Vemurafenib in Patients with Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) and Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) Harboring BRAFV600 Mutations: A Cohort of the Histology-Independent VE-Basket Study

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 480-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli L. Diamond ◽  
Vivek Subbiah ◽  
Craig Lockhart ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Jason E. Faris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Adaptive Design ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Metabolic Response ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
18F Fdg

Abstract Background: ECD and LCH are rare disorders for which no approved therapies are available. BRAFV600E mutations have been observed in 50% of patients with LCH and in 50-60% of patients with ECD. Here we present data from a planned Week 16 analysis of patients with ECD/LCH who were enrolled in the VE-BASKET study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01524978). Methods: This open-label, Simon 2-stage adaptive-design, phase 2 study included patients with BRAFV600E-mutant ECD and LCH. Patients received vemurafenib (960 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate at Week 8; secondary endpoints included best overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). For a subset of patients (n=15), metabolic response by 18F-FDG-PET was assessed; five target lesions were selected and their maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax), normalized for body weight (BW), was compared with background (liver) SUV. Data cut-off was 2 October 2015. Results: 26 patients (22 with ECD and 4 with LCH; median age 61y) were enrolled. Seven patients (27%) had one prior therapy, six (23%) had two prior therapies, four (15%) had ≥3 prior therapies, and nine (35%) had no prior systemic therapy. Six patients were in follow-up at data cut-off; 16 were on treatment. Best overall response (according to RECIST v1.1) in 25 patients with measurable disease at baseline was 60% (95% CI 38.7-78.9%) with complete response (CR) in two patients (8%) and partial response (PR) in 13 patients (52%) (Figure). Responses were seen in patients with ECD (1 CR, 10 PRs) and LCH (1 CR, 3 PRs). After a median treatment exposure of 14.2 months (range 4.2-22.5 months), median OS and PFS have not been reached. All of the 15 patients assessed by 18F-FDG-PET showed a response: 12 patients had a complete metabolic response (normalization of all lesions' SUVmax-BW to background SUV) and three had a partial metabolic response (>50% decrease in sum of baseline SUVmax of all target lesions) (Figure). Overall, safety data were consistent with prior studies of vemurafenib. Arthralgia (n=17; 65%), fatigue (n=15; 58%), rash macropapular (n=14; 54%), alopecia (n=14; 54%), skin papilloma (n=14; 54%), prolonged QT (n=12; 46%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (n=12; 46%) were the most common all-grade adverse events (AEs). Seventeen patients had serious AEs, including 10 with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Seven patients discontinued vemurafenib due to AEs. Conclusion: These data, which represent the only prospective clinical trial data of BRAF inhibition in histiocytosis to date, reveal that vemurafenib has potent single-agent activity in patients with ECD/LCH. Moreover, vemurafenib treatment had remarkable durability of response in histiocytosis, such that no evidence of resistance has been encountered following a median of 14.2 months of treatment. These results are distinct from vemurafenib use in other solid or hematologic malignancies. Figure Figure. Disclosures Subbiah: Abbvie: Research Funding; Nanocarrier: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Blay:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MDS: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmamar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Puzanov:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunocore: Consultancy. Wolf:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Clovis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ulaner:GE Healthcare: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blue Earth Diagnostics: Research Funding; Susan Komen Foundation: Research Funding; Department of Defense: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; Zevacor: Honoraria. Lacouture:Quintiles: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Foamix: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Berg: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Robson:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Makrutzki:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment.

A Phase II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 587-587
Author(s):  
Irene M Ghobrial ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
Betsy LaPlant ◽  
John Camoriano ◽  
Suzanne R. Hayman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Waldenström’S Macroglobulinemia ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia ◽  
Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia

Abstract Abstract 587 Background: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the anti-tumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable disease (IgM monoclonal protein >1000 mg/dL with >10% marrow involvement or nodal masses >2 cm), a platelet count ≥75,000 × 106/L, a neutrophil count ≥1,000 × 106/L, and a creatinine and bilirubin ≤2x laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every 3 cycles until progression. Results: 50 pts were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43-85). The overall response rate (CR+PR+MR) was 70% (95% CI: 55-82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95%CI: 64-89%) and 62% (95%CI: 48-80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematological toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusions: Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM, and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Treon:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Novartis: Research Funding.

