Intervention Versus Observation: What Is the Appropriate Endpoint? Assessment of Endpoints in Patients with Advanced Stage Follicular Lymphoma Who Are Initially Observed

Abstract BACKGROUND: Treatment may be safely deferred in asymptomatic patients with advanced stage, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL) until onset of symptoms or organ failure without compromising overall survival (OS). A randomized trial comparing immediate rituximab vs. observation in this setting reported a Time to New Treatment benefit without a corresponding OS benefit (Ardeshna et al, Lancet Oncol 2014). This is a comparison of Time to 1st Treatment (TT1T, observation arm) vs. Time to 2nd Treatment (TT2T, rituximab arm) and thus biased to immediate intervention. TT2T might be a less biased primary endpoint for trials evaluating immediate intervention vs. observation. Time to Treatment n (TT(n)T) is a function of cumulative time spent from diagnosis in periods of observation, treatment, and remission, and TT(n)T approaches OS as n approaches the maximum number of therapies received, thus we also hypothesize that TT2T might be a surrogate for OS. We have therefore performed a comprehensive evaluation of standard endpoints (TT1T, OS, and EFS12), described TT2T as a novel endpoint for trials evaluating intervention vs. observation in asymptomatic patients with advanced stage, low tumor burden FL, and aimed to determine if TT2T is a reliable surrogate for OS. METHODS: We identified 246 consecutive patients at our institution, diagnosed from 1998 to 2007 with advanced stage, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma grade 1-3A, for whom physician intention at diagnosis was observation. Median time to event was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method for each event: TT1T, TT2T, and OS. Modified Kendall's tau was used to assess the correlation between TT1T, TT2T, and OS, accounting for censoring in these quantities. Tests of modified Kendall's tau against 0 (i.e. no correlation) were performed. EFS12 was defined as non-death event within 12 months of initiation of first treatment, and median OS for EFS12 analysis was calculated from end of first treatment. Of 69 patients who received chemoimmunotherapy as first therapy following initial observation, the log-rank test was used to compare survival distributions by EFS12. RESULTS: Of 246 patients with advanced stage, follicular lymphoma grade 1-3A for whom physician intention at diagnosis was observation, there was a slight female predominance (1.16:1), 34.6% were above age 60 with a median age of 56.1 years (range 25-88), and 11.8% (29/246) developed histologic transformation prior to 1st/2nd therapy, including 7.7% (19/246) prior to 1st treatment. At a median follow-up of 10.9 years: median TT1T was 43.5 months (3.5-217.4+, 179 events), median TT2T was 151.8 months (range 5.2-219.6+, 101 events), and median OS was not reached (range 5.2-219.6+, 48 events). The modified Kendall's tau measuring correlation between TT1T and OS was 0.012 (p = 0.537), and was 0.078 (p < 0.001) between TT2T and OS, suggesting that TT2T is strongly correlated with OS while TT1T is not. Failure to achieve EFS12 was observed in 10.3% (7/68) and associated with inferior OS (p=0.001). Of 7 patients who failed to achieve EFS12, 3 had histologic transformation. CONCLUSIONS: TT2T is a preferred primary endpoint for clinical trials evaluating intervention vs. observation. In patients with advanced stage, low tumor burden FL who are initially observed, the median time from diagnosis to 2nd treatment is 12.7 years. Future trials evaluating the role of immediate therapy in low tumor burden FL might restrict eligibility to high risk patients expected to have inferior TT2T. Efforts are ongoing to develop biomarkers (e.g. m7-FLIPI) that identify a population enriched with high risk patients. Our data also suggest that TT2T might be a better surrogate for OS than TT1T, and analyses are ongoing to validate this finding. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hamlin: Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Xencor: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Huya: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding. Palomba:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Moskowitz:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Noy:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Zelenetz:Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Nanostring Tech: Consultancy; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: DMC Membership; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hospira: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Results of a Phase II Study of Obinutuzumab in Combination with Lenalidomide in Previously Untreated, High Tumor Burden Follicular Lymphoma (FL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129422 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 125-125 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽

