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

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

Download Full-text

Obinutuzumab (GA101) in Combination with Pixantrone for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma:Â a Phase II Trial (GOAL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116670 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1678-1678 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Georg Hess ◽

Andreas Hüttmann ◽

Julia Meissner ◽

Reinhard Marks ◽

Martin Dreyling ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Median Number ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Grade 3 ◽

One Year

Abstract Background: A substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently available salvage therapies are often ineffective and cannot be tolerated, especially for elderly patients. Thus, probably less than 25% of patients achieve a long lasting remission. Regimens like gemcitabine/oxaliplatin, or bendamustin, both in combination with rituximab are available for elderly or after failure of HDT, however induce only short lived responses. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody, with preclinical evidence of superiority over rituximab in xenograft models of MCL and DLBCL. Recently a large phase III trial failed to show a benefit in patients with untreated DLBCL, although a subset analysis showed a potential benefit in a subset GCB DLBCL of patients, its value in relapsed disease is not yet finally determined. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclines from relapse treatments. With pixantrone, a drug related to anthracyclines, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible, a best EOT-ORR of 37% (20% CR/CRu) was observed in a phase III trial. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q3/2015 and recruitment of 70 patients is completed as of 7/2018. Primary endpoint is the ORR, secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. We report about available data after enrollment of the last patient. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Main inclusion criteria: histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed iNHL (20% Quorum), no curative option available, relapsed and measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient BM reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit of prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of up to 6 cycles 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. Interim staging was scheduled after 3 cycles. Results: Basic data are available of 67 patients, all were caucasian, 37 were female the other 30 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (49 pts, 68%), 68% had advanced stage at diagnosis and the median secondary IPI was 3. Data collection is ongoing, until now data of 32 patients are fully available and updated results will be presented. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Treatment seemed to be well tolerated, median number of cycles applied was 3, pre-mature stop of treatment was primarily based on progression. Response evaluation: at this time 13/32 (40.6%) evaluable patients responded with 5 patients achieving CR/CRu (15.6%) and 8 a PR. One year after initiation of treatment 54% of patients remained alive. Median follow up is 8.2 months. Median PFS and OS is 82 day and not reached, 1 year PFS and OS are 37% and 54%, respectively, no patient experienced relapse if the patient remained free from relapse at one year. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed: leukopenia (9.4%) neutropenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (12.5%). The febrile neutropenia rate was 6.3%. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were very rare, no single side effect was observed with a frequency of 5% or more. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone is feasible and safe. Early response rates are interesting. Importantly, although some patients experience progress early, a promising proportion shows long lasting remissions. Molecular analyses are ongoing, as well as a detailed analysis on the impact of factors such as of number of prior treatments, status at inclusion. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hess: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Marks:BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Dreyling:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Keller:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lenz:Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Ofatumumab + Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Alone In Patients With Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Results Of The Phase III Study Complement 1 (OMB110911)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.528.528 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 528-528 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

