCB pairs) were selected (p <= 0.05) and subsequently used in a training cohort (GEP from Reddy et al, Cell 2017). The Prediction Analysis for Microarrays R (PAMR) algorithm identified a 30-gene signature within DE genes from ABC pairs (Fig1.A), capable of separating the 249 ABC cases into 136 low and 113 high-risk cases with significantly inferior overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.89, log-rank p=0.0017, measure of goodness-of-fit C-index=0.71; Fig1.B). No equivalent signature was found in the GCB cases using this approach. The prognostic significance of this 30-gene discriminator was successfully validated using a linear predictor in two independent GEP datasets: 1) a population-based cohort (Lenz et al, NEJM 2008) with 93 R-CHOP-treated ABC cases identifying 47 low and 46 high-risk cases (HR=1.92, p=0.046, C-index=0.77; Fig1.C) and 2) a clinical trial dataset (REMoDL-B, Davies et al, Lancet Oncol 2019) with 255 ABC cases identifying 110 low and 145 high-risk ABC cases (HR=1.95, p=0.0051, C-index=0.70; Fig1.D). Conclusions: Here we describe a 30-gene discriminator in ABC-DLBCL, derived from genes differentially expressed between diagnosis and relapse, that allowed the definition of clinically distinct high and low risk subgroups in ABC-DLBCLs at diagnosis. The clinical translation of such a tool may be useful to guide therapy for this unfavourable subgroup of ABC-DLBCLs. Validation of this signature is currently underway in additional datasets and further study is required to understand the contribution of these genes in DLBCL pathology. Disclosures Korfi: Roche: Consultancy. Burton:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Takeda: 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. Rule:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Napp: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crosbie:Janssen: Honoraria. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Davies:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys AG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gribben:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Okosun:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Research Funding. Johnson:Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text