Barriers to enrollment of patients with recurrent diffuse large B-cell lymphoma onto clinical trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 56 (9) ◽  
pp. 2747-2749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Marton ◽  
Abbas Kezouh ◽  
Tina Petrogiannis-Haliotis ◽  
Sarit Assouline
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19058-e19058
Author(s):  
Alfadel Alshaibani ◽  
Christina Lee ◽  
Sarah Camp Rutherford ◽  
Kah Poh Loh ◽  
Andrea M Baran ◽  
...  

e19058 Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In this study, we explore reasons for non-enrollment in clinical trials for DLBCL and implications on trial design and interpretation. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients (pts) with a pathological diagnosis of DLBCL or high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) at University of Rochester (4/14-6/16) and New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine (NYP/WCM) (4/14-4/17).Ten clinical trials were opened during this time. Participants were divided into 3 groups: those treated in trial, those not enrolled in trial because of need for urgent treatment, and those not enrolled in trial for any other reason. We used a center-stratified Cox proportional hazards model to estimate association of trial enrollment with progression-free survival (PFS; time from start of treatment until progression/death or the last date the pt was known to be progression free) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 263 pts; 17% (n = 45) enrolled in a trial. Reasons for non-enrollment included not meeting eligibility criteria (n = 98), physician choice (n = 50), and pt choice (n = 38). For 32 pts, reasons were unclear. Of the 50 pts who were not enrolled because of physician choice, the primary reason for non-enrollment was the need for urgent treatment (n = 46). Pts who needed urgent treatment had higher risk clinical features compared with pts in trial (Table). Compared with those treated in trial and those not enrolled in trial for any other reason, those not enrolled in trial due to need for urgent treatment had an inferior PFS (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.23–5.16) and OS (HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.21–4.06). Conclusions: At 2 academic institutions, 52% of patients with DLBCL or HGBL required urgent chemotherapy and failed to enroll on trials. Exclusion of such patients limits the applicability and generalizability of clinical trials in DLBCL. This barrier must be overcome so clinical trials may better reflect true DLBCL demographics. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3041-3041
Author(s):  
Ashley Marton ◽  
Abbas Kezouh ◽  
Sarit Assouline

Abstract Background New drug development in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has become a very active area of research in the last several years with the advent of monoclonal antibodies and targeted therapies. We sought to determine the rate of accrual of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) onto early phase clinical trials, and hurdles to their enrolment by performing a retrospective analysis of all DLBCL cases diagnosed at our institution from 01/2006 to 03/2012. This time span represents an active time period for clinical trials in lymphoma at our institution. Methods DLBCL cases were identified through the hospital tumor registry. Patients were included in the analysis if they had any diagnosis ofDLBCL relapsed or refractory to standard therapy. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics, details of treatment, responses, relapse, evaluation for clinical trials and participation in clinical trials were determined by review of hospital charts. Only Phase I and II clinical trials were considered for this analysis. Results Of a total of 284 patients, 76 had relapsed/refractory disease, 10 of 25 had a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and there is insufficient data on 1 patient. Of the remaining 65, 11 (17%) made it to trial. The median age was 65, 34 were male, median number of prior therapies was 2, 74% had at least one comorbidity and 46% had at least 2. Sixty-two percent of patients had de novo DLBCL, 18% transformed and 20% had a composite lymphoma including DLBCL. Reasons for failing to enroll on trial included prohibitive comorbidity (21%), rapid progression (15%), decision for palliation (15%), prior second malignancy (9%), thrombocytopenia (13%), CNS disease (9%), proximity to ASCT (2%), no protocol available(6%), palliative radiation (6%). Patients on trial tended to be younger (58.4 vs. 65.8 years), and to have a lower IPI (mean 3.1 vs 3.4). There was no difference in the number of prior of therapies (2.31 vs. 2.26) or number of comorbidities (2.18 vs 2.21). However, out of the 11 who made it to trial, 7 patients had failed ASCT (46.7% of patients who failed ASCT) vs. 4 (10%) who never had a transplant (p=0.005, Fisher’s exact test). Among the relapsed and refractory cases, 81% of cases were discussed at tumor board. Conclusions Although our study is small, we demonstrate that in an active research center, where a large number of R/R DLBCL patients are discussed at tumor board during which information about clinical trials is disseminated, a minority of patients with DLBCL not responding to standard therapy make it to trial.Patients having failed an ASCT are more successfully enrolled onto clinical trials. Interestingly, a similar accrual rate was seen in relapsed non-small cell lung cancer (Baggstrom,J Thor Oncol 2011) and similar barriers to enrolment were found for solid tumor patients (Lara, JCO 2001). Accrual of R/R DLBCL patients onto clinical trials is possible but challenging. A multi-institution analysis is underway. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moo-Kon Song ◽  
Byeong-Bae Park ◽  
Jieun Uhm

