ASH 2015

ORLANDO – Venetoclax monotherapy achieved an overall response rate of 79% in a high-risk population of 107 patients with relapsed or refractory del(17p) chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Dr. Stephan Stilgenbauer reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the 85 responders, the response was maintained at 1 year in 85%. Of the 45 patients assessed for minimal residual disease in the blood, 18 achieved MRD negativity. Ten of these 18 patients also had bone marrow assessments and six were MRD negative.

Dr. Stilgenbauer of the University of Ulm (Germany), discussed the implications of the phase II study findings in our exclusive interview at ASH, as well as phase III study plans and the use of venetoclax in combination therapies.

He receives honoraria or research funding from a wide range of companies, including AbbVie and Genentech, the companies collaborating on the development of venetoclax.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

ORLANDO – Venetoclax monotherapy achieved an overall response rate of 79% in a high-risk population of 107 patients with relapsed or refractory del(17p) chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Dr. Stephan Stilgenbauer reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the 85 responders, the response was maintained at 1 year in 85%. Of the 45 patients assessed for minimal residual disease in the blood, 18 achieved MRD negativity. Ten of these 18 patients also had bone marrow assessments and six were MRD negative.

Dr. Stilgenbauer of the University of Ulm (Germany), discussed the implications of the phase II study findings in our exclusive interview at ASH, as well as phase III study plans and the use of venetoclax in combination therapies.

He receives honoraria or research funding from a wide range of companies, including AbbVie and Genentech, the companies collaborating on the development of venetoclax.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

ORLANDO – Venetoclax monotherapy achieved an overall response rate of 79% in a high-risk population of 107 patients with relapsed or refractory del(17p) chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Dr. Stephan Stilgenbauer reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the 85 responders, the response was maintained at 1 year in 85%. Of the 45 patients assessed for minimal residual disease in the blood, 18 achieved MRD negativity. Ten of these 18 patients also had bone marrow assessments and six were MRD negative.

Dr. Stilgenbauer of the University of Ulm (Germany), discussed the implications of the phase II study findings in our exclusive interview at ASH, as well as phase III study plans and the use of venetoclax in combination therapies.

He receives honoraria or research funding from a wide range of companies, including AbbVie and Genentech, the companies collaborating on the development of venetoclax.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryjodales

ORLANDO – The moment the Food and Drug Administration approved daratumumab, ixazomib, and elotuzumab in rapid-fire succession over 15 days in November 2015, Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar’s phone started ringing.

As with other multiple myeloma experts, three common questions kept cropping up:

• For previously untreated patients, should we add bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) based on the S0777 results?

• For previously treated patients, should we add ixazomib or elotuzumab to Rd?

• Should we add daratumumab to frontline therapy right out of the box?

Daratumumab (Darzalex), ixazomib (Ninlaro), and elotuzumab (Empliciti) are welcome additions to the armamentarium, but the problem with this plethora of riches is that numerous treatments already exist for frontline multiple myeloma, observed Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

In fact, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines list 22 possible newly diagnosed myeloma regimens that can be potentially recommended for patients.

“This definitely leads to confusion in the community. And this was the result of the fact that we didn’t have a single, good randomized trial with a survival benefit of a modern therapy against another modern therapy,” Dr. Rajkumar said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology during a joint FDA/ASH symposium on the three newly approved agents.

This quandary was solved at ASH with phase III randomized data from the Southwest Oncology Group S0777 study showing a significant overall survival advantage with a triplet of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by continuous Rd maintenance compared with Rd alone and ongoing maintenance in untreated patients who did not intend to receive stem cell transplant, he said.

Median overall survival was 75 months for the triplet vs. 64 months for the Rd doublet (hazard ratio, 0.709; two-sided log-rank P = .0250), and median PFS 43 months vs. 30 months (HR, 0.712; one-sided P = .0018), study author Dr. Brian Durie, of Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, reported (Abstract 25).

The VRd triplet is already in use in the United States, but based on the S0777 results, many groups, including the Mayo Clinic, have changed treatment guidelines and now “prefer bortezomib, len-dex for frontline therapy, not just in transplant candidates, but also in non-transplant candidates,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

In countries where VRd is not possible, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) is a second option.

Rd is an appropriate therapy for non-transplant candidates who are frail or aged 75 years or older, he said, adding that there is no need to add bortezomib for patients already on Rd and doing well.

“If your patient is doing well on a doublet, leave them alone,” Dr. Rajkumar advised.

