scholarly journals Obinutuzumab (GA101) in Combination with Pixantrone for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: Report on an Ongoing Phase II Trial (GOAL)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5392-5392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Hess ◽  
Andreas Hüttmann ◽  
Reinhard Marks ◽  
Mathias Witzens-Harig ◽  
Martin H. Dreyling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other aggressive lymphoma entities has improved with the advent of Rituximab, and R-CHOP-21 and variants is SOC. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment. Salvage therapies are often effective. However, no more than 25-50% achieve a long term remission even when consolidative high dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is applied. In case of failure or intolerance to HDT, regimen like Gemcitabine/Oxaliplatin are applied but show limited efficacy, indicating the need for new treatments. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody. Superiority of Obinutuzumab could be demonstrated in xenograft models of mantle cell lymphoma and DLBCL. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclins from higher treatment lines. With Pixantrone, a drug structurally related to anthracyclines and especially anthracenediones, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible. In 70 heavily pre-treated patients, a best ORR of 40% (20% CR/CRu) was observed (Pettengell et al). Experiences from further antibody drug combinations lead to the assumption that the effects of Pixantrone will be augmented by a monoclonal antibody without increasing toxicity. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q4/2015 and recruitment is ongoing. Overall, a total of up 70 patients will be enrolled for a number of 64 evaluable patients. Primary endpoint will be the objective overall response rate, with secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Inclusion criteria: patients were eligible if they had histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed indolent lymphoma, CD20 positive disease, no curative option available, relapsed disease, measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient bone marrow reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit or prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of Pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, Obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. A total of 6 cycles was planned with interim staging after 3 cycles. Results: 24 patients (pts) have been included until now. Concerning clinical characteristics, all were caucasian, 12 were female and the other 12 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (18 pts, 82%). Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Until now 55 evaluable cycles of chemotherapy (median 2 cycles (0 to 6)) have been performed. At this time, the treatment seems to be well tolerated, with no unforeseen side effects. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic adverse events of grade 3/4 were noted: leukopenia (4 pts, 17%), neutropenia (6 pts, 25%), granulocytopenia (1 pts, 4%), as well as thrombocytopenia (2 pts). Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed in at least two patients: hypertension (2 pts) and pelvic pain (2 pts). Response: currently, best responses were 4 PR, 1 SD, and 8 PD in 13 patients evaluable so far. Four patients died, all after progression of lymphoma. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone seems to be feasible and safe with early signs of efficacy. Updated results of this trial in progress with a focus on safety will be presented. Disclosures Hess: Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche, CTI, Pfizer, Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Marks:Pfizer: Honoraria. Witzens-Harig:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Viardot:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: travel support; Pfizer: Honoraria. Keller:Spectrum Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Phase II Study Of Anti-CD19 Antibody Drug Conjugate (SAR3419) In Combination With Rituximab: Clinical Activity and Safety In Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (NCT01470456)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4395-4395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Coiffier ◽  
Catherine Thieblemont ◽  
Sophie de Guibert ◽  
Jehan Dupuis ◽  
Vincent Ribrag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background SAR3419 is a humanized anti-CD19 antibody conjugated to maytansin DM4, a potent cytotoxic agent. SAR3419 targets CD19, an antigen expressed in the majority of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). The recommended dose for single agent SAR3419 was previously determined to be 55 mg/m2 administered IV every week for 4 weeks, then bi-weekly. In phase I, clinical activity was shown mainly in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). (Trial funded by Sanofi). Methods Patients (pts) with a CD20+ and CD19+ DLBCL relapsing or refractory (R/R) after at least 1 standard treatment including rituximab and not candidate for or who already underwent transplantation, were eligible. Refractory disease was defined as unresponsive to or progressing within 6 months of regimen completion. Fresh (or recent formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded) biopsy was required before SAR3419 start. Pts received 375 mg/m2 of rituximab (R) IV and 55 mg/m² of SAR3419 on day 1, 8, 15, 22 (35-day cycle 1), followed by bi-weekly R and SAR3419 at the same doses for 2 additional 28-day cycles, provided there was no disease progression or other study discontinuation criteria met. The primary objective was the overall response rate (ORR) following Cheson 2007 criteria, with the first tumor assessment being done 42 days after the last study treatment administration. Secondary objectives were: safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), duration of response (DOR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and correlation of the antitumor and biological activity of the combination with tumor biomarker status. Results Fifty-three pts were enrolled, 52 treated. Median age was 66.5 years (range 38-85), 50% were male; 23%, 33% and 40% of patients had received 1, 2 or ≥3 prior chemo/immunotherapy regimens for DLBCL, respectively. Of the enrolled patients, 3.8% had received no prior regimen for DLBCL and therefore were excluded from primary analysis for efficacy. Seventy-three percent