Jason R. Westin ◽

Fredrick B. Hagemeister ◽

Hun Ju Lee ◽

Luis Fayad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Nk Cell ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Tumor Burden ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Introduction: FL, the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is characterized by a defective immune microenvironment that suppresses normal T-cell and natural-killer (NK)-cell activity. The clinical course is often depicted by high initial response rates coupled with a prolonged natural history and repeated relapses with most patients (pts) succumbing to their disease. Effective, well tolerated therapies are desirable. Obinutuzumab (O) is a humanized, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody glycoengineered for enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). Lenalidomide (len) is an immunomodulatory agent that binds the cereblon E3 ubiquitin ligase complex resulting in recruitment, ubiquitination, and degradation of transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros resulting in T-cell and NK-cell activation. Therefore, combining O with len is anticipated to be synergistic in augmenting the innate and adaptive immune response in FL. The combination has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in relapsed FL (Fowler ICML 2017). Therefore, we sought to explore the efficacy and safety of O-len in previously untreated, high tumor burden FL. Methods: We conducted as single-center, phase 2 study in previously untreated, stage II, III, or IV, high tumor burden (defined by GELF) FL (grade 1, 2 or 3A). Pts received 1000mg of O on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2-6, and day 1 of even numbered cycles, cycle 8-30. Cycle length was 28 days. Len was administered as 20mg on days 1-21 of cycles 1-6. Pts in a complete response (CR) after 6 cycles received reduced dose len (10mg on days 1-21) for cycles 7-18. Among pts in a partial response (PR) after 6 cycles, len was continued at 20mg for the next 3-6 cycles or until CR, whichever occurred first, len was then dose reduced to 10mg on days 1-21 for the remainder of 18 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 2 years (according to Lugano 2014 criteria). Secondary endpoints included: safety, CR, PR, overall response (ORR), and overall survival (OS). Results: 90 pts with high tumor burden FL were enrolled. Median age was 58 years (range 33-84), 52% (N=47) were male, 67 (74%) had an ECOG performance status of 0, 9 (10%) had stage II, 23 (26%) stage III, and 58 (64%) had stage IV disease. The majority had grade 1/2 FL (80%). Twenty-one percent had low risk FLIPI scores, 37% intermediate risk, and 42% were high risk. With a median follow-up of 22 months (range 1-30 months), the 2-year PFS estimate is 96% (95% CI 92-100%) with only 2 pts experiencing progression to date. The ORR is 98% (85 CR, 1 PR), 92% achieved a CR at the first response assessment (cycle 4, day 1). Correlative studies are underway including serial circulating tumor DNA measurements. No deaths have been observed to date. Eleven pts (12%) discontinued therapy as a result of an adverse event (AE), upper respiratory infection was the most common reason (N=5). Other reasons included bradycardia with sick sinus syndrome, urinary tract infection, constipation, abdominal pain, fatigue, foot neuroma (N=1 for each instance). The most common grade 3 or higher AEs include neutropenia (16%, grade 3 N=5, grade 4 N= 9), rash (10%), lung infection (4%), neutropenic fever (1%). Conclusions: O-Len was associated with very high CR rates and 2-year PFS estimates in untreated, high tumor burden FL. The toxicity profile was manageable. Further study of this effective, immune therapy approach in untreated FL is warranted. Figure Disclosures Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Westin:Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; 47 Inc: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Parmar:Cellenkos Inc.: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wang:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Neelapu:Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fowler:ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide in untreated follicular lymphoma

Download Full-text

a Combination of Ex Vivo and Computational Models Predicts Clinical Response in MM Treatment Combinations of Proteasome Inhibitors, Imids, Nuclear Export Inhibitors and Alkylating Agents

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3291.3291 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3291-3291

Author(s):

Ariosto Silva ◽

Maria Silva ◽

Timothy Jacobson ◽

Mark B Meads ◽

Allison Distler ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Response ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

In Silico ◽

Nuclear Export ◽

Research Funding ◽

Ex Vivo ◽

Proteasome Inhibitors ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Genetics Research