Phase 1/1b Study of the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Panobinostat + Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4081-4081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Sheeba K. Thomas ◽  
Donna M. Weber ◽  
Michael Wang ◽  
Raymond Alexanian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Elevated Creatinine

Abstract Abstract 4081 Background: Carfilzomib, a novel irreversible proteasome inhibitor (PI), has demonstrated single agent activity in, and was recently FDA approved for relapsed and refractory myeloma. Panobinostat, a potent histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi), has been studied as a single agent and in combination with bortezomib, demonstrating promising response rates and a favorable safety profile in bortezomib-refractory patients. Our hypothesis proposed that the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat (Car-Pan) would also be highly active, and we therefore aimed to combine these two agents for the first time. We report the initial findings from the phase I dose-escalation and expansion portions of our phase I/II trial of this novel combination regimen. Methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety/tolerability of Car-Pan in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Secondary objectives included determination of the overall response rate, time to progression, progression free survival, and time to next therapy. Panobinostat was administered orally on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 of every 28-day cycle, while carfilzomib was given intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. Dose level 1 started carfilzomib at 20 mg/m2 with 15 mg of panobinostat, and escalated from there using a standard 3+3 schema based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. An amendment was later introduced to allow carfilzomib to be given at 20 mg/m2for days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by an increase to the full dose level for that cohort. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the NCI-CTCAE v4, and responses were assessed with the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: To date, 20 patients have been enrolled, 3 of whom are still in their first cycle, leaving 17 evaluable patients who are described herein, who have received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–8). The median age was 62 years (range 46–73), 11/17 (70%) were male, and the median number of prior regimens was 5 (range 2–15). Patients were very heavily pretreated, with 16/17 (94%) having undergone stem cell transplantation, 16/17 (94%) having prior bortezomib, including 8/17 (47%) who were bortezomib-refractory, and 17/17 (100%) having prior lenalidomide, including 12/17 (70%) who were lenalidomide-refractory. Cytogenetic abnormalities were common, including: 4 with del(17p), 4 with t(4;14), 2 with t(11;14), 9 with del(13), of whom 7 had additional mutations. Grade 1–4 AEs regardless of causality occurring in >20% of patients included anemia (14/17), thrombocytopenia (17/17), neutropenia (8/17), diarrhea (9/17), nausea/emesis (7/17), fatigue (10/17), elevated creatinine (8/17), and pneumonia (5/17). Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of causality included anemia (7/17), thrombocytopenia (10/17), neutropenia (6/17), diarrhea (2/17), nausea/emesis (1/17), fatigue (4/17), elevated creatinine (2/17), and pneumonia (4/17). An MTD has not been established, and dosing is ongoing in cohort 4, with Carfilzomib at 45mg/m2and 20 mg of Panobinostat. Of the 17 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 35% (6/17) who achieved at least a partial response (PR); including 2 with very good PR (VGPR). In addition, one patient had a minor response, and 65% overall achieved stable disease or better. Conclusions: The combination of Carfilzomib + Panobinostat is well tolerated with a manageable side effect profile. Importantly, the combination achieves a promising response rate in a very heavily pre-treated, lenalidomide/bortezomib/high dose melphalan-refractory population, with an overall response (≥PR) rate of 35%. Updated safety and efficacy data for all patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Shah: Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: This presentation will include information about panobinostat, which is not yet approved for use in patients with multiple myeloma. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orlowski:Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Belinostat Induces High Overall Response Rate (ORR) in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Angioimmunoblastic T-Cell Lymphoma (AITL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4050-4050
Author(s):  
Ahmed Sawas ◽  
Helen Ma ◽  
Andrei Shustov ◽  
Pamela Hsu ◽  
Gajanan Bhat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
T Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response