Peter Hillmen ◽

Tadeusz Robak ◽

Ann Janssens ◽

K Govindbabu ◽

Sebastian Grosicki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Clinical Activity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Chemoimmunotherapy with purine analogues and the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab is the standard of care as initial therapy in younger and physically fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, most CLL patients are elderly and/or have comorbidities, meaning that fludarabine-containing regimens are often inappropriate, carry greater toxicity, and treatment of these patients remains challenging. Most randomized studies in previously untreated CLL have been conducted in younger or fit patients and results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to older, less fit patients. While chlorambucil (CHL) remains a standard of care for this patient population, more effective but tolerable treatment choices are still needed. Ofatumumab (O) demonstrated superior preclinical activity, compared to rituximab, against cells with low CD20 density like CLL and showed clinical activity as monotherapy, with high overall response rates (ORR) in patients with refractory CLL. Therefore, the addition of O to CHL could provide superior clinical outcomes than CHL alone, while being tolerable, for patients who are elderly and/or have comorbidities and currently have limited treatment options. Methods Patients with CLL who required therapy (2008 NCI-WG guidelines) and were considered inappropriate for fludarabine-based therapy due to advanced age and/or co-morbidities were randomized (1:1) to receive either O+CHL or CHL. CHL was given orally (10mg/m2 at days 1-7 of each 28 day cycle) and O was administered as intravenous infusions (Cycle 1: 300mg day 1 and 1000mg day 8, subsequent cycles: 1000mg at day 1). O premedication included acetaminophen, antihistamine and glucocorticoid. Treatment duration was a minimum of 3 cycles, until best response up to a maximum of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) and secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Patients 447 patients from 16 countries were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms. Median age was 69 years with 82% ≥65 years and/or having ≥2 comorbidities. All modified Rai stages were represented (Low 8%, intermediate 51%, high 40%). 56% of patients had unmutated IgVH, 6% showed 17p deletions and 75% had β-2-microglobulin levels ≥3500μg/L. Results PFS as assessed by an IRC was significantly prolonged in the O+CHL arm (22.4 months) compared to CHL alone (13.1 months, p<0.001). ORR was higher for O+CHL vs CHL (82% vs 69%, p=0.001), with a superior CR rate (12% vs 1%). 37% of O+CHL subjects with an IRC-assessed CR were MRD negative. With a median follow-up of 29 months, median OS was not reached for O+CHL or CHL. Median duration of treatment for both arms was 6 cycles and 82% of patients received 6 or more cycles of O+CHL. Grade ≥3 AEs that occurred from start of treatment until 60 days after the last dose were experienced by 50% of patients receiving O-CHL and 43% of patients on CHL with the most common being neutropenia (O+CHL: 26%, CHL: 14%). Grade ≥3 infusion-related AEs were reported in 10% of patients. No fatal infusion reactions were reported. Grade ≥3 infections were reported in 15% (O+CHL) and 14% (CHL) of patients, with the most common infection being pneumonia (O+CHL: 4%, CHL: 3%). Deaths during treatment occurred in 2% of subjects in both arms. Conclusion Ofatumumab added to chlorambucil (O+CHL) demonstrated clinically important improvements with a manageable side effect profile in patients with CLL who have not received prior therapy and who are considered inappropriate for fludarabine based therapy. Disclosures: Hillmen: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: The use of ofatumumab in combination with chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL. The reported trial will support the extension of the ofatumumab licence. Robak:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Janssens:GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Glaxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Panagiotidis:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kimby:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Emergent: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schuh:GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding. Montillo:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. McKeown:GSK: Employment. Carey:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Gupta:GSK: Employment. Chang:GSK: Employment. Lisby:Genmab: Employment, hold stock options Other. Offner:Lilly: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.35.35 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 35-35 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Efstathios Kastritis ◽