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma is a heterogeneous plasma cell neoplasm that remains all but incurable despite significant advances in treatment. We anticipate that the ability to overcome this hurdle resides in personalized strategies designed to specifically recognize, target, and anticipate dynamic tumor subpopulations with variable drug response profiles within an individual. To this end, we have developed a novel multi-disciplinary approach using organotypic drug screening and mathematical modeling to assess drug sensitivity of the different subpopulations within the tumor burden of individual patients and, in turn, provide accurate predictions of clinical outcome to anti-myeloma therapy. Material and methods: We have used a novel combination of ex vivo drug sensitivity assay and mathematical models to predict clinical response of 48 MM patients (11 newly diagnosed and 37 relapsed, 18 females and 30 males, median age 64.5, range 45-77) treated with a combination of proteasome inhibitors and IMIDs (37), nuclear export and topo2 isomerase inhibitors (10), and high dose melphalan (1). MM cells (CD138+) were extracted from fresh bone marrow aspirates and seeded in an ex vivo co-culture model with human stroma in 384-well plates. These cells were exposed to a number of chemotherapeutic and experimental agents (up to 31) for a period of 4 days, during which viability was assessed continuously using bright field imaging and digital image analysis. A mathematical model was used to interpolate the dose response dynamics to each drug, and combined with drug and regimen-specific pharmacokinetic data, generate predictions of clinical response to each individual drug. We have then validated ex vivo-based predictions with actual outcome 90 days post-biopsy. In patients treated with combinations, the mathematical model combined the effect of each single drug assuming additivity. Results: To examine the accuracy of the predicted in silico responses, we have assessed the model according to three increasingly strict standards of accuracy: (A) The model correctly predicted 32 out of 32 responders (100%) and 14 out of 16 non-responders (88%), with an overall accuracy of 96%; (B) According to IMWG stratification, the model correctly stratified 14 out of 16 patients as stable or progressive disease (PD/SD, 88%, the remaining 2 incorrectly predicted as MR/PR), 15 our of 18 as minimal or partial response (MR/PR, 83%, the remaining 3 incorrectly predicted as VGPR/CR), and 10 out of 14 patients as very good partial response or complete response (71%, the remaining 4 incorrectly classified as MR/PR), with an overall accuracy of 81%; (C) The 48 patients from this study provided a total of 120 measures of tumor burden (M-spike or SFLC) within the 90-day post-biopsy period. The direct correlation between tumor burden measures and model predictions led to a Pearson r=0.5547 (P<0.0001) and the correlation line [Actual]=0.8282*[Model]+16.27, where [Model] and [Actual] are the predicted and actual tumor burdens as a percentage of tumor burden measure at the moment of treatment initiation. From the 14 non-responders, the model predicted that 2 would have had a VGPR/CR and 3 would have had a MR/PR if treated with drugs differing from those given clinically. Intriguingly, from the 13 patients who received 3-agent therapies with matched in silico drug testing, only 2 had response to all agents, 6 had a response to 2 agents, 4 responded to only 1 of the 3 agents and 1 responded to none of the agents. Next, we examined the 18 patients with a 2-drug match between in silico and actual treatment. From these, 1 patient model responded to 2 drugs, 12 responded to only 1 drug, and 5 responded to none. From the 17 patients with a single agent match between treatment and in silico, 8 had a response and 9 had no response. In summary, among the drugs tested both ex vivoand actually administered to patients, 48% had some predicted clinical benefit, while 52% of agents had none, and could theoretically be removed without affecting clinical outcome. Conclusion: We observed an excellent correlation between in silicopredicted and clinically observed responses in 48 MM patient specimens. Our data suggest that this model may provide critical insight in the selection the appropriate therapeutic agents and number of agents to combine for a given individual. Further validation is required to better define the role of this approach as a clinical decision support tool. Figure Figure. Disclosures Baz: Novartis: Research Funding; Signal Genetics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda/Millennium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Shain:Signal Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda/Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen/Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Lenalidomide In Combination With R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) In Patients With High Burden Follicular Lymphoma: Phase 2 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.248.248 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 248-248 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Herve Tilly ◽

Franck Morschhauser ◽

Olivier Casasnovas ◽

Thierry Jo Molina ◽

Nicolas Mounier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Complete Remission ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Burden ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background Single-agent studies of lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) have demonstrated significant activity. Recent studies reported that the combination of lenalidomide and rituximab yields high response rates in patients with FL. Three recent phase 1 studies have shown that lenalidomide administered on 10 to 14 days of 21-day cycle of R-CHOP could be safe in the initial treatment of aggressive or indolent B-cell lymphomas. Two of these studies determined 25 mg of lenalidomide as the recommended daily dose. This multicenter, open label, phase 2 trial (NCT01393756) investigated the combination of lenalidomide with R-CHOP in patients (pts) with high burden FL. Methods Pts with previously untreated FL grade 1, 2 or 3a and a high tumor burden according to GELF criteria were eligible. Pts received an induction therapy with 6 cycles of R2-CHOP given every 3 weeks (25 mg oral lenalidomide on days 1-14) followed by two additional rituximab infusions. Pegfilgrastim was administered on day 4 and oral aspirin prophylaxis (100 mg) was given daily during the cycles. Lenalidomide dose was adapted to toxicities. Pts responding to induction therapy received rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the complete remission (CR/CRu) rate, according to IWRC 99, at the end of induction treatment. Secondary endpoints were safety, progression free survival, duration of response and overall survival. Results Eighty pts were enrolled from 16 LYSA centres between December 2010 and January 2012. Median age was 57 y (range 29-71); 50% were male; 92% Ann Arbor stage III-IV; 28% B symptoms, 69% ECOG performance status = 0; 25% mass >10cm; 53% bone marrow involved; 40% LDH elevated; 63% FLIPI 3-5. Sixty-eight pts (85%) received the complete induction regimen. Median interval between R2-CHOP cycles remained 21 days during treatment. Thirty-three pts (41%) experienced at least one dose reduction of lenalidomide. The complete remission (CR/CRu) rate was 74% (CI 95%: 63%-83%) and ORR was 94% (CI95%: 86%-98%).Current median follow-up is 13 months. So far, 9 pts (11%) experienced a progression/relapse. Hematologic toxicity was in the range of that observed with R-CHOP regimen with 65% grade 4 neutropenia; 12.5% grade 4 thrombocytopenia; 7.5% febrile neutropenia and no toxic death. Grade 1-2 sensory neuropathy was observed in 28 pts (36%), one pt had a grade 3 neuropathy. Twenty-nine pts (36%; grade 1-2: 27; grade 3: 2) had reversible skin toxicity, usually during the course of the first cycle. Five episodes of thrombosis occurred during treatment or follow-up, 3 were related to venous access devices and only one required discontinuation of lenalidomide. Three cases of neoplasm were observed during follow-up. Conclusion The combination of 25mg of lenalidomide for 14 days with 21-day R-CHOP cycles is well tolerated and yields a high rate of complete remission in patients with high tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Disclosures: Tilly: Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, 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; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Use of lenalidomide to enhance R-CHOP efficacy in follicular lymphoma. Morschhauser:Celgene: advisory boards Other, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Casasnovas:ROCHE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Molina:Merck: Honoraria. Salles:roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Haioun:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Initial Treatment Vs Watch and Wait in Advanced-Stage Follicular Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era - an Analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-138749 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 44-44