Similarly, for patients with relapsed myeloma who are doing well on Rd, there isn’t “an urgent need” to add ixazomib or elotuzumab, but rather, he said, “We can reserve those for when the patient progresses.”

Ixazomib is approved in combination with Rd after at least one prior therapy, but the oral proteasome inhibitor may have a role in the frontline treatment of standard-risk patients. It is a very simple regimen, just three pills a month, and “the side effect profile is outstanding; virtually difficult to tell who’s taking placebo and who’s taking drug,” Dr. Rajkumar observed.

In addition, some patients may not have access to bortezomib because of insurance reasons or can’t drive to the clinic once a week to get the shot, while others may be too frail to get an intravenous or subcutaneous shot or may have neuropathy.

“For whatever reason, I think it is reasonable to keep in mind that we may have a situation where we can use ixazomib/len-dex in clinical practice if the patient’s best interests so dictate,” he said.

For high-risk patients (deletion 17p or translocations t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), VRd or VTd are obvious upfront choices. Based on four phase II trials and the ASPIRE results in the relapsed and refractory setting, however, the Mayo Clinic has already decided that the recently approved second-generation proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus Rd is also worth considering.

Adding a monoclonal antibody such as elotuzumab or daratumumab to a VRd triplet or ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) triplet may be another way to improve outcomes in high-risk patients, who still die with a median overall survival of 3 years, Dr. Rajkumar said. This strategy is already being used in the ongoing SWOG S1211 study.

For maintenance therapy after VRd or VTd and autologous stem cell transplant, he recommended lenalidomide for standard-risk patients and bortezomib-based maintenance for high-risk patients, but said ixazomib-based maintenance with the addition of monoclonal antibodies may also have a role in high-risk patients.

What may be more important going forward is how these three drugs will be used in clinical trials, Dr. Rajkumar observed.

“We’d rather put all patients on clinical trials than any of the recommendations I made,” he said. “The problem is that clinical trials have to be appropriately designed.”

Several phase III trials are already ongoing comparing a doublet versus a triplet (IRd vs. Rd, elotuzumab-Rd vs. Rd, and daratumumab-Rd vs. Rd) in the frontline setting, so the key question for future trials is which triplet: VRd, KRd, elotuzumab-Rd, or daratumumab-Rd, and to what endpoint.

Progression-free survival can remain a primary endpoint for comparing two triplets in the frontline, but PFS alone is not enough in the maintenance setting and investigators should look to other primary endpoints such as PFS2, PFS1 vs. PFS2, overall survival with a higher type 1 error than currently used, or PFS plus validated patient-reported or quality of life outcomes, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Relapsed/refractory disease

Speaking on how the three new agents fit into the relapsed or refractory space,Dr. Paul Richardson, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said three-drug platforms are emerging as a standard of care for relapsed or refractory disease after studies have shown time and time again they are better than doublets.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He highlighted phase III data reported at ASH by Dr. Philippe Moreau from TOURMALINE-MM1 (Abstract 727) showing a 35% improvement in PFS with weekly oral ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. Rd alone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

This translated into a median 6-month gain in PFS compared with an almost 9-month PFS benefit seen in ASPIRE with carfilzomib plus Rd, but cross-trial comparisons should be approached with some caution and both hazard ratios were very robust, he said. In addition, as previously observed, ixazomib is remarkably well tolerated.

“I think ixazomib, particularly in older patients and particularly in patients with high-risk disease, will be very useful in the context of the three-drug or even greater combinations. So there’s a strong rationale for its use,” Dr. Richardson said.

He went on to say that elotuzumab has shown remarkable anti-myeloma activity in the relapsed and refractory setting, improving both the overall response rate and PFS when used in combination with Ld vs. Ld alone in the ELOQUENT-2 trial. Updated results from ELOQUENT-2 were presented at the ASH meeting (Abstract 28).

A PFS benefit was also seen when elotuzumab was added to bortezomib and dexamethasone, with a 24% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death reported in a study presented at ASH by myeloma expert Dr. Antonio Palumbo (Abstract 510).

“My point in showing this is that when you think of elotuzumab being used with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapse, many of our patients are actually on them as maintenance when it occurs, therefore elotuzumab may have a role in combination, for example, with proteasome inhibitors in this same setting,” Dr. Richardson said.

Several pomalidomide-based triple therapy combinations have been evaluated in advanced relapsed or refractory myeloma, with a phase II study (Abstract 506) reported that morning at ASH showing the third-generation immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) pomalidomide induced responses in 60% of heavily pretreated patients when partnered with pembrolizumab and dexamethasone.