Background: Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) is a relatively common subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) that typically presents with lymphadenopathy, extranodal disease, including rash, and is associated with frequent infections due to immune dysregulation. Patients with AITL generally have a poor prognosis, even with aggressive chemotherapy as responses to standard chemotherapy are often suboptimal. Recent advances in cancer biology suggest that AITL is derived from T-follicular helper cells and is often characterized by gross epigenetic dysregulation. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have demonstrated significant activity in T-cell neoplasms. The BELIEF trial established an overall response rate of 25% in patients with relapsed/refractory PTCL who were treated with belinostat, with a duration of response of about 1 year, leading to accelerated approval. Herein, we present a subset analysis of the data for patients with AITL. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed PTCL (N = 129) who experienced failure with or refractory to ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy received belinostat 1,000 mg/m(2) as daily 30-minute infusions on days 1 to 5 every 21 days. Central assessment of response used International Working Group criteria. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR) and progression-free and overall survival (PFS). Results: Of 129 patients, 22 patients had AITL; most had advanced disease (91% stage III/IV; 36% with bone marrow involvement). The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range, 1-5), and 3 (14%) patients were refractory to their last line of therapy. The ORR for patients with AITL was 46% (10/22; 95%CI: 24 - 68%), with a complete response (CR) in 4 of 22 patients (18%). Of the ten responders, the median time to response of 11.3 weeks (range, 4.7 - 24.4 weeks) in the AITL subgroup. After a median follow up of 21.5 months, the median PFS was 4.2 months (95%CI: 1.5 -13.9) and the median DOR was 13.6 months (95%CI: 1.4 - 29.4) as shown in Figure 1. For all patients with AITL treated with belinostat, the median OS was 9.2 months (95%CI: 6.8 - 21.5). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were asthenia (n=2), fatigue (n=2), anemia (n=2), thrombocytopenia (n=2), neutropenia (n=2), and septic shock (n=2). Conclusions: Single-agent belinostat induced rapid and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory AITL. At the end of the study, there were 37% patients with ongoing responses at 2 years. Patients with clinical benefit from belinostat continued treatment until progression of disease. These results support the use of belinostat in relapsed/refractory AITL as a single agent and provide rationale for combination therapies in clinical trials. Disclosures Sawas: Seattle Genetics, Gilead, Daiichi Sanko: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding. Shustov:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hsu:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Bhat:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Acosta:Acrotech Biopharma: Employment. Horwitz:Astex: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. O'Connor:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADCT Therapeutics, Affimed, Agensys, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Trillium, and Verastem Oncology.: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Twice Weekly Induction with Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) Combination Followed By Extended IRD Consolidation and Lenalidomide Maintenance in Transplant Eligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM): A Phase 2 Study from the Intergroupe Francophone Du Myelome (IFM 2014-03)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3159-3159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murielle Roussel ◽  
Benjamin Hebraud ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Xavier Leleu ◽  
Thierry Facon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response

Background: triplet combinations comprising a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) are current standard induction and consolidation regimens in NDMM. The all-oral combination of weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) has been evaluated by several groups in NDMM and is approved in relapsed-refractory MM. The IFM 2014-01 phase 2 trial previously studied the weekly IRd regimen as induction and extended consolidation followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance in frontline transplant eligible patients (Moreau et al ASH meeting 2016): IRd was well tolerated and overall response rate was 81%, including 38% very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) at the completion of induction (3 cycles). Responses further increased at each step of the program and 76% of patients (per protocole analysis) achieved ≥VGPR before maintenance with 6% CR and 38% sCR. To stay in line with current RVd regimen, and to increase dose intensity, we examined the efficacy and safety of twice-weekly ixazomib +Rd as induction prior to transplant, followed by weekly IRd consolidation and single-agent lenalidomide maintenance (NCT02897830). Methods: This is a phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study. During induction, patients received three 21-day cycles of twice-weekly oral IRd: ixazomib (3 mg on days 1, 4, 8 and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg daily, days 1-14), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 4, 8 and 11) followed by transplant. Patients then received two 28-day cycles of weekly IRd early consolidation followed by 6 additional cycles of IR (no dexamethasone) as late consolidation (ixazomib 4mg on days 1-8 and 15; lenalidomide 25mg daily, days 1-21). Single-agent lenalidomide maintenance was administered for up to 1 year (10 mg daily, days 1-21). The primary endpoint was the stringent complete response (sCR) rate at the completion of consolidation. The secondary endpoints included assessments of overall response rate (ORR) and rates of response categories at each step of the program, progression-free survival (PFS), feasibility and safety. Responses were assessed in accordance with the IMWG uniform criteria. Toxicity was evaluated according to NCI CTCAE, version 4.03. Results Between 07/2016 and 08/2017, 50 patients with NDMM were screened at 10 IFM centers, 46 were enrolled with a median age of 59 years, and 59% were male. The percentages of patients with ISS stage I, II, and III were 41.5%, 41.5%, and 17%, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics, defined as t (4; 14), or del17p (central Lab, H. Avet-Loiseau), was observed in 9% of patients (6.5% FISH failure). As of July 1st 2019 (data cut-off), 10 patients prematurely discontinued therapy. Considering efficacy, 43/46 patients (94%) completed consolidation and 9 achieved sCR (20.9%; 90% CI [11.4 to 33.7]). This result did not meet the minimum efficacy threshold (40%) for the primary efficacy endpoint (p=0.998). Overall, at the completion of consolidation, ORR was 91% including 21% sCR, 30% ≥CR and 58%≥VGPR. Responses at each step of the program are described in the table 1. If we focus on twice-weekly IRd induction, at the completion of 3 cycles, ORR was 74%, including 33% ≥VGPR. The feasibility of the program was good and overall, 39/46 patients (85%) were able to receive maintenance therapy with single-agent lenalidomide. After a median follow-up of 22 months, 7 patients progressed and 3 patients died. Concerning safety: 31 serious treatment emergent AEs were reported in 20 patients (43.5%) comprising infections (8 patients), cardiac disorders (2 patients: ischemic heart disease and aortic valve incompetence), psychiatric, renal and respiratory disorders (2 cases each). No grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy was described. Conclusions The all-oral Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) induction/consolidation regimen in the transplant setting is convenient, well tolerated, leading to 21% sCR before maintenance. Twice-weekly IRd induction does not seem superior to weekly IRd induction Results on response rates following maintenance and MRD data will be presented during the meeting. Table Disclosures Roussel: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; takeda: Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding. Hebraud:celgene: Other: travel fees, lecture fees; takeda: Other: travel fees, lecture fees. Hulin:Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leleu:Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Facon:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Touzeau:celgene: Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; takeda: Other: travel fees, lecture fees. Perrot:jannsen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Stoppa:celgene: Other: travel fees, lecture fees; takeda: Other: travel fees. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Avet-Loiseau:takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding. Attal:celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding; takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel fees, lecture fees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib is indicated in RRMM in association with Rd