Author(s):

Ning Dong ◽

Hayder Saeed ◽

Leidy Isenalumhe ◽

Franco Castillo Tokumori ◽

Bijal Shah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Stage Iii ◽

National Cancer Database ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Watch And Wait ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Background: Randomized trials in the pre-rituximab era showed that watch and wait (WW) when compared to initial treatment (IT) for asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) did not impact overall survival (OS). In the rituximab era, a randomized trial showed patients with advanced-stage, asymptomatic, low-burden FL were less likely to need chemotherapy at 3 years when treated with rituximab only at diagnosis compared to WW, however with no difference in OS (Ardeshna et al., 2014). In another analysis, there was no impact of WW compared to IT on the time to next anti-lymphoma therapy (Solal-Celigny et al., 2012). However, the existing studies were limited by sample sizes and not powered by survival. In addition, few patients with grade 3a FL were included, thus it is not clear if pathological grades (other than grade 3b) should be taken into consideration when choosing WW vs IT. Here we studied the outcomes of WW vs IT for patients with advanced-stage (stage III/IV) FL using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and compared the outcomes by FL pathological grades. Methods: Patients diagnosed between 2011-2016 were included. We only included patients diagnosed after 2011 (when rituximab was FDA approved for FL as maintenance) so our results reflect the current management of FL. To ensure accurate reporting of IT, only patients who were diagnosed and initially managed at the reporting facility were included. Demographic characteristics were compared using Chi-square test for categorical variables and ANOVA for continuous variables. Univariate comparison of OS was conducted using Logrank test. Multivariate survival analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazard model with the following covariates: age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, stage, grade, existence of previous malignancies, comorbidity score, facility type, facility lymphoma patient volume, urban/rural location, education, income and insurance status. Results: A total of 14417 patients with stage III/IV FL were included. Among them, 10755 received IT (74.6%) and 3662 (25.4%) were managed by WW at diagnosis. For those who received IT, the median time to treatment was 35 days (IQR 22-56 days). Preliminary analyses showed that patients with grade 1 FL and grade 2 FL were managed similarly and had similar OS, therefore we combined grade 1 and grade 2 into grade 1-2 FL as opposed to grade 3 FL. A total of 13050 patients had grade 1-2 FL and 4286 patients had grade 3 FL. Patients with grade 1-2 FL were more likely to be managed by WW than those with grade 3 FL (29.8% vs 12.5%, respectively; p<0.01). Patients on WW were older, more likely to be female, more likely to have previous malignancies, had higher education and income, and more likely to have private insurance or Medicare than Medicaid or no insurance (Table 1). Patients with grade 1-2 FL had similar OS when managed by WW compared to IT (5-year OS rate: 76.3% vs 76.2%, respectively; p=0.32; Figure 1). In contrast, patients with grade 3 FL had worse OS when managed by WW compared to IT (5-year OS rate: 65.3% vs 73.5%; p<0.001; Figure 2). In multivariate analysis, the interaction term between grade and management was significant (p=0.005), confirming that initial management affected OS in different ways for grade 1-2 FL and grade 3 FL after adjusting for the covariates. Consistent with the results of the univariate analysis, after adjusting for covariates, grade 1-2 FL had similar survival when managed by WW compared to IT (HR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.05; p=0.25) but grade 3 FL had worse survival when managed by WW (HR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82; p=0.002). Other factors associated with OS are listed in Table 2. Conclusion: Our study confirms the findings of lack of OS benefits in patients with advanced stage, grade 1-2 FL when treated with WW versus IT. In contrast, patients with advanced stage, grade 3 FL had worse OS with WW approach. While the NCDB does not separate grade 3 FL into 3a and 3b, it is assumed that FL 3b is universally managed as DLBCL and receive IT given its more aggressive course. Under this assumption, all grade 3 FL patients on WW were likely grade 3a. Thus, our results suggest that grade 3a FL patients on WW had worse OS compared to grade 3 FL patients who received IT (see Figure 2 and its footnote for illustration). Although a definitive conclusion cannot be made regarding grade 3a FL, further studies to compare the outcome of WW vs IT with special focus on stage 3a FL are warranted. Disclosures Shah: NCCN: Vice-Chair, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead, Precision Biosciences, Novartis, AstraZeneca: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Kite/Gilead, Celgene/Juno/BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Spectrum/Acrotech, Precision Biosciences, Beigene, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics/Jansen, Adaptive: Honoraria; Moffitt Cancer Center: Current Employment; Kite/Gilead, Jazz, Incyte: Research Funding. Bello:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sokol:EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kymera Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa/Kirin Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinilla Ibarz:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar CT-P10 to Rituximab in Patients with Previously Untreated Low Tumor Burden Follicular Lymphoma (LTBFL): A Randomized Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-110334 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1596-1596