Combination strategies with daratumumab are also very provocative, particularly in the context of IMiDs, he noted. A phase Ib study reported in the same early morning session by Dr. Ajai Chari (Abstract 508) had a “very encouraging” overall response rate of 71% with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients, including 43% very good partial responses or better, and an overall response rate of 67% among double-refractory patients.

“Daratumumab and elotuzumab, in my view, as first-in-class monoclonal antibodies, are paradigm-changing agents,” Dr. Richardson concluded. “They provide us with this mutation-driven ability to overdrive the impact of those mutations and the important point is that they prescribe an entirely non-crossresistant strategy that can be easily added to existing platforms of drugs.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported discussion of off-label drug use for elotuzumab, daratumumab, ixazomib, and carfilzomib in untreated myeloma, maintenance, and early relapse. Dr. Richardson reported membership on a board of directors or advisory committee for Millennium Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis, and research funding from Millennium Takeda and Celgene.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The moment the Food and Drug Administration approved daratumumab, ixazomib, and elotuzumab in rapid-fire succession over 15 days in November 2015, Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar’s phone started ringing.

As with other multiple myeloma experts, three common questions kept cropping up:

• For previously untreated patients, should we add bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) based on the S0777 results?

• For previously treated patients, should we add ixazomib or elotuzumab to Rd?

• Should we add daratumumab to frontline therapy right out of the box?

Daratumumab (Darzalex), ixazomib (Ninlaro), and elotuzumab (Empliciti) are welcome additions to the armamentarium, but the problem with this plethora of riches is that numerous treatments already exist for frontline multiple myeloma, observed Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

In fact, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines list 22 possible newly diagnosed myeloma regimens that can be potentially recommended for patients.

“This definitely leads to confusion in the community. And this was the result of the fact that we didn’t have a single, good randomized trial with a survival benefit of a modern therapy against another modern therapy,” Dr. Rajkumar said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology during a joint FDA/ASH symposium on the three newly approved agents.

This quandary was solved at ASH with phase III randomized data from the Southwest Oncology Group S0777 study showing a significant overall survival advantage with a triplet of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by continuous Rd maintenance compared with Rd alone and ongoing maintenance in untreated patients who did not intend to receive stem cell transplant, he said.

Median overall survival was 75 months for the triplet vs. 64 months for the Rd doublet (hazard ratio, 0.709; two-sided log-rank P = .0250), and median PFS 43 months vs. 30 months (HR, 0.712; one-sided P = .0018), study author Dr. Brian Durie, of Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, reported (Abstract 25).

The VRd triplet is already in use in the United States, but based on the S0777 results, many groups, including the Mayo Clinic, have changed treatment guidelines and now “prefer bortezomib, len-dex for frontline therapy, not just in transplant candidates, but also in non-transplant candidates,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

In countries where VRd is not possible, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) is a second option.

Rd is an appropriate therapy for non-transplant candidates who are frail or aged 75 years or older, he said, adding that there is no need to add bortezomib for patients already on Rd and doing well.

“If your patient is doing well on a doublet, leave them alone,” Dr. Rajkumar advised.

Similarly, for patients with relapsed myeloma who are doing well on Rd, there isn’t “an urgent need” to add ixazomib or elotuzumab, but rather, he said, “We can reserve those for when the patient progresses.”

Ixazomib is approved in combination with Rd after at least one prior therapy, but the oral proteasome inhibitor may have a role in the frontline treatment of standard-risk patients. It is a very simple regimen, just three pills a month, and “the side effect profile is outstanding; virtually difficult to tell who’s taking placebo and who’s taking drug,” Dr. Rajkumar observed.

In addition, some patients may not have access to bortezomib because of insurance reasons or can’t drive to the clinic once a week to get the shot, while others may be too frail to get an intravenous or subcutaneous shot or may have neuropathy.

“For whatever reason, I think it is reasonable to keep in mind that we may have a situation where we can use ixazomib/len-dex in clinical practice if the patient’s best interests so dictate,” he said.

For high-risk patients (deletion 17p or translocations t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), VRd or VTd are obvious upfront choices. Based on four phase II trials and the ASPIRE results in the relapsed and refractory setting, however, the Mayo Clinic has already decided that the recently approved second-generation proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus Rd is also worth considering.

Adding a monoclonal antibody such as elotuzumab or daratumumab to a VRd triplet or ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) triplet may be another way to improve outcomes in high-risk patients, who still die with a median overall survival of 3 years, Dr. Rajkumar said. This strategy is already being used in the ongoing SWOG S1211 study.