Xavier Leleu ◽

Bertrand Arnulf ◽

Elena Zamagni ◽

Peter Mollee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Failure ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Fluid Retention ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background. The combination of melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) is considered standard treatment for patients with AL amyloidosis who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant at most referral centers. When full-dose (40 mg) dexamethasone can be combined with melphalan, hematologic response is achieved in three fourths of patients, with complete remissions (CRs) in 30% of cases and prolonged survival (median >7 years). Several studies showed that bortezomib is highly effective in AL amyloidosis with response rates as high as 80-90%, with 50-60% CRs, when used in combinations with alkylating agents and dexamethasone, suggesting that these regimens could replace current standard of care in AL amyloidosis. A recent case-control study indicated that the addition of bortezomib to MDex (BMDex) does not overcome the poor prognosis of patients with advanced cardiac involvement. Here we report the first interim analysis of a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex) in newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis ongoing in Europe and Australia (EMN-03 study, NCT01277016). Patients and Methods. Main eligibility criteria included measurable disease (M-protein >10 g/L or dFLC >50 mg/L), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ³30 mL/min, and adequate liver function. Previously treated patients, those who had >30% bone marrow plasma cell or lytic bone lesions, NYHA class >II heart failure, grade 3 sensory or grade 1 painful peripheral neuropathy, or ECOG performance status >2 were excluded. In January 2013 the protocol was amended to include Mayo stage III patients, provided their NT-proBNP was <8500 ng/L. Patients were randomized to receive either MDex (melphalan at 0.22 mg/kg and dexamethasone at 40 mg daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (bortezomib added at 1.3 mg/m2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in cycles 1 and 2, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the following cycles). Treatment was continued until completion of MDex cycle 9 or BMDex cycle 8, or achievement of CR or of at least partial response (PR) plus organ response after cycle 6, and was discontinued in case PR was not achieved by cycle 3. Planned enrollment was 110 patients; since January 2011, 70 subjects have been enrolled, 35 in each arm (database lock: July 25, 2014). Results. Heart and renal involvement were present in 26 (74%) and 22 (63%) patients in the MDex arm, and in 25 (71%) and 24 (69%) in the BMDex arm, respectively. Five patients in each arm were stage III. In the MDex arm 15 patients (43%) experienced grade 3-4 adverse events [cytopenia (6), fluid retention (4), fatigue (2), need for a coronary stent (1), diarrhea (1), and renal failure (1)]. In the BMDex arm grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 21 patients (63%, P=0.151 compared to MDex): cytopenia (12, febrile in 1 case), fluid retention (3), insomnia (2), transient troponin increase (1), peripheral neuropathy (1), renal failure (1), and injection site reaction (1). Three patients died in the first three months, 1 was treated with MDex and 2 with BMDex. Response was evaluated by intent to treat. Fifty-one patients, 26 treated with MDex and 25 who received BMDex, completed cycle 3 or died before completion and are evaluable for response. Overall, 15 patients (58%) responded in the MDex arm, and 19 (76%) in the BMDex arm (P=0.166). After cycle 3, nine patients (35%) in the MDex group and 16 (65%) in the BMDex group achieved at least very good partial response (P=0.036). Renal response was achieved in 2 of 8 evaluable patients in the MDex group and in 2 out of 10 subjects in the BMDex arm. Cardiac response was reached in 4 of 15 evaluable patients in the MDex arm and in 2 out of 12 in the BMDex arm. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 9 patients (13%) died, 4 in the MDex arm and 5 in the BMDex arm (Figure 1). Conclusion. This is the first prospective randomized trial of novel agents in AL amyloidosis. The present interim analysis indicates that the addition of bortezomib to MDex grants more profound hematologic responses that should be balanced with relative increase in toxicity. Longer follow-up is required to demonstrate a benefit in terms of organ improvement and of overall survival. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. We would like to acknowledge the European Myeloma Network and the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia for their ongoing support, and Janssen-Cilag for partially funding the trial and providing the study drug. Figure 1 Patients’ survival Figure 1. Patients’ survival Disclosures Leleu: Janssen, Celgene, leopharma, Takeda, Amgen, Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zamagni:Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria. Schönland:Janssen: Honoraria. Moreau:Millenium and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Merck and Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene and Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Celgene, Janssen, Onyx, Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen, Onyx, Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merlini:Millennium Takeda: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Bortezomib in AL amyloidosis.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

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

Download Full-text

Long-Term Outcomes and Organ Responses with Daratumumab Therapy in Previously Treated Patients with AL Amyloidosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122152 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1828-1828

Author(s):

Alfred Chung ◽

Gregory P. Kaufman ◽

Surbhi Sidana ◽

Erik Eckhert ◽

Stanley Schrier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cardiac Response ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Renal Response ◽

