Intensification Therapy with Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone Versus Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: An Intergroup, Multicenter, Phase III Study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial)

Abstract Background The role of upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for younger patients with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) has been questioned in the novel agent era. Methods A prospective, multicenter, phase III study was designed to compare (first randomization, R1) (1:1 ratio; stratification according to ISS stage) four 42-day cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) given at the same dosing schedule reported in the VISTA study (NEJM 2008; 359:906-17) vs either a single course or two sequential courses of melphalan at 200 mg/m2 (HDM) followed by single or double ASCT, respectively, as intensification therapy after three to four 21-day cycles of induction therapy with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone and subsequent collection of peripheral blood stem cells. A second randomization (R2) to consolidation therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs no consolidation was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity in both arms. A primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from R1. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 patients aged ≤65 years with symptomatic NDMM were registered. Of these, 1192 were eligible for R1 and were randomly assigned to receive either VMP (n=497 patients) or HDM (1±2 courses) (n=695 patients). Median age was 58 years in both groups, ISS stage III was 21% in VMP and 20% in HDM, while revised ISS stage III was 9% in both groups. Data on cytogenetic abnormalities, as detected by FISH analysis of CD138+ plasma cells, were available in 71% of patients (n=354) randomized to VMP and in 76% of those (n=529) assigned to HDM. The frequency of conventionally defined high-risk cytogenetic changes, including t(4;14) and/or del(17p) and/or t(14;16), was 25% in both arms. Median follow-up from R1 was 26 (IQR: 19-37) months. On an intention-to-treat basis, median PFS was 44 months in the VMP arm and was not yet reached in the HDM arm; 3-year estimates of PFS were 57.5% and 66%, respectively (HR=0.73; 95% CI=0.59-0.90; P=0.003). PFS benefit with HDM was retained across predefined subgroups, including patients with ISS stage I (HR=0.69; CI=0.48-0.98; P=0.037), revised ISS stage II (HR=0.70; CI=0.54-0.91; P=0.008), revised ISS stage III (HR=0.54; CI=0.30-0.97; P=0.040), standard-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.75, CI=0.56-1.01; P=0.055) and a high-risk cytogenetic profile (HR=0.54; CI=0.37-0.80; P=0.002). The probability of achieving a very good partial response or higher quality response was 85.5% in the HDM group vs 74% in the VMP group (odds ratio=1.90; CI=1.42-2.54; P<0.001). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis stratified by ISS, randomization to HDM (HR=0.67; CI=0.53-0.85; P=0.001) and absence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (0.71; CI=0.53-0.95; P=0.021) were the leading independent predictors of prolonged PFS. Overall survival was not yet mature and no difference between the two treatment groups was evident. Detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) after intensification therapy was performed by multiparameter flow cytometry and PET/CT in a subgroup of patients, and details are provided in a separate abstract (E. Zamagni et al). Overall, MRD negativity favorably affected PFS and OS. Conclusions In comparison with VMP as standard-dose intensification therapy, upfront HDM and ASCT significantly improved PFS and increased the rate of high quality responses. An updated analysis with a longer follow-up will be reported at the meeting. Results of this phase III study, the largest so far reported, support the conclusion that upfront ASCT still continues to be the reference treatment for fit patients with NDMM, even in the novel agent era. Disclosures Cavo: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Beksac:Celgene, Janssen Cilag Amgen, Novartis, Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board. Hájek:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sigma-tau: Honoraria. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zweegman:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Conventional Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOEP) Vs High-Dose Immunochemotherapy (R-MegaCHOEP) in Younger Patients with High-Risk Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: 10-Year Long-Term Follow-up of a German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123637 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1589-1589

Author(s):

Fabian Frontzek ◽

Marita Ziepert ◽

Maike Nickelsen ◽

Bettina Altmann ◽

Bertram Glass ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Scientific Advisory Board ◽