For maintenance therapy after VRd or VTd and autologous stem cell transplant, he recommended lenalidomide for standard-risk patients and bortezomib-based maintenance for high-risk patients, but said ixazomib-based maintenance with the addition of monoclonal antibodies may also have a role in high-risk patients.

What may be more important going forward is how these three drugs will be used in clinical trials, Dr. Rajkumar observed.

“We’d rather put all patients on clinical trials than any of the recommendations I made,” he said. “The problem is that clinical trials have to be appropriately designed.”

Several phase III trials are already ongoing comparing a doublet versus a triplet (IRd vs. Rd, elotuzumab-Rd vs. Rd, and daratumumab-Rd vs. Rd) in the frontline setting, so the key question for future trials is which triplet: VRd, KRd, elotuzumab-Rd, or daratumumab-Rd, and to what endpoint.

Progression-free survival can remain a primary endpoint for comparing two triplets in the frontline, but PFS alone is not enough in the maintenance setting and investigators should look to other primary endpoints such as PFS2, PFS1 vs. PFS2, overall survival with a higher type 1 error than currently used, or PFS plus validated patient-reported or quality of life outcomes, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Relapsed/refractory disease

Speaking on how the three new agents fit into the relapsed or refractory space,Dr. Paul Richardson, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said three-drug platforms are emerging as a standard of care for relapsed or refractory disease after studies have shown time and time again they are better than doublets.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He highlighted phase III data reported at ASH by Dr. Philippe Moreau from TOURMALINE-MM1 (Abstract 727) showing a 35% improvement in PFS with weekly oral ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. Rd alone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

This translated into a median 6-month gain in PFS compared with an almost 9-month PFS benefit seen in ASPIRE with carfilzomib plus Rd, but cross-trial comparisons should be approached with some caution and both hazard ratios were very robust, he said. In addition, as previously observed, ixazomib is remarkably well tolerated.

“I think ixazomib, particularly in older patients and particularly in patients with high-risk disease, will be very useful in the context of the three-drug or even greater combinations. So there’s a strong rationale for its use,” Dr. Richardson said.

He went on to say that elotuzumab has shown remarkable anti-myeloma activity in the relapsed and refractory setting, improving both the overall response rate and PFS when used in combination with Ld vs. Ld alone in the ELOQUENT-2 trial. Updated results from ELOQUENT-2 were presented at the ASH meeting (Abstract 28).

A PFS benefit was also seen when elotuzumab was added to bortezomib and dexamethasone, with a 24% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death reported in a study presented at ASH by myeloma expert Dr. Antonio Palumbo (Abstract 510).

“My point in showing this is that when you think of elotuzumab being used with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapse, many of our patients are actually on them as maintenance when it occurs, therefore elotuzumab may have a role in combination, for example, with proteasome inhibitors in this same setting,” Dr. Richardson said.

Several pomalidomide-based triple therapy combinations have been evaluated in advanced relapsed or refractory myeloma, with a phase II study (Abstract 506) reported that morning at ASH showing the third-generation immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) pomalidomide induced responses in 60% of heavily pretreated patients when partnered with pembrolizumab and dexamethasone.

Combination strategies with daratumumab are also very provocative, particularly in the context of IMiDs, he noted. A phase Ib study reported in the same early morning session by Dr. Ajai Chari (Abstract 508) had a “very encouraging” overall response rate of 71% with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients, including 43% very good partial responses or better, and an overall response rate of 67% among double-refractory patients.

“Daratumumab and elotuzumab, in my view, as first-in-class monoclonal antibodies, are paradigm-changing agents,” Dr. Richardson concluded. “They provide us with this mutation-driven ability to overdrive the impact of those mutations and the important point is that they prescribe an entirely non-crossresistant strategy that can be easily added to existing platforms of drugs.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported discussion of off-label drug use for elotuzumab, daratumumab, ixazomib, and carfilzomib in untreated myeloma, maintenance, and early relapse. Dr. Richardson reported membership on a board of directors or advisory committee for Millennium Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis, and research funding from Millennium Takeda and Celgene.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The moment the Food and Drug Administration approved daratumumab, ixazomib, and elotuzumab in rapid-fire succession over 15 days in November 2015, Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar’s phone started ringing.

As with other multiple myeloma experts, three common questions kept cropping up:

• For previously untreated patients, should we add bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) based on the S0777 results?