A Multi-Center, Open-Label Phase II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Chinese Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma - the MM-021 Trial

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1864-1864
Author(s):  
Jian Hou ◽  
Jie Jin ◽  
Zhen Cai ◽  
Fangping Chen ◽  
Li Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Best Response

Abstract Abstract 1864 Background: Previous studies (i.e. ECOG E4A03) have shown that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has a better safety profile compared with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM patients. It is hypothesized that Rd may also provide benefits in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The MM-021 trial is the largest study in Chinese patients with RRMM aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Rd in patients who had progressed or were refractory to previous treatment. Methods: This was a phase II, multi-center, single arm, open-label study, RRMM patients received lenalidomide (25 mg/day on days 1–21) and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression. Thromboembolic prophylaxis with aspirin or other anti-thrombotic medication was required. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (partial response [PR] or better) based on the investigator's assessment. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and PK parameters. Results: As of April 23, 2012 (median follow-up of 10.8 months), 199 patients have completed at least 1 cycle, 134 patients have completed at least 6 cycles, and 187 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Median age was 59 years (range 35–81) and 63% were male. The majority of patients (86%) had Durie-Salmon stage III disease and 57% had received ≥4 prior anti-myeloma regimens including bortezomib (64%), thalidomide (69%), or both bortezomib and thalidomide (45%). After median treatment duration of 8 months (range 1–18) or 8 cycles (range 1–19), best overall response rate (≥PR) was 54% (100 patients); including 8% (14 patients) with a best response of complete response (CR). Overall disease control (≥stable disease [SD] or better) was 95%, including 42% (78 patients) with best response of SD. Nine patients (5%) had best response of disease progression. Best overall response rates were consistent across subgroups when analyzed according to baseline renal function (creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min: 68 patients [54%], 330 to <60 mL/min: 26 patients [52%], <30 mL/min: 6 patients [50%]) and number of prior therapies (64% if ≤2 prior regimens, 50% if >2 prior regimens). Responses were also consistent regardless of prior therapy received; 50%, 52%, and 47% for patients who previously received bortezomib, thalidomide, or both, respectively. Of the 5% (10 patients) presenting with IgD at baseline, 7 patients achieved ≥PR. Median time to first response was 2 months (range 1–12) and median duration of response was 7 months (range 0–16). The median PFS was 8 months (95% CI: 6–9) and the OS rate was 86% at 6 months and 73% at 1 year. Among the 199 patients evaluable for safety, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were anemia (25%), neutropenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and pneumonia (13%). Only 1 patient experienced febrile neutropenia. AEs led to dose reduction/interruption of lenalidomide in 40% of patients, 41% for dexamethasone; and 6.5% discontinued treatment due to one or more AEs. No patient discontinued due to anemia or neutropenia. Sixty-one patients (31%) died on study and the most common cause of death was disease progression (15 patients, 8%). Conclusions: Based on a median follow-up of nearly 11 months, the Rd regimen achieved a substantial best overall response rate (54%) in heavily pretreated RRMM Chinese patients. Response rates were consistent across subgroups including patients with renal impairment. The combination of Rd regimen was generally well tolerated. Disclosures: Hou: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Xian: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jensen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Wortman-Vayn:Celgene Corporation: Employment.