Author(s):

Michinori Ogura ◽

Juan Manuel Sancho ◽

Seok-Goo Cho ◽

Hideyuki Nakazawa ◽

Junji Suzumiya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Safety Profile ◽

Research Funding ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: CT-P10 is the first biosimilar to innovator rituximab (RTX) approved for all indications by the European Medicines Agency. The pharmacokinetics (PK) equivalence and non-inferior efficacy of CT-P10 compared with RTX in patients with newly diagnosed advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) was previously demonstrated when used with combination chemotherapy of cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CVP) (Kim WS et al,. 2017). Objectives: This is an ongoing, phase 3, randomized, double blind, active controlled study to demonstrate similarity of efficacy and safety between CT-P10 and RTX as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed FL with low tumor burden (NCT02260804). The results of efficacy as determined by overall response rate (ORR), PK, pharmacodynamic, safety and immunogenicity up to 7 months (prior to Maintenance Cycle 3) are presented here. Methods: Patients with FL with stage II-IV, Grade 1-3a and low tumor burden as assessed by GELF criteria were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CT-P10 or RTX (375mg/m2 i.v.) monotherapy weekly for 4 weeks as induction therapy, followed by maintenance therapy every 2 months for 2 years. Patients who had complete response (CR), unconfirmed CR, partial response or stable disease after the induction therapy were eligible for maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was ORR over 7 months according to the IWG criteria and was assessed by the independent review committee as central review and by the site investigator as local review. Results: In total, 258 patients were randomized to either the CT-P10 (n=130) or RTX (n=128) group with well-balanced baseline characteristics. Overall, 231 patients (n=119/130 [92%] and n=112/128 [88%] in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively) completed up to 7 months. Therapeutic similarity between CT-P10 and RTX was established by meeting the predefined margin of ±17% for the primary efficacy endpoint of ORR in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) population (Figure 1). An ORR of 83.1% and 81.3% for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, was observed over 7 months. The ORR difference was 1.8% and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference estimate was entirely within the equivalence margin; 90% CI (-6.43, 10.20). Similar PK profiles were shown in the CT-P10 and RTX. Maximum and trough concentration of CT-P10 or RTX at each cycle were similar between the two groups. Median number of B-cells decreased to the lower limit of quantification (<20cells/μL) after the 1st infusion and remained as depleted over 7 months in both groups. CT-P10 was well tolerated and the safety profile of CT-P10 over 7 months was consistent with that of RTX, with no new, unexpected safety findings. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 71% and 67% patients in the CT-P10 and RTX, respectively. Adverse events of special interest included infections and infusion-related reactions occurred in a similar proportion of patients in each treatment group (Table 1). Neither progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy nor Hepatitis B virus reactivation was reported in either group. The proportion of patients with positive anti-drug antibody were similar between 2 groups (0.8% vs. 2.3%) over 7 months. Among them, neutralizing antibody were detected in one patient in the CT-P10 group. Conclusions: This study demonstrates therapeutic equivalence of CT-P10 to RTX in previously untreated LTBFL. CT-P10 was well-tolerated and the safety profile including immunogenicity of CT P10 was comparable to that of RTX over 7 months. Disclosures Ogura: SymBio: Research Funding; Mundi Pharma: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Cellgene: Honoraria; MeijiSeika Pharma: Consultancy. Sancho:SERVIER: Honoraria; SANOFI: Honoraria; CELGENE: Honoraria; KERN FHARMA: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GILEAD: Honoraria, Research Funding; JANSSEN: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ROCHE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MUNDIPHARMA: Honoraria. Lennard:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jurczak:European Medicines Agency: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca/Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Afimed: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coiffier:CELGENE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MUNDIPHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELLTRION: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MORPHOSYS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NOVARTIS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buske:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Celltrion, Inc: Employment.