• For previously treated patients, should we add ixazomib or elotuzumab to Rd?

• Should we add daratumumab to frontline therapy right out of the box?

Daratumumab (Darzalex), ixazomib (Ninlaro), and elotuzumab (Empliciti) are welcome additions to the armamentarium, but the problem with this plethora of riches is that numerous treatments already exist for frontline multiple myeloma, observed Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

In fact, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines list 22 possible newly diagnosed myeloma regimens that can be potentially recommended for patients.

“This definitely leads to confusion in the community. And this was the result of the fact that we didn’t have a single, good randomized trial with a survival benefit of a modern therapy against another modern therapy,” Dr. Rajkumar said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology during a joint FDA/ASH symposium on the three newly approved agents.

This quandary was solved at ASH with phase III randomized data from the Southwest Oncology Group S0777 study showing a significant overall survival advantage with a triplet of bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by continuous Rd maintenance compared with Rd alone and ongoing maintenance in untreated patients who did not intend to receive stem cell transplant, he said.

Median overall survival was 75 months for the triplet vs. 64 months for the Rd doublet (hazard ratio, 0.709; two-sided log-rank P = .0250), and median PFS 43 months vs. 30 months (HR, 0.712; one-sided P = .0018), study author Dr. Brian Durie, of Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, reported (Abstract 25).

The VRd triplet is already in use in the United States, but based on the S0777 results, many groups, including the Mayo Clinic, have changed treatment guidelines and now “prefer bortezomib, len-dex for frontline therapy, not just in transplant candidates, but also in non-transplant candidates,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

In countries where VRd is not possible, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) is a second option.

Rd is an appropriate therapy for non-transplant candidates who are frail or aged 75 years or older, he said, adding that there is no need to add bortezomib for patients already on Rd and doing well.

“If your patient is doing well on a doublet, leave them alone,” Dr. Rajkumar advised.

Similarly, for patients with relapsed myeloma who are doing well on Rd, there isn’t “an urgent need” to add ixazomib or elotuzumab, but rather, he said, “We can reserve those for when the patient progresses.”

Ixazomib is approved in combination with Rd after at least one prior therapy, but the oral proteasome inhibitor may have a role in the frontline treatment of standard-risk patients. It is a very simple regimen, just three pills a month, and “the side effect profile is outstanding; virtually difficult to tell who’s taking placebo and who’s taking drug,” Dr. Rajkumar observed.

In addition, some patients may not have access to bortezomib because of insurance reasons or can’t drive to the clinic once a week to get the shot, while others may be too frail to get an intravenous or subcutaneous shot or may have neuropathy.

“For whatever reason, I think it is reasonable to keep in mind that we may have a situation where we can use ixazomib/len-dex in clinical practice if the patient’s best interests so dictate,” he said.

For high-risk patients (deletion 17p or translocations t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), VRd or VTd are obvious upfront choices. Based on four phase II trials and the ASPIRE results in the relapsed and refractory setting, however, the Mayo Clinic has already decided that the recently approved second-generation proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus Rd is also worth considering.

Adding a monoclonal antibody such as elotuzumab or daratumumab to a VRd triplet or ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) triplet may be another way to improve outcomes in high-risk patients, who still die with a median overall survival of 3 years, Dr. Rajkumar said. This strategy is already being used in the ongoing SWOG S1211 study.

For maintenance therapy after VRd or VTd and autologous stem cell transplant, he recommended lenalidomide for standard-risk patients and bortezomib-based maintenance for high-risk patients, but said ixazomib-based maintenance with the addition of monoclonal antibodies may also have a role in high-risk patients.

What may be more important going forward is how these three drugs will be used in clinical trials, Dr. Rajkumar observed.

“We’d rather put all patients on clinical trials than any of the recommendations I made,” he said. “The problem is that clinical trials have to be appropriately designed.”

Several phase III trials are already ongoing comparing a doublet versus a triplet (IRd vs. Rd, elotuzumab-Rd vs. Rd, and daratumumab-Rd vs. Rd) in the frontline setting, so the key question for future trials is which triplet: VRd, KRd, elotuzumab-Rd, or daratumumab-Rd, and to what endpoint.

Progression-free survival can remain a primary endpoint for comparing two triplets in the frontline, but PFS alone is not enough in the maintenance setting and investigators should look to other primary endpoints such as PFS2, PFS1 vs. PFS2, overall survival with a higher type 1 error than currently used, or PFS plus validated patient-reported or quality of life outcomes, Dr. Rajkumar said.