had stage III/IV disease, 59% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and 63% had bulky disease. Sixty percent were refractory to first regimen (primary refractory), 16% were refractory to last regimen and 24% were relapsed pts. The ORR in the per-protocol population (n=45) was 31.1% (80% confidence interval (CI): 22.0% to 41.6%). Among the 14 responders, 5 had progressed at the time of analysis, with duration of response beyond 6 months for 3 of them. The ORR was 58.3% (80% CI: 36.2% to 78.1%) for patients with relapsed DLBCL (n=12), 42.9% (80% CI: 17.0% to 72.1%) for pts refractory to last regimen (n=7) and 15.4% (80% CI: 6.9% to 28.4%) for primary refractory pts (n=26). Overall survival and PFS data are not yet mature. Biomarkers and PK data will be presented at the meeting. The most common (≥10%) all grades non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were asthenia (25.0%), nausea (21.2%), cough (19.2%), diarrhea (17.3%), weight decrease (17.3%), vomiting (15.4%), dyspnea (15.4%), abdominal pain (13.5%), back pain (13.5%), pyrexia (13.5%) and constipation (11.5%). Related grade 3-4 TEAEs were: 1 syncope, 1 bronchospasm, 2 neutropenia and 1 anemia. No TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation, no grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy or grade 3-4 ocular events were observed. Two pts experienced grade 2 keratitis, both rapidly recovered with local treatment. Hematological toxicity was moderate, with grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in 15.7% and 9.8% pts, respectively. No complications related to neutropenia were reported. Grade 3 transaminase increase was observed in 1 patient. Conclusions The combination of SAR3419 plus R showed moderate ORR in R/R DLBCL; however the study population was of poor prognosis (60% refractory to first line therapy). In the relapsed DLBCL patients a higher ORR was observed. SAR3419 plus R presented with a favorable safety profile. Further investigations on biomarker expression are ongoing to identify a sub-group of pts who could have better benefited from this combination. Disclosures: Coiffier: Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Phase II of SAR3419. Ribrag:Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cartron:LFB: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Casasnovas:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hatteville:Sanofi: Employment. Zilocchi:Sanofi: Employment. Oprea:Sanofi: Employment. Tilly:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Results of a Phase I Study of Obinutuzumab, Venetoclax, and Lenalidomide in Relapsed and Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4082-4082
Author(s):  
Beth A. Christian ◽  
Ying Huang ◽  
Sabarish Ayyappan ◽  
Robert A Baiocchi ◽  
Jonathan E Brammer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Oral Agents ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Aggressive B Cell Lymphoma

Introduction: Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy both as a single agent and in combination with rituximabin several subtypes of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The combination of obinutuzumab and lenalidomide has demonstrated safety and preliminary efficacy in follicular lymphoma (Fowler et al., JCO 2015; 35: 7531). We conducted a phase I study of obinutuzumab, venetoclax, and lenalidomide to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and preliminary efficacy of the combination. Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL), transformed, high grade B-cell (HGBCL), marginal zone, and follicular (FL) lymphoma who have received ≥ 1 prior therapy were eligible. Prior autologous (ASCT) but not allogeneic stem cell transplant were permitted. Prior lenalidomide or BCL2 family inhibitors, CNS involvement, and active hepatitis or HIV infection were not permitted. ANC > 1000/mm3, platelets > 75,000/mm3, creatinine clearance ≥50 ml/min, ALT/AST ≤ 3 x ULN, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and ECOG PS 0-2 were required. Treatment consisted of obinutuzumab 1000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 2-6 with escalating doses of lenalidomide days 1-21 and venetoclax days 1-28 of a 28 day cycle (Table 1). A 3+3 dose escalation schema was followed. The DLT period was 1 cycle and patients had to receive 80% of the doses of the oral agents and all doses of obinutuzumab to be considered evaluable for DLT. DLTs included: treatment delays > 28 days; ANC < 500 / mm3 or platelets <25, 000 / mm3 persisting > 28 days; grade 4 febrile neutropenia or infection; grade 3 infection that fails to resolve within 7 days; and grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity. Patients without significant toxicity or progression could continue treatment up to 12 cycles. Response was assessed by CT or PET/CT every 3 months for 12 months and then every 6 months until disease progression. Results: 22 patients were treated. Median age was 61 years (range 31-78 years) with 16 males. Median prior therapies was 2 (range 1-10) and included 5 patients who had relapsed after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 2 patients relapsed after ASCT. Median baseline lactate dehydrogenase was 259.5 U/L (range 147-5133, ULN 190 U/L). 16 patients had aggressive B-cell lymphoma including DLBCL, HGBCL, primary mediastinal and transformed FL, 5 patients had FL and 1 patient had marginal zone lymphoma. At dose level (DL) 1, one patient experienced a DLT, grade 3 neutropenic fever lasting > 7 days. DL 1 was expanded and no additional DLTs occurred. No further DLTs occurred at DL 2-4. DL 4 was expanded and was determined to be the MTD. Four patients, 1 in each dose level, were not evaluable for DLT and were replaced including 3 who did not receiving 80% of the oral agents due to required dose reductions and 1 patient for disease progression. Related grade 3-4 toxicities were primarily hematologic including neutropenia (n=20, 90.9%), thrombocytopenia (n=5, 22.7%), and anemia (n=3, 13.6%). Grade 3-4 infections (n=6, 27%) included sepsis, febrile neutropenia, pneumonia and a urinary tract infection. Other grade 3-4 AEs occurring once each included dysgeusia, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and hyperhidrosis. No clinically significant tumor lysis has occurred. Patients have received a median of 3 cycles (range 1-12) of treatment. Three patients remain on therapy and 5 patients are on follow up. Dose reductions of lenalidomide occurred for 17 patients (77%) and of venetoclax for 11 patients (50%). Nine patients have achieved a response (41%), including 8 complete (CR) and 1 partial responses (PR). Responses have occurred at each DL and include 4 patients with FL (2 CR, 2 PR), 4 patients with aggressive lymphoma (4 CR) and 1 patient with MZL (CR). 