Pomalidomide, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone Is Superior to Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 303-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachid Baz ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Melissa Alsina ◽  
Kenneth H. Shain ◽  
Hearn J. Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone results in an overall response rate of 33% and median PFS of 4.2 months in patients with prior lenalidomide and bortezomib (Richardson et al. Blood 2014). In this randomized phase II trial, we compared pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm B) versus the addition of oral weekly cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm C) in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously reported that the recommended phase II dose of cyclophosphamide with standard-dose pomalidomide + dexamethasone was 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had relapsed and refractory MM after at least 2 prior therapies and were lenalidomide refractory. Patients had a platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3 and ANC ≥ 1,000/mm3 (patients with ≥50% bone marrow plasmacytosis were allowed if platelet count was ≥ 30,000/mm3and ANC could be supported with GCSF during screening and therapy). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pomalidomide 4 mg PO D1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO D1, 8, 15, 22 (20 mg if older than 75 years) (arm B) with or without oral cyclophosphamide 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle (arm C). Patients randomized to arm B were allowed to cross over to arm C in the event of disease progression. Thromboprophylaxis was mandated with aspirin, warfarin, or LMWH. The primary endpoint was overall response rate using IMWG criteria. Secondary endpoints included an evaluation of PFS, OS and safety of the two arms. Results: Between 7/2012 and 3/2014, 36 patients were randomized to arm B and 34 to arm C. Patients characteristics were not different between the 2 arms (table below). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-12). All patients were lenalidomide refractory and none received prior pomalidomide. After a median follow up of 15 months, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 39% and 65% (p=0.03) for arm B and C, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (minimal response or better) was 64% and 79% (p=0.2) for arm B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.3-5.9) for arm B and 9.2 months (95% CI 4.6-16) for arm C (log rank p=0.04). As of July 2014, 28 patients had died (16 arm B, 12 arm C) with median overall survival of 10.5 versus 16.4 months (p=0.08) for arm B and C, respectively. Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm C, although this was not statistically significant (see table). Thirteen patients crossed over and oral weekly cyclophosphamide was added to their tolerated dose of pomalidomide dexamethasone. For those patients, the best response was as follows: 2 PR, 2 MR, and 6 SD, 3 PD. Conclusions: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide resulted in a superior response rate and PFS compared to pomalidomide-dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The increased hematologic toxicities, as a result of the addition of oral cyclophosphamide, were manageable. Table Arm B (N=36) Arm C (N=34) P value Age, years, median (range) 63 (50-78) 64 (47-80) 0.7 Male, n (%) 23 (64) 18 (53) 0.3 Number of prior therapies, median (range) 4 (2-12) 4 (2-9) 0.5 Bortezomib refractory, n (%) 28 (78) 24 (71) 0.3 Carfilzomib refractory, n (%) 16 (44) 13 (38) 0.5 Prior high-dose therapy, n (%) 27 (75) 28 (82) 0.6 Prior alkylating agent, n (%) 32 (89) 32 (94) 1 B2-microglobulin, median (range) 3.2 (1.6-10) 3.6 (1.5-13.9) 0.5 Serum creatinine, median (range) 1 (0.5-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-2.1) 0.6 High-risk cytogenetics, n (%) 5 (24) 6 (28) 0.8 Deletion 17p, n (%) 3 (14) 4 (20) 0.8 t(4;14), n (%) 3 (14) 3 (14) 0.9 Trisomy or tetrasomy 1q, n (%) 11 (55) 6 (33) 0.4 Best response (partial response or better), n (%) 14 (39) 22 (65) 0.03 Clinical benefit rate (MR or better), n (%) 23 (64) 27 (79) 0.2 Grade 3/4 neutropenia, n (%) 12 (33) 17 (50) 0.2 Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, n (%) 4 (11) 6 (18) 0.5 Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, n (%) 2 (5) 5 (15) 0.2 Grade 3/4 anemia, n (%) 3 (8) 7 (20) 0.2 Grade 3/4 pneumonia, n (%) 4 (11) 3 (9) 1 Grade 3/4 fatigue, n (%) 2 (5) 4 (12) 0.4 Number of serious adverse events 17 20 Disclosures Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karypharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide cyclophosphamide dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Martin:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Triphase: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Shain:Onyx / Amgen: Research Funding; Treshold: Research Funding. Chari:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

scholarly journals A Phase II Trial of Nivolumab and Ibrutinib for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Central Nervous System Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4086-4086
Author(s):  
Jason R. Westin ◽  
Nathan H. Fowler ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Sattva S Neelapu ◽  
Hun Ju Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Cns Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees

Background: Central Nervous System (CNS) lymphoma is a rare and distinct subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). CNS lymphoma has a unique genomic profile which has similarities to the activated B-cell (ABC) subtype of DLBCL, which may speak to potential targets for therapy. These aberrancies include near uniform reliance on Toll-Like Receptor signaling, mutations of MYD88, and frequent translocation or copy number alterations of 9p24 which codes for programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1). Mutations of MYD88 may predict for response to Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors in patients with systemic DLBCL. Expression of PD1 or PD-L1, which corresponds to response with PD-targeted therapy in solid tumors, has been found on up to 90% of CNS lymphoma cases, and 60% of specimens had tumor infiltrating lymphocytes which were PD1+ (Berghoff, Clin Neuropath 2014). In addition, the majority of CNS lymphoma cases have a copy gain of 9p24.1, associated with increased expression of PD-L1 (Chapuy, Blood 2016). This suggests a potential ongoing immune reaction against CNS lymphoma, but the microenvironment and tumor conspire to render the immune response ineffective. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor which is FDA approved for multiple B-cell malignancies and is known to achieve therapeutic concentration in the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), with activity in CNS lymphoma as a single agent and in combination with other agents. Nivolumab is a PD1 inhibitor which is FDA approved for multiple malignancies, with impressive anecdotal evidence of single agent activity in CNS lymphoma. Ibrutinib and nivolumab have been combined in other studies with modest toxicities. Study Design and Methods: We are conducting a phase II, open label, single center clinical trial combining ibrutinib with nivolumab to treat patients with relapsed CNS lymphoma (NCT03770416). Patients are eligible if they have CNS lymphoma relapsed after or were refractory to at least 1 prior line of therapy with adequate organ and bone marrow function, are aged 18y or greater, have not received prior ibrutinib or PD1 inhibitor, and do not require persistent high dose steroids. The trial has two cohorts which will be sequentially enrolled. Cohort A begins with ibrutinib 560mg oral daily for a single 28-day cycle, followed by ibrutinib combined with nivolumab 240mg IV every 14 days. Cohort B begins with the ibrutinib and nivolumab combination during the first cycle. Patients who have at least a partial response at the conclusion of the planned 6 cycles of combined ibrutinib and nivolumab may continue therapy for up to 2 years total or until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity occurs. Neurocognitive assays and patient reported outcome instruments are being utilized. The primary objective is to determine the best overall response rate during the first 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary objectives will include the response rate of ibrutinib as a lead in prior to the combination, the complete response rate, landmark survival outcomes, and the safety of the combination. Exploratory analyses include assays of the blood and CSF for ctDNA and immune profiling. The first patient was treated in February 2019, with a planned total of 40 patients to be enrolled. Disclosures Westin: MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding. Fowler:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: 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. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Neelapu:Allogene: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Parmar:Cellenkos Inc.: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: ibrutinib and nivolumab are not yet indicated for CNS lymphoma

Carfilzomib: High Single Agent Response Rate with Minimal Neuropathy Even In High-Risk Patients

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1938-1938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽  
Andrzej J Jakubowiak ◽  
A. Keith Stewart ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Impaired Renal Function ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
All Treatment