Cardiac Responses ◽

Previously Treated

Introduction: AL amyloidosis involves deposition of abnormally folded light chains into a wide range of tissues causing end-organ dysfunction, including in the heart and kidney. Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted antibody, has recently demonstrated efficacy in producing hematologic responses in previously relapsed/refractory disease. However, data on long-term outcomes to daratumumab, including organ responses, are lacking. Here we present the largest retrospective study to date on patients with previously treated AL amyloidosis treated with daratumumab. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis patients treated at Stanford University from January 2016 to January 2019. Patients treated with daratumumab, either as monotherapy with dexamethasone (DMT) or in combination with other plasma-cell directed therapies (DCT) were included. Hematologic and organ responses were assessed by consensus guidelines. Hematologic responses were based on the maximal change in the difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC). For cardiac response, a >30% and >300 pg/mL decrease in NT-proBNP for patients with initial baseline NT-proBNP ≥650 pg/mL was considered a response. A graded cardiac response metric was also explored with partial response (PR) representing 30-59% reduction, very good partial response (VGPR) ≥60% reduction, and complete response (CR) NT-proBNP <450 pg/mL as previously reported. For renal response, a >30% decrease (by at least 0.5 g/day) in 24-hour urine protein without worsening in creatinine or creatinine clearance by more than 25% in patients with at least 0.5 g/day pretreatment was considered a response. A graded renal response metric was also explored with PR representing 30-59% reduction in proteinuria, VGPR ≥60%, and CR ≤ 200 mg per 24-hour period. Survival data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. All time-to-event outcomes, including survival and organ responses, were determined from initiation of daratumumab. Results: Eighty-four patients were identified with baseline characteristics at start of daratumumab shown in Table 1. Median duration of follow-up was 16 months. Two-year overall survival (OS) was 83% and median OS was not reached. Median time-to-next-treatment or death was 31 months. Sixty-seven out of 80 evaluable patients (84%) achieved a hematologic response, with 47 patients (59%) achieving a VGPR or better (Figure 1). Sixty-eight patients (81%) had cardiac involvement, and among the 34 evaluable patients, 18 (53%) of evaluable patients achieved a cardiac response with a median response time of 2 months among responders. In terms of a graded cardiac response, 6 patients (18%) were able to achieve cardiac CR, 5 patients (15%) cardiac VGPR, and 7 patients (21%) PR (Figure 2). The median NT-proBNP percent reduction was 64.5% (IQR: 48.3 - 81.1%) and the median absolute reduction was 2395 pg/mL (IQR 1279.5 - 4089.5 pg/mL). Cardiac responses were associated with an improvement in OS (p<0.001, Figure 3), with landmark analysis for cardiac responses at 6-month trending towards statistical significance (100% vs. 51% at 30 months, p=0.052). Fifty-three patients (63%) had renal involvement, and among the 26 evaluable patients, 12 patients (46%) achieved a renal response with a median initial response time of 6 months among responders. Using graded response, 1 patient (4%) achieved renal CR, 7 patients (27%) renal VGPR, 4 patients (15%) renal PR, and 14 patients had no response, worsening creatinine, or were subsequently started on hemodialysis (54%) (Figure 4). The median percent reduction in proteinuria was 74.1% (IQR: 49.2 - 83.1%) and the median absolute reduction in proteinuria was 3.1 g/24 hours (IQR 2.1 - 4.9 g) among responders. There were no significant differences in OS between renal responders and non-responders. Conclusion: Daratumumab is highly effective in the treatment of previously treated AL amyloidosis, and a significant proportion of patients can achieve durable hematologic responses as well as improvements in organ function. Disclosures Kaufman: Janssen: Other: travel/lodging, Research Funding. Liedtke:Prothena: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Daratumumab in AL amyloidosis

Download Full-text

Prognostic Importance of Duration of MDS Prior to Randomization Between Decitabine (DAC) Vs. Best Supportive Care (BSC) In Elderly IPSS Intermediate-2 and High Risk MDS Patients: Results of the 06011 EORTC-GMDSSG Phase III Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.4024.4024 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 4024-4024

Author(s):

Michael Lubbert ◽

Stefan Suciu ◽

Uwe Platzbecker ◽

Aristoteles A.N. Giagounidis ◽

Dominik Selleslag ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Prognostic Impact ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Response Predictors ◽