Download Full-text

Impact of Immunochemotherapy with R-Bendamustine or R-CHOP in the Post-Induction Management of Treatment Naïve Advanced Stage Follicular Lymphoma Patients: A Subset Analysis of the FOLL12 Trial By the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-148581 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 811-811

Author(s):

Stefano Luminari ◽

Maria Elena Nizzoli ◽

Annalisa Chiarenza ◽

Donato Mannina ◽

Alessandra Tucci ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Similar Efficacy ◽

Tumor Burden ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Post Induction

Abstract Introduction. The administration of immuno-chemotherapy (ICT) followed by rituximab maintenance (RM) is the recommended approach for the front-line therapy of high tumor burden follicular lymphoma (HTB-FL) patients. Among available ICT regimens, RB (Rituximab-bendamustine) and R-CHOP regimen, are preferred options with high, similar efficacy. Regarding RM, its use is strongly supported after R-CHOP by the results of the PRIMA randomized trial; conversely, no prospective data are available to confirm the efficacy of RM in patients initially treated with RB. The FOLL12 trial was conducted to try to demonstrate that a response adapted post induction management of patients with HTB-FL could be as effective as standard RM in terms of Progression Free Survival (PFS). The trial actually showed the better efficacy of standard RM compared to the experimental approach thus providing indirect confirmation of the efficacy of RM after ICT, 10 years after the PRIMA trial. We here analyse the impact of initial ICT in the FOLL12 study that left treatment choice between RB and R-CHOP at physician discretion and on an individual patient basis. Methods. FOLL12 is a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial that compared standard RM vs. a response adapted post induction management in treatment naïve adult patients with grade 1-3a, stage II-IV and a HTB-FL. All patients received induction immunochemotherapy with 6 cycles of either R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine both followed by two additional doses of rituximab. Choice of ICT was at the physicians' discretion. After ICT, patients in the standard arm received bimonthly rituximab for up to two years. Patients in the experimental arm were managed according to centrally reviewed metabolic and molecular response. Patients achieving complete metabolic (CMR) and molecular response were managed with observation only, those in CMR with molecular persistence received 4 weekly rituximab doses. Patients not achieving CMR were treated with radioimmunotherapy with ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. Primary study endpoint was 3 years progression free survival (PFS). Results. A total of 786 eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized either to standard or experimental arm. By backbone therapy, 341 patients received RB and 445 received RCHOP induction immunochemotherapy. RB was more frequently prescribed in older and female patients (OR 1.6, p=0.001) whereas RCHOP was preferred in patients with bulky disease (>6cm) and grade 3a histology (OR 0.65, p=0.013). The median follow-up of the analysis was 56 months (range 1-71). In the non-randomized comparison between RB and RCHOP, no difference in terms of PFS was observed between the two regimens (HR for RB 1.07, 95%CI 0.83-1.38, p=0.597, Figure 1). Standard maintenance arm was more effective than experimental arm both in patients initially treated with RCHOP and in those treated with RB (HR RCHOP 1.61, 95% CI 1.16-2.25; HR RB 1.89, 95% CI 1.27-2.82). An unequal interaction between RB and RCHOP and post-induction therapy was observed for sex and for bone marrow involvement. Considering grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs), neutropenia was less frequently observed in RB (35.7%) compared to RCHOP (46.2%). Among extra-hematological AEs, higher frequency of grade 3-4 infections and of cutaneous toxicity were observed in RB treated patients (3.8% vs. 1.2% and 2.4% vs. 0.2%). Overall, 54 second malignancies (SM) have been observed including 23 hematologic malignancies and 31 solid cancers. Cumulative incidence of secondary cancer (excluding non melanoma skin cancers) at 3 and 5 years was 3.7% (95%CI 2.4-5.3%) and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8-10.9%). Conclusion. The current update of the FOLL12 trial demonstrated superiority of standard RM compared to the response adapted post induction management irrespective of prescribed regimen thus proving a first prospective non-randomized evidence of RM efficacy in patients with high tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients treated with RB. Both R-CHOP and RB were associated with a similar efficacy profile. Figure 1. Progression free survival for the standard maintenance arm (A) versus response oriented experimental arm (B) of the FOLL12 trial in patients treated with R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine (RB). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Luminari: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Janssen: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy; GENELAB SRL: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tucci: janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentili: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ferrero: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau. Arcaini: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, VERASTEM: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead: Other: Travel expenses. Pulsoni: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Merk: Consultancy; Gilead, Bristol: Speakers Bureau. Musuraca: Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Honoraria; Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Incyte, Roche: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Follicular Lymphoma Patients By Dynamic FLIPI at Diagnosis and Initial Treatment in the Post-Rituximab Era

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4119.4119 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4119-4119

Author(s):

Connie Batlevi ◽

Anna Alperovich ◽

Katy Smith ◽

Zhitao Ying ◽

Jacob D Soumerai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Group ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Genetics Research ◽