Scientific Advisory

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Overall Survival and Subgroup Analysis from a Randomized Phase III Study of Intravenous Rigosertib Versus Best Supportive Care (BSC) in Patients (pts) with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (HR-MDS) after Failure of Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.163.163 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 163-163 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Pierre Fenaux ◽

Aref Al-Kali ◽

Maria R. Baer ◽

Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Study ◽

Very High

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Download Full-text

The Prognostic Significance of Acquired 1q22 Gain in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139093 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 9-10

Author(s):

Hadiyah Y. Audil ◽

Joselle Cook ◽

Patricia Greipp ◽

Prashant Kapoor ◽

Linda B Baughn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Control Group ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees

Background: Within the heterogeneous genomic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), clonal evolution including the acquisition of risk-defining mutations and chromosomal abnormalities is a recurrent event and can be detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The effects of acquired abnormalities on clinical outcomes have not been well defined. We previously reported that patients who acquired 17p deletion [del(17p)] during the course of their disease had a significantly reduced overall survival (OS) by 38 months compared to patients who did not acquire del17p (Lakshman et al 2019). Similarly, while de novo gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 (1q22 gain) is a known high-risk aberration associated with significantly shorter OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in MM, the prognostic significance of acquired 1q22 gain has not been described. The primary objective of this study was to analyze factors predictive for acquired 1q22 gain and determine its impact on survival. Methods: We identified MM patients from the Mayo Clinic Dysproteinemia Database who had at least one follow up FISH performed ≥6 months from diagnosis. The clinical characteristics, concomitant cytogenetic abnormalities, first line treatments administered, and OS were compared between patients with acquired 1q22 gain and patients who did not acquire this abnormality. The Mayo Clinic IRB approved this study. Results: A total of 1041 MM patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 63 patients (6.1%) had acquired 1q22 gain, defined as being negative for 1q22 gain on initial FISH at diagnosis and having this abnormality detected on subsequent FISH. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years and 56% were male. Median time to acquisition of 1q22 gain was 60 months (range 8-140 months). We identified one control patient for each case who was diagnosed within one year of the case and had a subsequent FISH performed at a similar duration from diagnosis. Patients with acquired 1q22 gain had similar baseline characteristics except for a higher proportion of high-risk (HR) FISH at diagnosis [t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and del(17p13)] when compared to controls (27% HR FISH versus 6% HR FISH; P<0.01). 1q22 gain was concomitantly present with trisomies in 33 patients (54%), monosomy 13 in 24 patients (39%), t(4;14) in 8 patients (13%), and del(17p13) in 7 patients (12%). All patients received treatment prior to acquisition of 1q22 gain. Of the 63 patients, first line induction therapy consisted of proteasome inhibitor (PI) with steroid in 43%, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) with steroid in 40%, and PI + IMiD with steroid in 17% of patients. 54 patients (85%) received upfront stem cell transplant (SCT) (median 5.9 months to SCT), compared to 50 patients (79%) in the control group who received SCT. The median follow up of all 126 patients was 6.8 years. There was a statistically significant reduction in median OS from diagnosis in patients with acquired 1q22 gain compared to the control group (10.8 years versus 13.0 years; P = 0.02; Figure 1). Predictors of acquisition of 1q22 gain were identified using a case-control method. Age ≥70 at diagnosis and presence of HR FISH at baseline appeared to increase the risk of acquiring 1q22 gain. Conclusion: Acquisition of 1q22 gain is a relatively uncommon occurrence, but notably reduced OS by 2.2 years compared to patients who did not acquire 1q22 during the course of their disease (P = 0.02). Older age and the presence of HR FISH at diagnosis increased the risk of acquisition of 1q22 gain. The presence of high-risk translocations at baseline suggests that acquisition of 1q22 gain occurs in the context of more aggressive disease biology. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

CPX-351 Induction in Secondary Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia: Extended Follow up from the Italian Compassionate Use Program

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153028 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1262-1262

Author(s):