14 patients are off of the study, 9 with progression, 2 for alternative therapy, and 1 each for DLT, physician preference, and a diagnosis of MDS in a patient with 3 prior lines of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Combined treatment with obinutuzumab, venetoclax, and lenalidomide administered up to 12 cycles is feasible with activity in multiple subtypes of relapsed NHL. Enrollment in expansion cohorts of FL and aggressive B-cell lymphoma is ongoing. Disclosures Christian: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy. Brammer:Verastem, Inc: Research Funding; Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bioniz Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Jaglowski:Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding. William:Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin, Inc.: Consultancy; Defined Health: Consultancy; Techspert: Consultancy. Awan:Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Maddocks:BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Obinutuzumab - off label use in relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphoma and indolent B-cell lymphoma Venetoclax - off label use in relapsed B-cell lymphoma

scholarly journals Outcomes of Primary Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Treated with Salvage Chemotherapy and Intention to Transplant in the Rituximab Era

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1986-1986
Author(s):  
Santosha A. Vardhana ◽  
Craig H. Moskowitz ◽  
Craig S. Sauter ◽  
Matthew J Matasar ◽  
Natasha Galasso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction: Approximately 10-15% of patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP chemotherapy have primary refractory disease at the completion of initial treatment. The standard treatment for patients with DLBCL in first relapse is rituximab and salvage chemotherapy. For those achieving chemosensitive remission, high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the accepted standard of care. Data from three randomized studies in the rituximab era suggest that 40-50% of these patients are ultimately cured; however, the majority of patients in these studies did not have primary refractory disease. The outcomes and curability of primary refractory DLBCL patients in the rituximab era remain unknown. Methods: We identified transplant-eligible patients from 2002 to 2014 with DLBCL that was refractory to initial rituximab and anthracycline containing regimens based on radiographic (16) and/or biopsy-proven (83) progression at the end of therapy. Patients with primary refractory disease were defined as either partial responders (partial response to initial therapy) or primary progressors (minimal or no response to initial therapy). The majority of patients were treated with three cycles of platinum containing regimens; 72% received R-ICE. High-dose therapy and ASCT were administered in 52% of cases. Response criteria were per IHP when pre- and post- salvage PET were available, otherwise by SPD per IWG (Cheson JCO 1999). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient Characteristics: Ninety-nine patients were identified. Median age was 56 (range 22-73); 31% were older than 60. With respect to histology, 61% of patients had DLBCL-NOS, 17% had PMBL, 11% had transformed low-grade B cell lymphoma, 6% had T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma, 3% had grey zone lymphoma, and 2% had B-cell lymphoma unclassifiable. With respect to initial treatment response, 41% of patients were partial responders whereas 59% were primary progressors. An elevated LDH, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) <80 and Ann Arbor (AA) stage III-IV disease were seen at relapse in 67%, 17%, and 56% of patients, respectively. Bulky disease (>10 cm) and multiple (≥2) extranodal sites of disease were present in 18% and 35% of patients. An elevated second-line IPI (≥3) and aaIPI (≥3) were seen in 40% and 49% of patients, respectively. Outcomes: Median follow-up for survivors was 37 months. The overall response rate to salvage therapy was 56%, with 21% achieving a complete response and 35% achieving a partial response. As assessed by intention to treat (ITT), the estimated 3-year OS and PFS are 43% and 34% respectively (Figure 1). Within the ITT cohort, univariate analysis revealed that age ≥60, primary progressive disease, advanced AA stage, elevated LDH, KPS<80, multiple extranodal sites of disease, and an elevated second-line IPI were associated with inferior PFS, whereas PMBL was associated with superior PFS compared to DLBCL-NOS. Multivariate analysis revealed age ≥60 and an elevated LDH to be independently associated with PFS; patients with zero or two of these risk factors had hazard ratios of 0.32 and 2.05 for disease progression as compared to patients with one of these risk factors (Figure 2). With respect to the 51 patients proceeding to ASCT, median follow-up from the date of SCT was 48 months. The estimated 3-year OS and PFS are 67% and 63% respectively. Within the transplanted cohort, univariate analysis revealed disease bulk >10 cm and an elevated IPI to be associated with inferior outcomes. Conclusion: This is the largest reported series of patients with primary refractory DLBCL treated with curative intent in the rituximab era. Salvage therapy with consolidative ASCT achieves long-term remissions in about 40% of patients. ASCT achieves long-term remissions in over 60% of patients. Therefore, the primary barrier to curative therapy in this population is achieving a sufficient response to salvage therapy, and future studies should be aimed towards increasing the response rate in this population. Older patients and patients with an elevated LDH respond poorly to conventional salvage therapy and investigational approaches may be more appropriate in this setting. Figure 1. OS and PFS of patients with primary refractory DLBCL. Figure 1. OS and PFS of patients with primary refractory DLBCL. Figure 2. PFS of patients based on the presence of elevated age (60+) and/or elevated LDH. Figure 2. PFS of patients based on the presence of elevated age (60+) and/or elevated LDH. Disclosures Moskowitz: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Matasar:Genentech: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Selinexor in Combination with R-GDP for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma: Results of the Selinda Phase Ib Lysa Study