Abstract Abstract 1938 Background: Carfilzomib (CFZ), a selective, epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor, produces potent, sustained proteasome inhibition and lacks many of the off-target activities associated with bortezomib (BTZ). Durable single-agent activity with CFZ has been observed in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) who have received multiple prior therapies as well as in pts with advanced stage disease or significant comorbidities (Jagannath et al. ASCO 2009 Meeting. Abstract 8504). PX-171-004, is an ongoing Phase 2 study of single-agent CFZ in pts with relapsed or refractory MM following 1–3 prior therapies. Here we present updated data on the BTZ-naïve pts and report on activity observed in pts with significant comorbidities or poor-risk cytogenetic or FISH markers for myeloma. Methods: Enrolled pts received either 20 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles, or a stepped-up, dose-escalating regimen of 20 mg/m2 for Cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles thereafter. CFZ was administered on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 every 28 days (one cycle), for a maximum of 12 cycles. Dexamethasone, 4mg, was administered prior to CFZ in Cycle 1 only. For the present analyses, pts were stratified according to several baseline criteria including ECOG performance score, cytogenetic or FISH markers of high-risk disease per mSMART criteria [del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), del13 by karyotype and hypodiploidy] and serum ß2-microglobulin. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per International Uniform Response Criteria for Multiple Myeloma. Results: Data are available for 110 BTZ-naïve pts. Baseline pt characteristics included: 60% of ECOG PS ≥1; 53% baseline neuropathy Grade 1/2; 30% moderately impaired renal function (CrCl <60 mL/min), and 17% diabetes. Approximately 13% of pts had cytogenetic or FISH markers of poor prognosis. The ORR for the entire BTZ-naïve population was 48%; the ORR for BTZ-naïve pts receiving 20–27 mg/m2 was 54%. The ORRs stratified according to dose and baseline measurements are detailed in the following table. The most common treatment-emergent AEs, regardless of relationship to study drug, were fatigue (61%), nausea (43%), anemia (39%), dyspnea (36%), cough (34%), headache (31%), thrombocytopenia and upper respiratory infections (30% each) and were primarily ≤ Grade 2 in severity. Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in >5% of pts included lymphopenia, neutropenia, pneumonia, thrombocytopenia, anemia and fatigue. Of note, there were no discontinuations for peripheral neuropathy and only 1 pt with impaired renal function at baseline was discontinued for creatinine increases. Twenty-four pts remain on study and 23% have completed the protocol-specified 12 cycles of therapy. Seventeen pts (20%) elected to continue CFZ on an extended treatment protocol (PX-171-010); no cumulative toxicities have been noted. Conclusions: Single-agent CFZ achieves high response rates in BTZ-naïve pts with relapsed myeloma, with minimal neuropathy, even in the setting of high-risk disease. In addition, single-agent CFZ continues to demonstrate long-term tolerability even in pts with comorbid conditions, including renal insufficiency and diabetes, who may benefit from a steroid-sparing treatment regimen. The data from this ongoing trial show that CFZ is a promising new treatment for multiple myeloma in the relapsed or refractory setting. Disclosures: Vij: Onyx: Honoraria. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor Ortho Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Jagannath:Millenium, OrthoBiotec, Celgene, Merck, Onyx: Honoraria; Imedex, Medicom World Wide, Optum Health Education, PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Alsina:Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Gabrail:Millenium: Research Funding. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau. Le:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Phase I Trial of Everolimus and Rituximab or Everolimus, Bortezomib and Rituximab in Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2705-2705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Erica N Boswell ◽  
Ranjit Banwait ◽  
Tiffany Poon ◽  
Amanda Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Recommended Dose ◽  
Synergistic Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2705 INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of everolimus and rituximab, or everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab in relapsed and/or relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia. This trial was based on our preclinical studies that demonstrated synergistic activity of everolimus and bortezomib with rituximab in WM cell lines, and based on our favorable clinical experience with everolimus as single agent in the treatment of WM. METHODS: Eligibility criteria include: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory WM with any number of prior lines of therapy, including everolimus and bortezomib 2) not completely refractory to rituximab 3) measurable disease by monoclonal IgM protein in the serum and lymphoplasmacytic cells in the bone marrow, 4) Not receiving chemotherapy > 3 weeks, or biological/novel therapy for WM > 2 weeks. A cycle is 28 days and a total of 6 cycles are given, followed by everolimus maintenance for 2 years. Two stages with a total of four dose levels were planned. In stage A, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. In stage B, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days, bortezomib at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days, and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. Patients were assessed for response after every cycle. Subjects who had a response continued on therapy for a total of 6 cycles, and then continued on to maintenance therapy with everolimus alone until progression (or for a maximum of 24 months). Because of the potential of an IgM flare after rituximab, patients who showed an increase in IgM after rituximab in the first 3 months were not deemed as having progressive disease unless they showed evidence of clinical progression. To examine the in vivo effect of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab, peripheral blood samples were obtained from patients on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 at cycle 1; and on day 1 only at all subsequent cycles. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this phase I clinical trial from April 2009 to July 2011. The median age is 61 (range, 52–73) yrs and the median lines of prior therapy is 2 (range, 1–8) with all patients receiving prior rituximab and 12 (52%) receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 3.5 (range, 0–15). Overall, this combination therapy is very well tolerated. Grade 4 toxicities included: neutropenia (8.7%), leukopenia (4.3%), thrombocytopenia (17.4%), lymphopenia (4.3%) and hypertriglyceridemia (4.3%). Grade 3 toxicities included: neutropenia (21.7%), leukopenia (26.1%), anemia (13%), lymphopenia (17.4%), pneumonitis (4.3%), SGPT (4.3%), neuropathy (4.3%), Herpes zoster reactivation (4.3%), hyperglycemia (4.3%) and hypernatremia (4.3%). 1 patient discontinued therapy due to grade 3 anemia. Nineteen patients are currently evaluable for response, including 1 (5%) very good partial response (VGPR) and 9 (47%) minimal response (MR), for an overall response rate including MR of 10/19 (53%) in this relapsed/refractory population. Furthermore, overall response including MR in stage A (everolimus/rituximab) was 2/6 (33%) and 8/13 (62%) in stage B (everolimus/bortezomib/rituximab). Additionally, 9 (39%) patients achieved stable disease, and 4 (17%) are early on therapy and not been yet assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab is generally well tolerated, and importantly no grade 3/4 neuropathy was seen. Moreover, no dose limiting toxicities were observed even at the maximum dose evaluated. The responses observed to date in this relapsed/refractory population are encouraging. Based on the safety of this phase I study, the phase II study of two arms, everolimus/rituximab for low risk patients and everolimus/bortezomib/rituximab for intermediate and high risk patients is underway. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bortezomib and everolimus in WM. Anderson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Treon:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Single-Agent Ibrutinib in Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma Who Progressed after Bortezomib Therapy