Paola Minetto ◽

Fabio Guolo ◽

Luana Fianchi ◽

Marino Clavio ◽

Michele Gottardi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

High Frequency ◽

Research Funding ◽

Real Life ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Good Activity ◽

Compassionate Use ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction: The outcome of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) secondary to myelodisplastic syndrome (MDS) or therapy-related (t-AML) receiving conventional treatment and allogeneic stem cell transplantation consolidation (HSCT) is poor. CPX-351 is a new drug composed by liposomal encapsulated cytarabine and daunorubicin, at a fixed molecular ratio of 5:1. It showed superior results, compared to standard 3+7 induction, in a phase III trial (Lancet et al, JCO 2018) in patients affected by t-AML or AML with myelodisplasia-related changes and it is now commercially available for secondary AML (sAML). We recently published results from CPX-351 Italian Named (Compassionate) Use Program (CUP) which enrolled 73 elderly sAML patients (Guolo et al, Blood Cancer J. 2020) showing that CPX-351 is an effective induction regimen for high risk AML patients treated with a curative aim. With a limited follow up, our data suggested the good activity and tolerability of CPX-351. Good quality remissions with acceptable toxicity in the majority of patients was achieved and CPX-351 increased the feasibility of HSCT in a poor risk AML cohort. Scarce data are available on long term outcome of high risk patients receiving CPX-351 in the real life setting. Here we report the results from the extended follow up analysis of the Italian CUP. Results: Seventy three patients were enrolled between December 2018 and June 2019 in a compassionate use program (CUP) in 33 Italian Hematology Centers. Data collection began on July 2019 and included 71/73 patients (97.2%), enrolled in 31 Centers. As previously reported, median age was 65.5 years (52-79). Sixty-two (88%) patients had at least one relevant comorbidity upon enrollment. Six patients (9%) presented with ECOG 3-4 upon enrollment. With a median follow up of 22 months, median overall survival (OS) was 13 months (21.2 - 22.8 95% IC). Two-years OS was 28.6% in the whole cohort. In order to confirm the positive impact of HSCT in first complete remission (CR) and the correlation with the other variables, a landmark model was applied, including only patients alive and in CR at day 90. In landmark analysis, HSCT performed in first CR after CPX-351 was the only significant predictor of longer survival: median OS was not reached for patients transplanted in first CR Vs 12 months for patients who did not undergo HSCT, p < 0.05, Figure1). Two-year OS for patients who received HSCT was 57.6% vs 15.8% for patients who did not undergo HSCT. Conclusions: Results from the extended follow up of Italian CPX-351 CUP confirm the good activity CPX-351 in such a difficult cohort as sAML. Two-year OS for transplanted patients is high despite the high median age, the high frequency of severe comorbidities in this real life cohort of patients and the high frequency of high risk AML. On the contrary, non-transplanted patients show a poor outcome, thus confirming that CPX-351 induction as an optimal bridge to transplant induction therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Galimberti: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Marco: Insight,: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Fracchiolla: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Tafuri: Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rossi: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pagano: Gilead Science, MSD, Pfizer, Basilea, Janssen, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceutical, Cidara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma: Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128519 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 580-580 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Mark Bustoros, MD ◽