Long Duration

Abstract Abstract 4024 Background: The hypomethylating agents 5-azacytidine (Vidaza) and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (Decitabine, DAC) are active in different MDS subtypes. Compared to other response predictors to DAC, prior MDS duration has received only limited attention (1, 2), with conflicting results. Based on our finding that long duration of MDS prior to DAC treatment may be a novel factor linked to a better outcome (1), we now assess its value in the phase III trial 06011 (DAC versus BSC [3]). Immediate enrolment after diagnosis was allowed in that trial, median MDS duration prior to randomization thus only 3 months (mths). Methods: Comparison of progression-free (PFS), AML-free (AMLFS) and overall survival (OS) according to MDS duration >= vs. <3 mths in 233 patients (pts) with higher-risk MDS (median age 70 years) randomized to DAC (n=119) or BSC (n=114). Comparisons by long-rank test and multivariate analyses by Cox regression (Performance Status [PS], cytogenetics and IPSS high risk N/Y) were performed retrospectively: MDS duration had not yet been known as possible stratification factor at time of study initiation, and the trial thus not been powered to detect significant differences with regard to this discriminator. Results: A better prognosis of patients with MDS duration >=3 vs <3 mths was observed in DAC arm (B vs A) and BSC arm (D vs C). Conversely, DAC yielded better results than BSC in each MDS duration group: <3 mths (A vs C) and >=3 mths (B vs D). In both arms (n=233), Mult. indicated that MDS duration (>=3 vs <3 mths) adjusted for treatment, PS, cytogenetics and IPSS group was an independent prognostic factor regarding PFS (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.58–0.99), AMLFS (HR=0.68, 95%CI 0.51–0.90), and OS (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.56–0.99). The tests for interaction treatment × duration of MDS were not significant for 3 endpoints: PFS (p=0.38), AMLFS (p=0.90), OS (p=0.67). Conclusion: In intermediate-2 and high-risk MDS pts, long duration from MDS diagnosis to start of DAC or BSC appeared to be associated with a better outcome. This finding is in sharp contrast to the adverse prognostic impact of antecedent disease duration in patients who received intensive chemotherapy (4). It is supported by a similar analysis of pts with AML from MDS treated on the 00331 DAC phase II multicenter trial: those with longer MDS duration prior to DAC also had better outcome (5). Application of this discriminator in the evaluation also of other DAC schedules and MDS treatments therefore appears warranted. References: 1. Wijermans et al., Ann. Hematol. 84 (suppl. 1): 9–14, 2005 2. Kantarjian et al., Cancer 109:265-73, 2007 3. Wijermans et al., Blood 112 (suppl. 1): abs. 226, 2008 4. Estey et al., Blood 90:2969-77, 1997 5. Lübbert, Schmoor et al., abstract submitted, ASH 2010 Disclosures: Platzbecker: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Salih:Pfizer: Research Funding. Muus:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

MLN9708, a Novel, Investigational Oral Proteasome Inhibitor, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Light-Chain Amyloidosis (AL): Results of a Phase 1 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.731.731 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 731-731 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Giampaolo Merlini ◽

Vaishali Sanchorawala ◽

Jeffrey A. Zonder ◽

Vishal Kukreti ◽

Stefan O Schonland ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Proteasome Inhibitor ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cardiac Biomarker ◽