Time To First Treatment

Abstract Background: Prognosis of follicular lymphoma (FL) has long been defined by the FLIPI score (Solal-Céligny et al., 2004) which is a 5 factor risk model consisting of age, stage, lactate dehydrogenase, hemoglobin and number of nodal areas. The FLIPI model has been validated at diagnosis in both the pre- and post-Rituximab eras. However, many patients are initially observed and have prolonged lead time from diagnosis to first treatment. In this study, we investigated whether FLIPI risk group at diagnosis changed by the time of initial treatment, and whether change of FLIPI risk group impacted treated outcome. Patients and Methods: All adult (≥18 yo) patients with de novo follicular lymphoma (FL) treated at our center between 1998 and 2007 were evaluated. Study excluded patients with ≤2 follow up visits, known divergent of composite histology at diagnosis, and active concurrent malignancies. FLIPI was scored at diagnosis and at initiation of first treatment. For patients with missing FLIPI data, FLIPI category was scored if the omission did not alter the FLIPI category. Stable FLIPI risk group was defined as FLIPI score being low or intermediate at diagnosis and at initiation of first treatment (Low-Low, Int-Int). Progressed FLIPI risk group was defined by the population which changed categories from low or intermediate at diagnosis to a higher category at initiation of treatment (Low-Int, Low-High, Int-High). FLIPI scores were available for 570 patients at both diagnosis and initial treatment. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank tests. Time of diagnosis was used as time origin for OS analyses. When OS analyses involved FLIPI score at the first treatment, time of the first treatment was used as the entry time to adjust the risk sets to account for the fact that FLIPI at first treatment is unknown before the onset of the first treatment. Chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables by FLIPI score change status. Progression free survival before and after 24 months (PFS24) of initial therapy were calculated. Results: For 898 FL patients, median follow up was 9.2 years (range 0.23 - 16.84), median OS not reached. Based on FLIPI at diagnosis, the 5 year OS is 97.2% for low risk, 93.0% for int risk, and 80.2% for high risk, 10 yr OS is 90.9% for low risk, 77.7% for int risk, and 67.6% for high risk. Of 570 patients with FLIPI at diagnosis and first treatment, median time to first treatment was 0.18 years (range 0-12.5) for patients with stable FLIPI (N=280) and 2.70 years (range 0.01-13.33) for patients with progressed FLIPI (N=83). For patients observed ≥ 6 and 12 months, the median time to first treatment was 1.21 years (N=47, range 0.51-12.5) and 2.49 years (N=29, range 1.0-12.5) for patients with stable FLIPI and 3.77 years (N=62, range 0.54-13.3) and 3.92 years (N=57, range 1.13-13.3) for patients with progressed FLIPI, respectively. Progressed FLIPI was observed in 14.6% (83/570) of patients. The incidence of progressed FLIPI was 51.4% (57/111) in patients observed ≥1 year before initiating therapy. Parameters contributing to progressed FLIPI compared to stable FLIPI were decreased hemoglobin (29% versus 6%), increased nodal areas affected (43% versus 2%) and higher LDH (37% versus 5%). Patients with stable FLIPI had longer PFS at 12 and 24 months, 88.6% versus 73.8% (P=0.006) and 79.3% versus 66.1% (P= 0.031) (Figure 1). Analysis of patients initially observed ≥ 6 or 12 months demonstrated that progressed FLIPI negatively affected OS and PFS (Figure 2, observed ≥ 12 month data not shown). Median PFS for patients observed ≥ 6 months was 8.36 years for stable FLIPI, 3.14 years for progressed FLIPI. At observation of ≥ 12 months, median PFS was 6.25 and 3.22 years for stable and progressed FLIPI, respectively. Increased FLIPI was associated with increased risk of transformation throughout the disease course (25% vs 16%, P=0.039). Conclusion: Progressed FLIPI between diagnosis and first line treatment is associated with a reduced PFS, and increased incidence of histologic transformation. In patients who are initially observed, a progressed FLIPI reduces OS and PFS. The effect on PFS may be related to treatment bias and ongoing analysis is underway. Progressed FLIPI potentially identifies a population with heightened risk of transformation. Disclosures Hamlin: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Xencor: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Huya: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kumar:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palomba:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Zelenetz:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Radioimmunotherapy for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: 5-Year Follow-up of 90 Patients from the International RIT-Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124192 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5263-5263

Author(s):