Omar Nadeem ◽

Adam S Sperling ◽

Giada Bianchi ◽

Lily Ardente ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Induction Phase ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Background.This study aimed to determine the progression-free survival and response rate using early therapeutic intervention in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) using the combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Methods.Patients enrolled on study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al. (Blood 2014). The treatment plan was designed to be administered on an outpatient basis where patients receive 9 cycles of induction therapy of ixazomib (4mg) at days 1, 8, and 15, in combination with lenalidomide (25mg) at days 1-21 and dexamethasone at days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The induction phase was followed by ixazomib (4mg) and lenalidomide (15mg) maintenance for another 15 cycles. A treatment cycle was defined as 28 consecutive days for a total of 24 months period. Bone marrow samples of all patients were obtained before starting therapy for baseline assessment for minimal residual disease (MRD) testing, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and RNA sequencing of plasma and bone marrow microenvironment cells. Moreover, blood samples were obtained at screening and before each cycle for isolating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Results.In total, 53 of the planned 62 patients have been enrolled in this study from February 2017 to May 2019. The median age of the patients enrolled was 61 years (range, 41 to 84) with 22 male (41.5%). The analysis was conducted on patients who have completed at least 1 cycle of therapy (n=45). The median follow-up for the trial is 14.4 months (range: 2- 27.6). Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) was successful in 37 patients (82.2%). High-risk cytogenetics (defined as the presence of t(4;14), 17p deletion, and 1q gain) were found in 20 patients (54%). The median number of cycles completed was 14 cycles (range: 1-24). According to the study's inclusion criteria, baseline markers showed that 15, 14, and 13 patients had 3, 4, and 5 high-risk features, respectively. Moreover, 24 patients (53.3%) met the criteria of high-risk SMM, according to the Mayo 2018 model. The most common grade 3 adverse events were hypertension (6.3%), hypophosphatemia (4.2%), and rash (4.2%). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were each reported in 4.4% of patients, and hyperglycemia was reported in 2.2%. Stem cells were collected in all eligible patients by the end of the induction phase. As of the abstract date, the overall response rate (partial response or better) in participants who completed at least 1 cycle of treatment was 91.1% (41/45), with 14 Complete Responses (CR, 31.1%), 9 very good partial responses (VGPR, 20%), 18 partial responses (40%), and 4 minimal Responses (MR, 10%). ORR in patients who completed the induction phase (≥9 cycles) was 97% (n= 32/33), with 14(42.4%) and 9 (27.2%) having CR and VGPR, respectively. All patients who had a CR have also achieved a stringent CR. Six patients have completed the treatment protocol and are currently on follow-up. As of July 2019, none of the patients have progressed to overt MM. MRD testing by next-generation sequencing is ongoing for patients who achieved CR or VGPR and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion.The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is an effective and well-tolerated intervention in high-risk smoldering myeloma with 91% ORR and 54.7% CR and VGPR to date. The high response rate, convenient schedule and manageable toxicity build on prior studies which have shown efficacy of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in high risk smoldering myeloma. Longer follow-up for disease outcome is ongoing. Disclosures Bustoros, MD: Takeda: Honoraria. Nadeem:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Prescott:Janssen: Equity Ownership. Munshi:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Anderson:OncoPep: Other: Scientific founder ; C4 Therapeutics: Other: Scientific founder ; Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board. Richardson:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghobrial:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone is an investigational combination in high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma and has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration or any other regulatory agency worldwide for the use under investigation.

Download Full-text

Prognostic Factors for Developing Thrombosis in Polycytemia Vera: A Retrospective Analysis of 331 Patients with Long-Term Follow-up Highlights the Importance of White Blood Cells Levels

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139431 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 48-49

Author(s):

Samantha Ferrari ◽

Chiara Pagani ◽

Mariella D'Adda ◽

Nicola Bianchetti ◽

Annamaria Pelizzari ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Status ◽