In tumor microenvironment, the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint has a crucial role of mechanism of T cell exhaustion leading to tumor evasion. Ligands of PD-1, programmed death ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/L2) are over-expressed in tumor cells and participate in prolonged tumor progression and survivals. Recently, clinical trials for patients who failed to obtain an optimal response prior to standardized chemotherapy in several solid cancers have been focused on targeting therapy against PD-1 to reduce disease progression rates and prolonged survivals. Since various inhibitors targeting the immune checkpoint in PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in solid cancers have been introduced, promising approach using anti-PD-1 antibodies were attempted in several types of hematologic malignances. In diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) as the most common and aggressive B cell type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies were studies in various clinical trials. In this review, we summarized the results of several studies associated with PD-1/PD-L1 pathway as an immune evasion mechanism and described clinical trials about targeting therapy against PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in DLBCL.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia R. Pon ◽  
Marco A. Marra

Abstract Our understanding of the pathogenesis and heterogeneity of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) has been dramatically enhanced by recent attempts to profile molecular features of these lymphomas. In this article, we discuss ways in which testing for molecular features may impact DLBCL and FL management if clinical trials are designed to incorporate such tests. Specifically, we discuss how distinguishing lymphomas on the basis of cell-of-origin subtypes or the presence of other molecular features is prognostically and therapeutically significant. Conversely, we discuss how the molecular similarities of DLBCL and FL have provided insight into the potential of both DLBCL and FL cases to respond to agents targeting alterations they have in common. Through these examples, we demonstrate how the translation of our understanding of cancer biology into improvements in patient outcomes depends on analyzing the molecular correlates of treatment outcomes in clinical trials and in routinely treated patients.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Wajeeha Aiman ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Rimsha Ali ◽  
Farwah N. Fatima ◽  
Nayab Mirza ◽  
...  

Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the US. Lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulator, is used in the treatment of multiple hematological malignancies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Lenalidomide based regimens in Newly Diagnosed (ND) and Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Methods : A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. We used the following mesh terms and Emtree terms, "Lenalidomide" OR "Revlimid" AND "diffuse large B cell lymphoma" from the inception of literature till 06/20/2020. We screened 1640 articles and included 2 randomized clinical trials (N=72) and 21 single-arm clinical trials (N=860) in this meta-analysis. We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, meta-analysis, observational studies, and clinical trials not providing any information about the lenalidomide efficacy or safety in DLBCL. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results : In 23 studies (N=932), Len based regimens were used in patients with age 19-92 years (range) Table 1. In 5 trials on R/R patients (N=252), Len was used as a maintenance therapy. Cumulative overall response rate (ORR) and cumulative complete response (CR) were 0.27 (95% CI 0.21; 0.33, I2=0%) (Fig1) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.07; 0.16, 8%) (Fig2), respectively. In one phase III trial, the ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs investigator's choice drug. In 4 trials on R/R patients (N=207), Len with monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.40 (95% CI 0.28; 0.54, I2=71%) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.17; 0.42, I2=72%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=33), Len with Gemcitabine, Rituximab, and Oxaliplatin was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.61 (95% CI 0.43; 0.76, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.24; 0.57, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=15), Len with RICE was used with ORR and CR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.47; 0.90, I2=0%) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.35; 0.81, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients(N=55), Len with Everolimus was used. ORR and CR were 0.27 (95% CI 0.17; 0.40, I2=0%) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03; 0.18, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=19), Len with R-ESHAP was used. ORR and CR were 0.79 (95% CI 0.55; 0.92, I2=0%) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.27; 0.69, I2=0%), respectively. In a phase III trial on R/R patients (N=21), Len with Gemcitabine and Rituximab was used vs. placebo The ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs placebo. In 4 trials on ND patients (N=158), Len with R-CHOP was used and the cumulative ORR and CR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.88; 0.97, I2=12%) and 0.81 (0.75; 0.87, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on ND patients (N=15), Len with R-EPOCH was used with ORR and CR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.65; 0.99, I2=0%) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.59; 0.97, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials (N=103), Len with Ibrutinib and Rituximab was used. In R/R patients (N=45), cumulative ORR and CR were 0.38 (95% CI 0.25; 0.53, I2=0%) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.14; 0.39, I2=0%), respectively. In ND patients (N=58) has ORR and CR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75; 0.93, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials with a combination of ND and R/R patients (N=54), Len with Rituximab and Bendamustine was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.63 (95% CI 0.49; 0.75, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.27; 0.52, I2=0%), respectively. The most common serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were infection, thromboembolism, fatigue, sepsis, respiratory, neurological, cardiac (arrhythmias), gastrointestinal, rash, seizures, and hematological side effects (Table 1). Conclusion : Based on early phase trials, Len based regimens are well tolerated and effective in the treatment of both ND and R/R DLBCL patients. Combinations of lenalidomide with Tafasitamab and R-ESHAP have shown the highest response in R/R patients and combination with R-CHOP has shown the best response in ND patients. In randomized trials, lenalidomide has shown significant improvement in the survival of DLBCL patients as compared to placebo or physician's choice drug. Additional double-blind multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide based regimens in DLBCL patients. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


1999 ◽  
Vol 35 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 139-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Bieri ◽  
Enrico Roggero ◽  
Emanuele Zucca ◽  
Francesco Bertoni ◽  
Silvio Pianca ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document