Hematologic Response ◽

Major Organ ◽

Organ Response ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 731 Background: Treatment with bortezomib achieves high hematologic response rates and rapid and durable responses in AL patients (pts), providing the rationale for proteasome inhibition in this population. MLN9708 is an investigational, oral, potent, reversible, and specific 20S proteasome inhibitor (PI). In preclinical studies, MLN9708 has shown improved antitumor activity compared to bortezomib in a range of xenograft models. This phase 1 study (NCT01318902) assessed weekly doses of oral MLN9708 in pts with relapsed or refractory AL. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with relapsed or refractory AL after ≥1 prior therapy, cardiac biomarker stage I/II disease, and measurable major organ (heart/kidney) involvement, received increasing doses of oral MLN9708 (standard 3+3 dose escalation fixed doses of 4.0 and 5.5 mg), on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 12 cycles. Pts with no major hematologic response (<PR) after 3 cycles received dexamethasone (dex; 40 mg, days 1–4). Two expansion cohorts of PI-naïve and PI-exposed pts were enrolled at the MTD. The primary objectives were to determine the safety, tolerability, and MTD. Secondary objectives included analysis of plasma pharmacokinetic (PK) and whole blood pharmacodynamic effects of MLN9708, and assessment of overall hematologic response rate, time to and duration of hematologic and organ response. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using NCI-CTCAE version 4.03. Blood samples were collected at multiple timepoints pre- and post-MLN9708 dosing for PK analysis during cycle 1. Hematologic response and amyloid-related organ assessments were performed according to standardized criteria. Results: At data cut-off (June 29, 2012) 16 pts had been enrolled and received ≥1 MLN9708 dose (safety population). The median age was 66.5 years (range 54–78) and 7 were male. Median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–7); 10 received prior transplant, 7 received prior bortezomib. Major organ involvement, defined by standard criteria, included heart, kidney, or both in 7/5/4 pts, respectively, with a median of 2 (range 1–5) involved organ systems, and Mayo cardiac biomarker risk stage was I, II, III in 6, 9, 1 pts. Five pts were treated in the 5.5 mg cohort and 11 pts were treated in the 4.0 mg (n=6 dose escalation; n=5 dose expansion) cohorts. Of the 11 pts treated at 4.0 mg, 4 were PI-naïve, 7 were PI-exposed. Pts received a median of 3 cycles (range 1–12); 5 pts received ≥5 cycles, and 8 pts remain on treatment. Dex was added in 4 pts (2 in each MLN9708 dose level). There were no on-study deaths. Pts discontinued due to disease progression (n=5), AE, withdrawal by pt, or unsatisfactory response (each n=1); 2 pts completed planned 1 year of therapy. One pt in the 4.0 mg cohort experienced a DLT of grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Two pts in the 5.5 mg dose cohort experienced DLTs: grade 3 diarrhea in 1 pt, and renal failure, respiratory failure (both grade 2), and cardiac arrest (grade 4) in another pt. The MTD was determined as 4.0 mg. AEs were reported in 14 pts. The most common drug-related AEs included nausea (n=5), diarrhea and thrombocytopenia (each n=4), abdominal pain and fatigue (each n=3). Grade ≥3 AEs (any cause) reported in >1 pt were thrombocytopenia (n=4), dyspnea (n=3), maculo-papular rash, dehydration, and abdominal pain (each n=2); all were grade 3. Preliminary response data are shown in the table. At data cut-off, one responder had progressed, and the median duration of hematologic response was 7.4 months (range 1.3–11.5+); 2 pts had cardiac organ response. Preliminary PK data showed that MLN9708 was rapidly absorbed, with a median Tmax of 1 hr (range 0.5–6). MLN9708 day 15 plasma Cmax was 73.6 ± 40.2 ng/mL (mean ± SD) and AUC0–168was 1250 ±530 ng*hr/mL (n=8 at 4.0 mg dose cohort). MLN9708 PK parameter values in this study appear similar to other MLN9708 studies in myeloma pts. Conclusions: These data suggest weekly oral administration of MLN9708 is feasible in pts with relapsed or refractory AL. The MLN9708 MTD was determined as 4.0 mg. Assessment is ongoing, with preliminary evidence of hematologic responses noted. A phase 3 study of MLN9708 plus dex versus physician's choice of treatment is planned (NCT01659658). Disclosures: Merlini: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Use of the investigational agent MLN9708, an oral proteasome inhibitor, in the treatment of relapsed or refractory light-chain amyloidosis. Sanchorawala:Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kukreti:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Schonland:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cohen:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Di Bacco:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Gupta:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hui:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Comenzo:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Andrew Spencer ◽

Francesco Di Raimondo ◽

Adam Zdenek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

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

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous-Administered Omacetaxine Mepesuccinate in Imatinib-Resistant Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) Patients Who Harbor the Bcr- Abl T315I Mutation–Results of An Ongoing Multicenter Phase 2/3 Study.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.644.644 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 644-644 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Jorge Cortes-Franco ◽

H. Jean Khoury ◽

Franck Emmanuel Nicolini ◽

Selim Corm ◽

Jeffrey H. Lipton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Duration ◽

Research Funding ◽

Median Overall Survival ◽

Cytogenetic Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Hematologic Response ◽