History Of ◽

Wbc Count

Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by erythrocytosis, constitutively active mutations in JAK2 and an increased susceptibility to thrombotic events (TEs). There is still controversy about the role of increased hematocrit and of other variables including elevated white blood cell count as risk factors for the occurrence of TEs. A better definition of the relative prognostic importance of hematologic parameters would help us to better tailor the therapeutic approach to PV patients (pts), which is currently mainly based on the use of acetilsalycilic acid (ASA), venesection and hydroxyurea . The aim of our study was to analyze if any clinical or laboratory variables were significantly associated to the occurrence of TEs both at PV diagnosis and during the course of the disease in a large series of PV pts uniformly followed at a single Center over a period of 29.5 years from January 1986 to June 2019. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the time of diagnosis until death, progression to acute leukemia or last follow-up. Hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (Hb), white blood cell (WBC) and platelet (PLT) levels were recorded for each patient at least every 6 months. Among a total of 331 pts, the median age was 65 years (range 30-92 years), and 56% were male. "High risk" features (age ≥ 60 years and/or history of prior thrombosis) were present in 221 pts (66.7%). The incidence of cardiovascular risk factors was: hypertension 64%, diabetes 15%, hyperlipidemia 28%, history of active or remote smoking 41%. Patients on ASA were 279 (84%), 19 (6%) were on oral anticoagulation, while 27 (8%) were on ASA+oral anticoagulant. At PV diagnosis 54 pts (16%) presented with thrombosis, arterial in 32 (59%) and venous in 22 (41%). A previous TE was recorded in 57 pts (17%): in 43 (75%) arterial, in 12 (22%) venous and in 2 (3%) mixed (arterial+venous). Previous thrombosis was the only variable significantly associated with the presence of a TE at PV diagnosis (P=0.02). After PV diagnosis, with a median follow-up of 81 months (range 1-374 months), 63 pts (19%) experienced a TE and 11 of them a further episode, for a total of 74 TEs. The incidence rate (pts/year) of TEs was 2.7%. Forty-two events were arterial (57%), 31 were venous (42%) and 1 (1%) was mixed. It was the first TE for 37 pts. Cerebrovascular accidents and deep-venous thrombosis were the most frequent arterial and venous TEs both at PV diagnosis and throughout the disease course, with a relative incidence of 50% and 32% respectively. The table compares the characteristics of patients who did or did not develop a TE after PV diagnosis. At univariate analysis, PV high risk status, a previous TE and hyperlipidemia at PV diagnosis were significantly associated with a subsequent TE. Among hematologic variables an elevated WBC count at the time of thrombosis, but not Hct or PLT levels, was highly significantly associated with the development of a TE. At multivariate analysis, WBC count ≥10.4 x 10^9/L and hyperlipidemia maintained their independent prognostic value, while high risk status and a previous TE lost their prognostic significance. Both at univariate and multivariate analysis, hyperlipidemia at diagnosis (P=0.009 and P=0.002) and high WBC count at thrombosis (P=0.001 and P=<0.0001) predicted for arterial thromboses, while only a history of prior thrombosis (P=0.03) predicted for venous ones. In conclusion, our analysis confirms that elevated WBC count at the moment of the event more than increased hematocrit is associated to the development of thrombosis in PV pts. We also found that hyperlipidemia was an independent risk factor for arterial thrombosis, calling for an accurate management of increased lipid levels. Whether a reduction of the WBC count during the course of PV may reduce the frequency of TE remains to be demonstrated by prospective studies. Table Disclosures D'Adda: Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Incyte: Other: Advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Advisory board. Rossi:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Multicenter Analysis of Treatment and Outcomes for Patient with TP53 Mutated AML in the Era of Novel Therapies; Significant Impact of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation on Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-147639 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 797-797

Author(s):

Talha Badar ◽

Mark R. Litzow ◽

Rory M. Shallis ◽

Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ◽

Antoine Saliba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

High Risk ◽

Stem Cell Transplantation ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Novel Therapies ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Tp53 Mutations