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4471-4471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wang ◽  
Andre Goy ◽  
Peter Martin ◽  
Rod Ramchandren ◽  
Julia Alexeeva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Despite recent advances, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains difficult to treat with frequent chemoresistance in the relapsed or refractory setting. Ibrutinib, a first-in-class, once-daily, oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, demonstrated durable single-agent efficacy in a previous phase 2 study of patients with MCL who had received 1 to 5 prior therapies (Wang M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:507-516). In that study, the investigator-assessed overall response rate was 68% (complete response rate, 21%). The current study reports on the efficacy and safety of single-agent ibrutinib specifically in patients with MCL who had received a rituximab-containing regimen and had progressed after at least 2 cycles of bortezomib therapy. Methods: In this phase 2, multicenter, single-arm study, patients received 560 mg/day oral ibrutinib continuously until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR) in response evaluable patients, as assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Secondary end points, also assessed by IRC, included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 120 patients in this international multicenter study were enrolled. The median age was 67.5 years, ranging from 35 to 85 years with 62.5% ≥ 65 years. Most patients had stage IV disease at study entry (77.5%), and 9.2% were reported as blastoid variant (per investigator). 76.3% of patients had an intermediate or high risk simplified MIPI score, and 52.5% had bulky disease (longest diameter ≥ 5 cm). Forty two (35.0%), 67 (55.8%) and 11 patients (9.2%) had an ECOG score of 0, 1 and 2, respectively. The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 2 (range 1-8 lines) with almost half of the patients (47.5%) receiving 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Overall, 33% of patients had received prior stem cell transplantation. At the time of clinical cut-off for the primary analysis (29 April, 2014), median follow-up was 14.9 months with median treatment duration of 8 months (range: 0.5-20.9 months). The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression in 53 patients (44.2%) and an adverse event (AE) in 8 patients (6.7%). The ORR for response evaluable patients was 62.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53.7%-71.8%) with a complete response rate of 20.9%. Subgroup analysis suggested that the ORR was independent of age, gender, geographic region, number of prior lines of therapies, baseline extranodal disease, simplified MIPI score, bulky disease, and stage of MCL. Median DoR by IRC was 14.9 months and the median time to first response was 2.1 months, ranging from 1.3 to 6.3 months. Median PFS was 10.5 months and 47% of the patients remained progression-free at 1 year. The OS rate at 18 months was 61%. The most common AEs were fatigue (any grade, 43.3%; grade 3 or 4, 3.3%) and diarrhea (any grade, 42.5%; grade 3 or 4, 2.5%). The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were neutropenia (20.8%), thrombocytopenia (13.3%), and pneumonia (12.5%). Any-grade hemorrhagic events were reported in 45 patients (37.5%), including 3 (2.5%) with major hemorrhagic events. The median time to initial hemorrhagic event was 84 days (range 1-515 days), with a median duration of 22 days (95% CI: 8-31 days). Atrial fibrillation was reported in 13 patients (10.8%), which was grade 3 or 4 in 6 patients (5%). AEs led to dose reductions in 8 patients (6.7%). Conclusion: Single agent ibrutinib is highly efficacious and well tolerated, with an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with MCL who progressed after rituximab-containing chemotherapy and bortezomib therapy. These results are consistent with previous ibrutinib studies, with no new safety signals. Disclosures Wang: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Celgene, Onyx, OnyPep, : Research Funding; Onyx, Janssen: Honoraria. Goy:Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Clinical Trials through Institution: Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Janssen: Honoraria. Popat:Janssen: Honoraria. Advani:Seattle Genetics, Genetech, (Uncompensated): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Le Gouill:Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Yuan:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Johnson & Johnson: Employment. Kranenburg:Johnson&Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Biologics: Employment. Rizo:Janssen R&D: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhuang:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Deraedt:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rule:Pharmacyclics, J&J: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document