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1411-1411
Author(s):  
Marie Maerevoet ◽  
Olivier Casasnovas ◽  
Guillaume Cartron ◽  
Franck Morschhauser ◽  
Catherine Thieblemont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Metabolic Response ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
High Dose Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: Salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment of young patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A complete remission before ASCT is the most important prognosis factor for a better outcome. Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, an exportin 1 [XPO1] inhibitor, which, through XPO1 blockade, causes nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, reduction in oncoproteins and cancer cell apoptosis. Selinexor has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, de novo or transformed from follicular lymphoma (FL) pts after ≥2 therapies. The phase Ib SELINDA (EUDRACT 2015-005612-15) study assessed safety and efficacy of selinexor, in combination with R-GDP for pts with R/R B-cell lymphoma. Patients & methods: Eligible pts &lt; 70 years with R/R B-cell lymphoma after first or second treatment failure received every 21 days (d) 3 cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m² on d1, dexamethasone 40 mg on d1 to 4, cisplatin 75 mg/m² d1 and gemcitabine 1 gr/m² on d1 and 8 (R-GDP) in combination with escalating doses of selinexor. The starting dose (dose level 1, DL1) 40 mg was given on days 1, 3, 8, 10 (Cohort A), and from December 2017 on days 1, 8 and 15 (Cohort B). The dose-variation scheme followed a traditional "3+3" design (DL1: 40 mg; DL2: 60 mg). The primary endpoint of SELINDA was the determination of the recommended phase 2 dose of selinexor in combination with R-GDP. Secondary and exploratory endpoints were safety, efficacy, and feasibility of ASCT after selinexor-R-GDP. Results: The R2PD for selinexor in combination with R-GDP was established as 40 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 (Maerevoet, IMCL 2021#176). Between January 2017 and January 2021, 32 pts received selinexor-R-GDP. We focused on the 18 pts who received the R2PD: 15 had DLBCL, 2 FL, 1 marginal zone lymphoma. In this cohort, median age was 61 years (range 44-69); 14 pts (78%) has stage III/IV. Thirteen pts received 1 previous line before inclusion, 5 pts received 2 previous lines. At inclusion, 6 pts had refractory disease and 12 relapsed. Four pts prematurely discontinued treatment: 2 for thrombocytopenia, 1 for COVID, 1 for progression. Major adverse events (AEs) in &gt;10% of pts were reversible neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (39%), and nausea (22%). No AEs leading to death were observed. Seven pts (39%) achieved a complete metabolic response (CMR), 5 pts (28%) partial metabolic response (PMR). Overall response rate (CMR+PMR) assessed at the end of treatment according to Lugano classification was 67% (12 of 18). Nine of the 15 pts (60 %) with DLBCL had metabolic response (CMR:4, PMR:5). Per protocol, peripheral stem cell collection and ASCT were optional, 4 pts of this RP2D cohort proceeded to high dose therapy (BEAM) and ASCT. Conclusion: This study established the safety profile of weekly 40mg of Selinexor in combination with R-GDP for R/R B cell lymphoma with an ORR of 67%. Reversible AEs are expected for platinum-based regimen. An ongoing randomized phase 2 study comparing R-GDP and R-GDP plus selinexor in pts with R/R DLBCL will now establish the safety and efficacy of the combination. Disclosures Casasnovas: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Consultancy, Research Funding; ROCHE: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Morschhauser: Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Chugai: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Thieblemont: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Feugier: Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Impact of Interim FDG-PET (iPET) in the Outcomes of Patients with Aggressive B-Cell Lymphomas Receiving DA-EPOCH-R

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2898-2898
Author(s):  
Vania Phuoc ◽  
Leidy Isenalumhe ◽  
Hayder Saeed ◽  
Celeste Bello ◽  
Bijal Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
End Of Treatment

Introduction: 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) remains the standard of care for baseline and end of treatment scans for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs). However, the role of interim FDG-PET remains not as well defined across aggressive NHLs, especially in the era of high-intensity chemoimmunotherapy. Interim FDG-PET (iPET) can serve as an early prognostic tool, and prior studies evaluating the utility of iPET-guided treatment strategies primarily focused on diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) and frontline R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Classification criteria systems assessing response also differ between studies with no clear consensus between use of Deauville criteria (DC), International Harmonization Project (IHP), and the ΔSUVmax method. Methods: This study evaluates our institutional experience with iPET during treatment with DA-EPOCH ± R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin with or without Rituximab) in aggressive NHLs. We retrospectively evaluated 70 patients at Moffitt Cancer Center who started on DA-EPOCH ± R between 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2018 for aggressive NHLs. Response on interim and end-of-treatment (EOT) scans were graded per DC, IHP, and ΔSUVmax methods, and progression free survival (PFS) probability estimates were calculated with chi-square testing and Kaplan Meier method. PFS outcomes were compared between interim negative and positive scans based on each scoring method. Outcomes were also compared between groups based on interim versus EOT positive or negative scans. Results: We identified 70 patients with aggressive NHLs who received DA-EPOCH ± R at our institute. The most common diagnoses were DLBCL (61%) followed by Burkitt's lymphoma (10%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (9%), plasmablastic lymphoma (7%), gray zone lymphoma (6%), primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma (1%), primary effusion lymphoma (1%), and other high-grade NHL not otherwise specified (3%). Of the 43 patients with DLBCL, 21/43 (49%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL) while 7/43 (16%) had triple hit lymphoma (THL), and 3/43 (7%) had MYC-rearranged DLBCL while 2/43 (5%) had double expressor DLBCL. Thirty nine out of 70 (56%) were female, and median age at diagnosis was 58.39 years (range 22.99 - 86.86 years). Most patients had stage IV disease (49/70, 70%), and 43/70 (61%) had more than one extranodal site while 45/70 (64%) had IPI score ≥ 3. Forty-six out of 70 (66%) received central nervous system prophylaxis, most with intrathecal chemotherapy (44/70, 63%). Fifty-five out of 70 (79%) had iPET available while 6/70 (9%) had interim computerized tomography (CT) scans. Fifty-six out of 70 (80%) had EOT PET, and 4/70 (6%) had EOT CT scans. Sustained complete remission occurred in 46/70 (66%) after frontline DA-EPOCH ± R (CR1), and 12/70 (17%) were primary refractory while 5/70 (7%) had relapse after CR1. Four of 70 (6%) died before cycle 3, and 3/70 (4%) did not have long-term follow-up due to transition of care elsewhere. Median follow-up was 15.29 months (range 0.85 - 60.09 months). There was significantly better PFS observed if iPET showed DC 1-3 compared to DC 4-5 (Χ2=5.707, p=0.0169), and PFS was better if iPET was negative by IHP criteria (Χ2=4.254, p=0.0392) or ΔSUVmax method (Χ2=6.411, p=0.0113). Comparing iPET to EOT PET, there was significantly better PFS if iPET was negative with EOT PET negative (iPET-/EOT-) compared to iPET positive with EOT negative (iPET+/EOT-), and iPET+/EOT+ and iPET-/EOT+ had worse PFS after iPET-/EOT- and iPET+/EOT- respectively. This pattern in iPET/EOT PFS probability remained consistent when comparing DC (Χ2=30.041, p<0.0001), IHP (Χ2=49.078, p<0.0001), and ΔSUVmax method (Χ2=9.126, p=0.0104). These findings fit clinical expectations with positive EOT scans indicating primary refractory disease. There was no significant difference in PFS when comparing DLBCL versus non-DLBCL (Χ2=3.461, p=0.0628) or DHL/THL versus non-DHL/THL diagnoses (Χ2=2.850, p=0.0914). Conclusion: Our findings indicate a prognostic role of iPET during treatment with DA-EPOCH ± R for aggressive NHLs. Significant differences in PFS were seen when graded by DC, IHP, and ΔSUVmax methods used in prior studies and when comparing interim versus EOT response. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Disclosures Bello: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Shah:Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Spectrum/Astrotech: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene/Juno: Honoraria. Sokol:EUSA: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

IVAC +/- R for Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas: Real-World Experience in the Modern Era

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 10-10
Author(s):  
Michael J Buege ◽  
Phuong H Dao ◽  
Esther Drill ◽  
Andréa C LeVoir ◽  
Terry Pak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Prophylactic Measures ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction Part B of the modified Magrath regimen (ifosfamide, etoposide, and cytarabine; IVAC) with or without rituximab (R) is utilized as a standalone regimen in the management of relapsed/refractory Burkitt lymphoma and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). There are no comparative or prospective data and a paucity of retrospective, non-comparative data to support use of this regimen. A small retrospective study described second-line IVAC use without R in a mixed cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or peripheral T-cell lymphoma, suggesting utility as a bridge to hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (Pereira J, et al. Leuk Res. 2006 Jun;30(6):681-5). The activity of this regimen in B-cell NHL, particularly in conjunction with R, and its toxicity remain incompletely described. In this study, we describe our institutional experience with IVAC +/- R in relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. Methods We reviewed all patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL treated with IVAC +/- R between 1 January 2004 and 30 September 2019 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to assess efficacy and toxicity. Patients who received IVAC as part of sequential or alternating chemotherapy were excluded. Standard dosing consisted of ifosfamide 1500mg/m2 IV over 60min days 1-5, etoposide 60mg/m2 IV over 60min days 1-5, cytarabine 2000mg/m2 IV over 3 hours every 12 hours days 1-2, with or without rituximab 375mg/m2 IV day 0 or 1 in 21- to 28-day cycles (Lacasce A, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004 Apr;45(4):761-7). Results Cohort and treatment characteristics are described in Table 1. Among 54 eligible patients (median age 51 years), 76% had DLBCL; 30% had lymphomatous central nervous system involvement at the time of initiating IVAC. Patients had received median 2 prior lines of therapy, with the last dose of the most recent line of therapy administered a median of 3 weeks prior to initiating IVAC. Patients received median 2 cycles of IVAC +/- R; 48% received IVAC-R. Prophylactic antimicrobials with cycle 1 were utilized in 94%. Most patients received herpesvirus- (81%) and Pneumocystis- (80%) directed prophylaxis; broad-spectrum prophylaxis with a fluoroquinolone was less common (24%). Primary granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) was utilized in 93% of patients with cycle 1; primary or secondary GCSF was utilized in 94% of cycles. Efficacy outcomes are described in Table 1. Objective response rate (ORR) among 46 evaluated patients was 48%; 17% achieved CR. ORR did not vary significantly between patients who did or did not receive R (58% vs 42%; p = 0.5) but was associated with number of IVAC cycles administered (among responders, 69% received 3-4 cycles while 31% received 1-2 cycles; p &lt; 0.001). At median follow-up of 22 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.1 months and 4.9 months, respectively (Figure). In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis of survival, patients who received R with every cycle (p = 0.025) and received 3 or more cycles (p &lt; 0.001) experienced significantly longer PFS. Patients who achieved CR (p &lt; 0.001) or PR (p = 0.003), received R with every cycle (p &lt; 0.001), received 3 or more cycles (p &lt; 0.001), or underwent subsequent HCT or CAR-T cell therapy (p = 0.001) experienced significantly longer OS. Toxicity outcomes are described in Table 2. Grade ≥ 3 anemia (93%), neutropenia (94%), and thrombocytopenia (100%; all grade 4) were common, regardless of number of cycles received. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in 65% of patients and complicated 47% of cycles; documented infection occurred in 44%. Risk of FN and infection did not appear to be influenced by use of antimicrobial or GCSF prophylaxis. Grade ≥ 3 elevations in AST/ALT or total bilirubin were uncommon (5.6% and 9.3%, respectively). Neurotoxicity attributed to cytarabine or ifosfamide occurred in 17% of patients and was usually low-grade; hemorrhagic cystitis occurred in one patient. In patients for whom cause of death was documented (n = 37), mortality was attributed to a treatment-related complication in 19%. Conclusion IVAC-R may be a useful bridging therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL who are planned for HCT. However, its potential for profound hematologic toxicity and life-threatening complications despite prophylactic measures requires careful consideration of less toxic alternatives. Disclosures Straus: Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Alternating Courses of 3x CHOP and 3x DHAP Plus Rituximab Followed by a High Dose ARA-C Containing Myeloablative Regimen and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) Is Superior to 6 Courses CHOP Plus Rituximab Followed by Myeloablative Radiochemotherapy and ASCT In Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results of the MCL Younger Trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network (MCL net)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 110-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Hermine ◽  
Eva Hoster ◽  
Jan Walewski ◽  
Vincent Ribrag ◽  
Nicole Brousse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 110 Background: Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) has been characterized by poor long term prognosis with a median survival of only 3 to 4 years. However, outcome has improved during the last decades. In its first randomized trial, the MCL net demonstrated that myeloablative consolidation followed by ASCT resulted in a significant prolongation of PFS in advanced stage MCL (Dreyling et al Blood 2005). Recent phase II studies suggested that the addition of rituximab to CHOP like chemotherapy and/or high dose ARA-C may significantly improve remission rates and PFS. A French phase II trial using sequential R-CHOP/R-DHAP followed by ASCT showed an overall response rate of 95% with a CR rate of 61% translating into a median EFS of 83 months and a 75% survival rate at 5 years (Delarue et al ASH 2008). Methods: To evaluate the potential superiority of a high dose ARA-C containing regimen, the MCL net initiated a randomized trial comparing 6 courses of CHOP plus Rituximab followed by myeloablative radiochemotherapy (12 Gray TBI, 2×60mg/kg Cyclophosphamide) and ASCT (control arm A) versus alternating courses of 3x CHOP and 3x DHAP plus Rituximab followed by a high dose ARA-C containing myeloablative regimen (10 Gray TBI, 4×1,5 g/m2 Ara-C, 140mg/m2 melphalan) and ASCT (experimental arm B). Patient eligibility criteria included previously untreated MCL stage II-IV up to the age of 65 years. Histological diagnosis was confirmed by a central pathology review board. The primary end point time to treatment failure (TTF) was monitored continuously by a sequential procedure based on a one sided triangular test. Stable disease after induction, progression or death from any causes, were considered as treatment failure. Sample size was calculated to detect a hazard ratio of 52% for arm B with a power of 95%. Randomization was stopped as soon as a significant difference was observed between the two arms. Results: From July 2004 to May 2010, 497 patients were randomized in 4 countries (Germany, France, Poland, Belgium). The 391 patients evaluable for the primary analysis (19 no MCL, 87 not yet documented) displayed similar characteristics in both treatment arms: median age 55 vs 56 years, male 78% vs 79%, stage IV 85% vs 79%, B symptoms 43% vs 33%, ECOG >2 5% vs 5%, elevated LDH 37% vs 38%, and MIPI low/int/high risk 61%/25%/14% vs 62%/23%/15%, respectively. After induction overall response was similarly high in both arms (A: 90% vs B: 94%; p=0.19) and CR rate and combined CR/CRu rate were significantly higher in arm B (26% vs 39%; p=0.012 and 41% vs 60%; p=0.0003). The number of patients transplanted was similar in both arms (72% vs 73%) and after transplantation overall response and CR rates were comparable in both arms (97% vs 97% and 63% vs 65%, respectively). After a median follow up of 27 months, patients in arm B experienced a significantly longer TTF (49 months vs NR; p=0.0384, hazard ratio 0.68) mainly due to a lower number of relapses after CR/CRu/PR (20% vs 10%), whereas the rate of ASCT-related deaths in remission was similar in both arms (3% vs 4%). Although CR rate after ASCT was comparable in both arms, remission duration (RD) after ASCT was superior in Arm B (48m vs NR; p=0.047). Interestingly, for patients in CR after ASCT, RD after ASCT was also presumably superior in arm B (51 months vs NR; p=0.077). At the time of analysis overall survival was similar in both arms with medians not reached and 79% vs. 80% survival rates at 3 years (p=0.74). Safety after induction was comparable in both arms except for an increased grade 3/4 hematological toxicity (Hb 8% vs 28%, WBC 48% vs 75%, platelets 9% vs 74%, respectively), an excess of renal toxicity (creatinine grade 1/2: 8% vs 38%, grade 3/4: none vs 2%), and more frequent grade 1/2 nausea and vomiting in arm B. Toxicities of both conditioning regimen were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 mucositis (43% vs. 61%) in Arm B, and higher grade 1/2 liver toxicity and constipation in Arm A. Conclusions: High dose ARA-C in addition to R-CHOP+ASCT increases significantly complete response rates and TTF without clinically relevant increase of toxicity. Therefore, induction regimen containing high dose ARA-C followed by ASCT should become the new standard of care of MCL patients up to 65 years. Disclosures: Walewski: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stilgenbauer:Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Feugier:roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bosly:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gisselbrecht:Roche: Research Funding.