Karin Hohloch ◽

Christine Windemuth-Kieselbach ◽

Pier Luigi Zinzani ◽

Roberto E. Cacchione ◽

Wojciech Jurczak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mantle Cell

To assess the efficacy of radioimmunotherapy (RIT) with 90yttrium-ibrutinib-tiuxetan (90Y-IT) in mantle cell lymphoma, data from 90 patients registered in the RIT Network with a median follow-up (FU) of 5.5 years after RIT were evaluated. 90Y-IT was given as first-line therapy in 45 (50%) (consolidation 44 pts., primary therapy 1 pt.) and at relapse in 45 (50%) patients (consolidation 24 pts., recurrence 12 pts., therapy refractory 3 pts., conditioning 2 pts., other 4 pts.). As a first-line treatment, 30 patients (pts.) (67%) achieved CR, 10 pts. (22%) PR%., 1 pt. (2%) PD, and for 4 pts. (9%) no response data was available. At relapse, CR was achieved in 17 pts. (38%), PR in 6 pts. (13%), SD in 2 pts. (4%), and 6 pts. (13%) had PD, while the response was not documented for 14 pts. (31%). After a median FU of 5.5 years, median PFS for all patients was 2.11 (95%CI: 1.03-2.32) years, and median OS was 4.05 (95%CI 2.79-7.21) years. Eleven pts. (12.2%) developed second malignancy. In conclusion, this is the largest report of MCL pts. treated with 90Y-IT to date. 90Y-IT was most often used as consolidation after first- and second-line chemotherapy and may improve the results achieved using chemoimmunotherapy alone. However, the results are less encouraging compared to treatment with small molecules such as ibrutinib. Disclosures Zinzani: TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy. Jurczak:Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Truemper:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy. Scholz:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Hexal: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy; GILEAD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankio: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Yttrium 90 (90Y) Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin) is approved for treatment of patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma and as consolidation therapy after chemo(immuno)therapy of patients with follicular lymphoma.

Download Full-text

ABVD Versus Escalated Beacopp in Advanced Stage Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results from a Retrospective, Multicenter European Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128198 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1565-1565 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Patrizia Mondello ◽

Irene Dogliotti ◽

Jan-Paul Bohn ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Simone Ferrero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

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

Download Full-text

Efficacy Outcomes of Treatments for Double Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma (R/R FL): A Systematic Literature Review

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136228 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 42-43

Author(s):

Brad S. Kahl ◽

Anik R. Patel ◽

Omer Zaidi ◽

Sonya J. Snedecor ◽

Anna G. Purdum

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Clinical Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Unmet Need ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Disease Stage ◽

Advisory Committees

ABSTRACT Introduction: Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL), have high response to first-line treatment. However, retreatment is often required when relapses occur, and those with multiple relapses represent a patient population with an unmet need for effective treatment. Clinical data for several treatment options exist for the general relapsed and refractory (R/R) population; however, there are relatively fewer data specific to FL patients with ≥2 lines of prior treatment. This work systematically identified the available efficacy data in the double R/R FL population. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through February 10, 2020. Studies were limited to interventional clinical trials of R/R FL patients (or mixed histologies with a predominance of FL) and articles published in English. Studies also must have reported one or more efficacy measures, such as overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DoR), time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Potential interventions of interest were lenalidomide ± rituximab (R), duvelisib, ibrutinib, venetoclax, polatuzumab vedotin + R, obinutuzumab, copanlisib, umbralisib, idelalisib, and tazemetostat. Results: Of 35 publications examining treatment outcomes in R/R FL patients, only 14 (representing 5 unique clinical trials) were specific to the ≥ 2-line population. These trials were: CHRONOS Part B (copanlisib), DAWN (ibrutinib), DELTA (idelalisib), DYNAMO (duvelisib), and Morschhauser et al. 2019 (tazemetostat) and included a total of 605 participants. All studies used similar inclusion criteria, and patients included were similar in age (median 62-65), disease stage (III/IV), and ECOG score (0-2). Patients in the CHRONOS study had a median number of prior treatments of 2, whereas those in the DELTA study had 5. ORR ranged from 21% (ibrutinib) to 59% (copanlisib) (Table). The DoR ranged from 8.3 months in tazemetostat patients with EZH2 gene mutation to 19.4 months for ibrutinib. PFS ranged from 5.7 months in tazemetostat patients with wild-type EZH2 to 11.2 months for copanlisib. Median TTNT was only reported in the DAWN study (16 months). Conclusions: Very few clinical data exist reporting efficacy outcomes specific to the double R/R FL population. The limited data indicate that current treatments do not produce durable responses for most double R/R FL patients, demonstrating an unmet need. Further research is needed to fully understand the efficacy and safety of other potential interventions for this population. Disclosures Kahl: Genentech:Consultancy;Pharmacyclics LLC:Consultancy;AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;ADC Therapeutics:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Celgene Corporation:Consultancy;AbbVie:Consultancy;Roche Laboratories Inc:Consultancy;BeiGene:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Janssen:Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Acerta:Consultancy, Research Funding.Patel:Kite, a Gilead Company:Current Employment.Zaidi:BMS:Consultancy.Snedecor:Pharmerit - an OPEN Health Company:Other: Employment at consultancy paid by Kite Pharma to conduct this work.Purdum:Kite, a Gilead Company:Current Employment.

Download Full-text