Abstract Background: TP53 mutations occur in 10-20% of patients with AML, constitute high-risk disease as per ELN criteria, and confer poorer prognosis. Venetoclax combination therapies and CPX-351 were recently approved for AML treatment and lead to improved outcomes in subsets of high-risk AML, however the most effective approach for treatment of TP53-mutated (m) AML remains unclear. In this study we explored the clinical outcome of TP53m AML patients treated over the last 8 years as novel therapies have been introduced to our therapeutic armamentarium. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 4 U.S. academic centers and analyzed clinical characteristics and outcome of 174 TP53m AML patients diagnosed between March 2013 and February 2021. Mutation analysis was performed on bone marrow specimens using 42, 49, 199, or 400 gene targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Patients with an initial diagnosis of AML were divided into 4 groups (GP) based on the progressive use of novel therapies in clinical trials and their approvals as AML induction therapy during different time periods: 2013-2017 (GP1, n= 37), 2018-2019 (GP2, n= 53), 2019-2020 (GP3, n= 48) and 2020-2021 (GP4, n= 36) to analyze difference in outcome. Results: Baseline characteristics were not significantly different across different GP, as shown in Table 1. Median age of patients was 68 (range [R], 18-83), 65 (R, 29-88), 69 (R, 37-90) and 70 (R, 51-97) years in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.40). The percentage of patients with de novo AML/secondary AML/therapy-related AML in GP1-4 was 40/40/20, 36/29/24, 37.5/37.5/25 and 28/52/20, respectively (p=0.82). The proportion of patients with complex cytogenetics (CG) was 92%, 89%, 96% and 94% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.54). The median TP53m variant allele frequency (VAF) was 48% (range [R], 5-94), 42% (R, 5-91), 45% (R, 10-94) and 60% (R, 8-82) in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.38). Four (11%), 13 (24.5%), 10 (21%) and 9 (25%) patients had multiple TP53 mutations in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.33). The proportion of patients who received 3+7 (30%, 16%, 6% & 8%; p=0.01), HMA only (11%, 18%, 2% & 8%; p=0.06), venetoclax-based (2.5%, 12%, 48%, & 61%; p <0.01) and CPX-351 induction (16%, 40%, 28% & 5%; p<0.001) were varied in GP1-4, respectively. The rate of CR/CRi was 22%, 26%, 28% and 18% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.63). Treatment related mortality during induction was observed in 3%, 7%, 10% and 17% of patients in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.18). Overall, 28 (16%) patients received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) after induction/consolidation: 22%, 15%, 17% and 11% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.67). In subset analysis, there was no difference in the rate of CR/CRi with venetoclax-based regimens vs. others (39% vs 61%, p=0.18) or with CPX-351 vs. others (25% vs 75%, p=0.84). The median progression-free survival was 7.7, 7.0, 5.1 and 6.6 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.60, Fig 1A). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.4, 6.1, 4.0 and 8.0 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.29, Fig 1B). In univariate analysis for OS, achievement of CR/CRi (p<0.001) and alloHCT in CR1 (p<0.001) associated with favorable outcome, whereas complex CG (p=0.01) and primary refractory disease (p<0.001) associated with poor outcome. Multiple TP53 mutations (p=0.73), concurrent ASXL1m (p=0.86), extra-medullary disease (p=0.92), ≥ 3 non-TP53m mutations (p=0.72), TP53m VAF ≥ 40% vs. < 40% (p=0.25), induction with CPX-351 vs. others (p=0.59) or venetoclax-based regimen vs. others (p=0.14) did not show significance for favorable or poor OS in univariate analysis. In multivariable analysis, alloHCT in CR1 (hazard ratio [HR]=0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.53; p=0.001) retained an association with favorable OS and complex CG (HR 4.23, 95%CI: 1.79-10.0; p=0.001) retained an association with dismal OS. Conclusion: We present the largest experience with TP53m AML patients analyzed by NGS. Although outcomes were almost universally dismal, alloHCT appears to improve the long-term survival in a subset of these patients. Effective therapies are warranted to successfully bridge patients to alloHCT and to prolong survival for transplant ineligible patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Shallis: Curis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Goldberg: Celularity: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aptose: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foran: revolution medicine: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128198 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1565-1565 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Patrizia Mondello ◽

Irene Dogliotti ◽

Jan-Paul Bohn ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Simone Ferrero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

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

Download Full-text

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

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.801.801 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 801-801 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Francisco Cervantes ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Dietger Niederwieser ◽

Andres Sirulnik ◽

Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Extension Phase ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text