A Phase I Study of Myeloablative I-131-Anti CD-20 (Tositumomab) Radioimmunotherapy with Escalating Doses of Fludarabine Followed by Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) for Adults ≥ 60 Years of Age with High-Risk or Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 663-663
Author(s):  
Ajay K. Gopal ◽  
Ted Gooley ◽  
Joseph Rajendran ◽  
John M. Pagel ◽  
Darrell R. Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Nucleoside Analogs ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem

Abstract Abstract 663 Background: The majority of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are over 60 years of age, yet many are denied potentially curative high-dose regimens due to concerns of excessive toxicity. We have shown that myeloablative anti-CD20 radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can safely deliver effective radiation doses to tumor sites while limiting exposure to normal organs in older adults requiring high-dose therapy, however, not all patients in this series remained progression-free (Gopal, JCO 2007). Preclinical data suggest that improved anti-tumor activity may be attained by the concurrent administration of nucleoside analogs (fludarabine, cytarabine) which synergize with RIT (Johnson, Int J Cancer; Gopal, BBMT, 2006). We hypothesized that a prolonged regimen of fludarabine could be administered concurrently with myeloablative RIT and ASCT to safely augment the efficacy of this approach. We present the phase I data evaluating this strategy. Methods: Patients were eligible if they were 60 years of age or older, had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in first remission or relapsed/refractory B-NHL, an ECOG PS of 0–1, acceptable organ function, >2×106 autologous CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells/kg collected, <20 Gy prior radiation to critical organs, and no human-anti-mouse-antibodies (HAMA). All patients underwent outpatient biodistribution studies for dosimetry using tositumomab (1.7 mg/kg, n=3 or 485mg flat dose, n=33) labeled with ∼10mCi I-131 followed by serial quantitative gamma camera imaging to calculate individualized organ-specific absorbed dose estimates. Patients then received therapeutic infusions of I-131-tositumomab to deliver 27Gy to the critical normal organ receiving the highest radiation exposure. Forty-eight hours later fludarabine was administered in escalating doses to patients (Table) to define a regimen associated with a dose limiting toxicity (DLT = grade III/IV Bearman toxicity) rate of <25%. ASCT occurred when radiation exposure was estimated to be <2mR/hr at 1meter. Filgrastim at 5μg/kg/day or pegfilgrastim at 6mg × 1 was started on day 1. Response was scored using standard criteria. Results: Between July 2005 and May 2011 36 patients were treated. Baseline characteristics included: median age 65 yrs (range 60–76), stage III/IV = 34 (94%), median number of prior regimens = 2 (range 1–9), chemoresistant disease (defined as < a partial response [PR] to the most recent regimen) = 12 (33%), >1 extranodal site = 14 (39%), elevated LDH at treatment = 13 (36%), IPI score at transplant 3–5 = 53%. Histology: MCL = 23, diffuse large B-cell = 8 (with 5 transformed from follicular lymphoma [FL]), FL=3, and marginal zone = 1, Waldenstrom's = 1. Dose limiting organs receiving up to 27Gy included lung (30), kidney (4), and liver (2) with a median administered I-131 activity of 471 mCi (range 260–1620). Fludarabine was escalated from 10 mg/m2/day × 5 days to 30 mg/m2 × 7 days without observation of a DLT (Table). The median CD34 dose was 5.42 ×106/kg with neutrophil (ANC>500μl) and platelet (>20 K/μl) engraftment occurring a median on 10 and 12 days after ASCT, respectively. Only 2 patients developed grade 4 NCI-CTC grade 4 non-hematologic toxicities (hypokalemia/hypophosphatemia, depression), 25 (69%) remained outpatients after discharge from radiation isolation, and there were no non-relapse deaths in the first 100 days after transplant. Responses to therapy were as follows: CR/CRu = 26 (79%), PR = 2 (6%), SD = 4 (11%), and PD = 4 (11%). Currently, 23 (64%) patients are alive with 22 (61%) progression free. The estimated 3 yr overall survival, progression-free survival, relapse, and non-relapse mortality are 54%, 53%, 41%, and 7%, respectively (median follow up of 2.5yrs after ASCT, Figure). Improved survival was associated with <2 prior regimens (HR=.08, p=.02) and chemosensitive disease (HR=.35, p=.07). Conclusions: High-dose (27 Gy) I-131 tositumomab can safely be administered concurrently with up to 210 mg/m2 fludarabine in an older, high-risk patient population. This strategy warrants further investigation as a method to safely augment the antitumor activity of myeloablative RIT. Disclosures: Gopal: GSK: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Piramal: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Abbott: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Bio Marin: Research Funding; Biogen-Idec: Research Funding. Off Label Use: High-dose use of I-131-tositumomab. Maloney:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Poor Outcomes Among Patients Failing Dose-Adjusted EPOCH in Aggressive Lymphoma: A Collaborative, Retrospective Study

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1518-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Vandermeer ◽  
Allison M Winter ◽  
Ajay K. Gopal ◽  
Ryan D. Cassaday ◽  
Brian T. Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
First Line Therapy

Abstract Introduction Among patients with aggressive B-NHL who fail RCHOP, about half respond to standard salvage regimens and may proceed to curative-intent, transplant-based therapy. However, whether pts failing more intensive regimens such as dose-adjusted, infusional EPOCH benefit from standard salvage regimens is unclear. We hypothesized that such patients comprise a higher-risk cohort, facing inferior response rates and outcomes using standard salvage regimens. We undertook a collaborative study to assess response rates and survival among pts failing EPOCH for aggressive B-NHL, to inform patient management and design of clinical trials in this setting. Methods Pharmacy records and institutional databases were queried, identifying pts receiving EPOCH over the last 10 years at the University of Washington/SCCA and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, for combined analysis. Under IRB approval, patient characteristics, histology, outcome with EPOCH, time to EPOCH failure, response to salvage, and overall survival were analyzed. Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, B-cell-lymphoma unclassifiable, HIV-associated B cell lymphoma, and transformed B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included. Pts receiving <2 cycles EPOCH, or who had inadequate follow-up (<3 months), were excluded. Failure of EPOCH was defined as failure to respond or progression during therapy, need for initiation of salvage therapy, or death during therapy of any cause. Adverse events or treatment change due to toxicity were not included in the definition of failure. JMP 11 was used to generate kaplan-meier survival estimates. Results 124 pts with aggressive B-NHL receiving EPOCH were identified. 54 had not relapsed, and among 70 remaining da-EPOCH failures, 37 met the above inclusion criteria. Median age was 55. 