T315i Mutation ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 644 Background: Omacetaxine is a first-in-class cetaxine with clinical activity against Ph+ CML and a mechanism of action independent of tyrosine kinase inhibition. Currently available tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have not demonstrated activity in CML patients (Pts) who harbor the Bcr-Abl T315I mutation. Study Goals: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously (SC) administered omacetaxine in Pts with imatinib (IM)-resistant T315I+ Ph+ CML. Methods: Eligible Pts include adult CML Pts in chronic, accelerated, or blast disease phase (CP, AP, BP) with a confirmed Bcr-Abl T315I mutation and resistance to IM therapy. Induction schedule: 1.25 mg/m2 SC omacetaxine twice daily for 14 days every 28 days until hematologic response. Maintenance dosing: 1.25 mg/m2 SC omacetaxine twice daily for 7 days every 28 days. Study Results: To date, 90 Pts have been enrolled, with data available for analysis on 66 Pts (40 CP, 16 AP and 10 BP). The median age was 58 yrs (19-83) with 70% male Pts and a median disease duration of 54 mo (5-285). All Pts failed prior IM therapy, and 79% failed two or more prior TKIs. The presence of baseline T315I mutation was confirmed in all Pts. Baseline clonal evolution was evident in 10 (25%) CP, 6 (38%) AP, and 7 (70%) BP Pts. Eight CP Pts entered the study in CHR. The median follow-up for all Pts was 6.4 mo (0.2 to 29.6). Efficacy: In CP Pts, CHR was achieved in 26 Pts and maintained in 8 Pts for an overall CHR rate of 85%; the median duration of CHR was 7.7+ mo (1.7 to 23.6). Overall cytogenetic response was 27.5% with 6 (15%) Pts achieving a major cytogenetic response (MCyR, 4 complete, 2 partial). The median duration of MCyR was 6+ mo (0.8 to 16.1). Major molecular response was achieved in 15% of Pts and a reduction of baseline T315I mutated clone occurred in 56.7% of CP Pts. In AP Pts, overall hematologic response was achieved in 6 (37.5%) Pts with 5 CHR and 1 return to chronic phase (RCP). Median duration of response was 3.9+ mo (1.7 to 14.8). One AP Pt achieved a complete cytogenetic response; duration 1.9+ mo. In BP Pts, overall hematologic response was achieved in 3 (30%) Pts with 2 CHR and 1 RCP. The median overall survival for CP Pts has not been reached and 35 (88%) Pts were alive at the time of data cut- off. The median overall survival was 18.8 mo for AP and 1.8 mo for BP Pts. Median time to progression was 11.2, 3.1, and 1.2 mo for CP, AP, and BP Pts, respectively. Safety: Grade 3/4 related events occurred in 45 of 66 (68%) Pts. The most commonly reported events were thrombocytopenia (58%), anemia (36%) and neutropenia (33%). Non-hematologic toxicities were primarily grade 1/2 with the most frequently reported events of diarrhea (44%), fatigue (35%), pyrexia (32%), nausea (26%), and asthenia (21%). Grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were uncommon with no events occurring in >5% of Pts and infection (3%) the most common event. Treatment delays occurred in approximately 50% of the Pts with median duration of approximately 12 days for all disease phases and cycles (CP=12, AP=10, and BP=12 days). The primary causes of delay were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and pancytopenia. Sixteen deaths occurred during the study (5 CP, 4 AP, and 7 BP).Three deaths (1 CP, 1 AP, and 1 BP) were considered to have a possible relationship to omacetaxine: sepsis, pancytopenia, and sudden death with unknown cause, respectively. Conclusions: Omacetaxine administered by subcutaneous injection produces durable hematologic and cytogenetic responses with a safety profile consisting mainly of hematologic toxicities. Omacetaxine may provide a treatment option for this patient population who currently has no available approved drug therapies. Disclosures: Cortes-Franco: ChemGenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Khoury:ChemGenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nicolini:ChemGenex: Research Funding. Corm:ChemGenex: Research Funding. Lipton:ChemGenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jones:ChemGenex: Research Funding. Hochhaus:ChemGenex: Research Funding. Craig:ChemGenex: Employment. Benichou:ChemGenex: Employment. Humphriss:ChemGenex: Employment. Kantarjian:ChemGenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.2271.2271 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 2271-2271

Author(s):

Andreas L Petzer ◽

Dominic Fong ◽

Thomas Lion ◽

Irina Dyagil ◽

Zvenyslava Masliak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

De Novo ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Phase Iii ◽

High Dose ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text