27% were female, and 23 received EPOCH as first-line therapy. All but 3 received rituximab with EPOCH. Histologies were primarily DLBCL in 22/37 (60%) and BCL-U in 12/37 (32%) carrying a MYC translocation; most of these harbored additional translocations in BCL2 and/or BCL6 (10/12). However, data regarding MYC rearrangement was not available for all pts. 2 had HIV-associated B-NHL and 3 had PMBCL. With 18 months follow up, the median time to EPOCH failure was 5 months. Only 3 EPOCH failures occurred late (>12 months). Median OS from the date of EPOCH failure was 10 months (Figure 1). Those receiving EPOCH as first-line therapy (23) had a median OS of 14 months from EPOCH failure, as opposed to 4 months for those receiving EPOCH as salvage therapy (log-rank p=.01). Salvage chemotherapy regimens after EPOCH were diverse, and generally ineffective; 6/28 (21%) regimens produced a response (Table 1). Among patients failing EPOCH within a year, platinum-containing salvage (RICE/RDHAP) was effective in only 2/13 patients (15%). 9 patients did not receive any salvage, most of whom died or proceeded to palliative measures and/or hospice care. Conclusions A relatively low overall response rate (21%) was observed in this retrospective analysis of patients failing EPOCH. Analogous to early RCHOP failure in the CORAL study, those failing EPOCH within a year may face inferior outcomes with platinum-based salvage therapy. While combined from two institutions, our data represent a modest sample size and require confirmation. If verified, examination of mechanisms of resistance to EPOCH, and selecting EPOCH failures for clinical trials of novel targeted therapies and transplant-based approaches, may prove critical. Table 1. Salvage Therapy for REPOCH failures Regimen: response/total number treated Notes Response to any salvage: 6/28 (21%) Some patients received more than 1 chemo salvage; responses were tabulated per regimen. RICE: 4/12 2/3 alive post transplant(1 auto 1 allo; 1 declined transplant and survived; 1 died) RDHAP: 1/6 Gemcitabine-based: 0/5 HyperCVAD (Part A and/or B): 1/5 Survivor had CNS only relapse, received regimen B and transplant 9- received no systemic treatmen; most died or proceeded to palliative measures and/or hospice Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Gopal: Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Emergent/Abbott: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BioMarin: Research Funding; Piramal: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Hill:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Till:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Phase IIa Study of Single-Agent MOR208 in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1528-1528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Jurczak ◽  
Pier Luigi Zinzani ◽  
Gianluca Gaidano ◽  
Andre Goy ◽  
Mariano Provencio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cd20 Antibody ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: There remains a high unmet medical need for new therapies for patients with relapsed or refractory (R-R) B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). CD19 is a B-lymphocyte, lineage-specific surface antigen that is highly expressed by most B-cell NHLs. CD19 expression is maintained on lymphoma cells which have CD20 expression downregulated following treatment with the CD20 antibody, rituximab. Consequently, MOR208 (XmAb5574; MOR00208), an Fc-engineered, humanized, monoclonal antibody that targets CD19, may have clinical utility as a new therapeutic approach to R-R NHL. A phase I study showed MOR208 to be safe and well-tolerated with encouraging single-agent activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); an intravenous dose of 12 mg/kg was recommended for phase II studies. Methods: This is a non-randomized, open-label, multicenter, two-stage, phase IIa study of MOR208 in adult patients with R-R NHL whose disease had progressed after at least one prior therapy containing the CD20 antibody, rituximab. In stage 1, 10 patients were to be enrolled into each of four NHL subtype-specific cohorts: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), other indolent NHL (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Patients were to receive single-agent MOR208, 12 mg/kg intravenously, weekly, for 8 weeks (2 cycles). Those with at least stable disease by the 2007 International Response Criteria could continue MOR208 treatment for an additional 4 weeks (total of 12 weeks of therapy). Patients with a complete or partial response (CR or PR) after 12 weeks could then receive MOR208 as maintenance therapy, every 2 or 4 weeks depending on the investigator's decision, until progression. In stage 2, cohorts with ≥2 responses (CR or PR) were to be expanded by at least 20 additional patients. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included duration of response, safety, immunogenicity of MOR208, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Results: The DLBCL and FL cohorts were expanded (to N=35 and N=34 patients, respectively), leading to a total enrollment of 92 patients: 56 (61%) were male; median age was 66.5 (range 35-90) years; 80 (87%) had stage III-IV disease; 41 (45%) had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy and 10 (11%) had received a prior stem-cell transplant. The investigator-assessed ORR across all NHL subtypes was 23% (21/92 patients; 16 not evaluable at cutoff) with clinical activity seen in the DLBCL (26% [9/35]; 2 CR, 7 PR); FL (26% [9/34]; 3 CR, 6 PR) and iNHL (27% [3/11]; 2 CR, 1 PR) cohorts (MCL, 0/12 responses). The iNHL cohort was not expanded as the response pattern in this subgroup was heterogeneous according to lymphoma subtype. The longest durations of response recorded to date are 15.4 months for FL and 14.2 months for DLBCL (both ongoing). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic and hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded in 24 (26%) and 14 (15%) of 92 patients, respectively. The most commonly reported grade ≥3 hematologic TEAEs were neutropenia (7 [8%] of 92 patients, anemia (4 [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (4 [4%]); such TEAEs were seen most frequently in the DLBCL cohort (10 [29%] of 35 patients overall; neutropenia, 5 [14%], anemia, 4 [11%], thrombocytopenia, 2 [6%]). Dyspnea was the most commonly reported grade ≥3 non-hematologic TEAE (4 [4%] of 92 patients). Infusion-related reactions were seen in 9 (10%) of 92 patients; all were grade 1-2, except for one case of dyspnea, grade 4. There were no treatment-related deaths. Clinical activity in patients with R-R DLBCL appeared to be dependent on attaining a defined cumulative exposure (AUC0-t) over 8 weeks of around 11,000 day*µg/mL; i.e., at the data cutoff date, all 8 patients with a PR after 2 cycles showed an exposure above this potential threshold level. Conclusions: MOR208 demonstrated encouraging single-agent activity with CRs observed in patients with R-R DLBCL, FL, and iNHL. MOR208 was well tolerated without significant infusional toxicity. These data support further development of MOR208 in combination with other agents (including lenalidomide and bendamustine), and protocols for studies in patients with R-R DLBCL are now being developed. Disclosures Jurczak: CELLTRION, Inc,: Research Funding. Zinzani:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys; Roche; Novartis; GlaxoSmithKline; Amgen; Janssen; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards. Goy:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Buske:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Korolkiewicz:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Striebel:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Blum:Morphosys: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document