Relapsed/refractory disease

Speaking on how the three new agents fit into the relapsed or refractory space,Dr. Paul Richardson, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said three-drug platforms are emerging as a standard of care for relapsed or refractory disease after studies have shown time and time again they are better than doublets.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He highlighted phase III data reported at ASH by Dr. Philippe Moreau from TOURMALINE-MM1 (Abstract 727) showing a 35% improvement in PFS with weekly oral ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. Rd alone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

This translated into a median 6-month gain in PFS compared with an almost 9-month PFS benefit seen in ASPIRE with carfilzomib plus Rd, but cross-trial comparisons should be approached with some caution and both hazard ratios were very robust, he said. In addition, as previously observed, ixazomib is remarkably well tolerated.

“I think ixazomib, particularly in older patients and particularly in patients with high-risk disease, will be very useful in the context of the three-drug or even greater combinations. So there’s a strong rationale for its use,” Dr. Richardson said.

He went on to say that elotuzumab has shown remarkable anti-myeloma activity in the relapsed and refractory setting, improving both the overall response rate and PFS when used in combination with Ld vs. Ld alone in the ELOQUENT-2 trial. Updated results from ELOQUENT-2 were presented at the ASH meeting (Abstract 28).

A PFS benefit was also seen when elotuzumab was added to bortezomib and dexamethasone, with a 24% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death reported in a study presented at ASH by myeloma expert Dr. Antonio Palumbo (Abstract 510).

“My point in showing this is that when you think of elotuzumab being used with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapse, many of our patients are actually on them as maintenance when it occurs, therefore elotuzumab may have a role in combination, for example, with proteasome inhibitors in this same setting,” Dr. Richardson said.

Several pomalidomide-based triple therapy combinations have been evaluated in advanced relapsed or refractory myeloma, with a phase II study (Abstract 506) reported that morning at ASH showing the third-generation immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) pomalidomide induced responses in 60% of heavily pretreated patients when partnered with pembrolizumab and dexamethasone.

Combination strategies with daratumumab are also very provocative, particularly in the context of IMiDs, he noted. A phase Ib study reported in the same early morning session by Dr. Ajai Chari (Abstract 508) had a “very encouraging” overall response rate of 71% with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in heavily pretreated patients, including 43% very good partial responses or better, and an overall response rate of 67% among double-refractory patients.

“Daratumumab and elotuzumab, in my view, as first-in-class monoclonal antibodies, are paradigm-changing agents,” Dr. Richardson concluded. “They provide us with this mutation-driven ability to overdrive the impact of those mutations and the important point is that they prescribe an entirely non-crossresistant strategy that can be easily added to existing platforms of drugs.”

Dr. Rajkumar reported discussion of off-label drug use for elotuzumab, daratumumab, ixazomib, and carfilzomib in untreated myeloma, maintenance, and early relapse. Dr. Richardson reported membership on a board of directors or advisory committee for Millennium Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis, and research funding from Millennium Takeda and Celgene.

[email protected]

Sickled and normal

red blood cells

Image by Graham Beards

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for the small molecule GBT440 to treat patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD. The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen.

Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the drug may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

“Receiving orphan drug designation, along with the previously announced fast track designation, are important milestones in our regulatory strategy for GBT440 and highlight the FDA’s agreement that the SCD community faces a critical need for new treatments,” said Ted W. Love, MD, chief executive officer of Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing GBT440.

The FDA grants orphan designation to drugs that are intended to treat diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US. The designation provides the drug’s sponsor with various development incentives, including opportunities to apply for research-related tax credits and grant funding, assistance in designing clinical trials, and 7 years of US market exclusivity if the drug is approved.

The FDA grants fast track designation to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need. Through the fast track program, a drug may be eligible for priority review and rolling review, and the company developing the drug may receive additional help from the FDA to expedite development.

GBT440 trial

Early results from an ongoing phase 1/2 study of GBT440 were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting last month (abstract 542*).

The trial, which includes healthy subjects and patients with SCD, is being conducted in 2 parts: part A (single-dose administration) and part B (multiple-dose administration, daily for 15 days in healthy subjects and 28 days in SCD patients).

As of November 20, 2015, 8 SCD patients completed part A, and 30 SCD patients had either completed or were ongoing in part B.

Of the 30 SCD patients, 16 patients completed 700 mg daily dosing and follow-up (12 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo), and 14 patients completed or were ongoing at 500 mg daily dosing and follow-up (10 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo). A cohort of SCD patients on 1000 mg per day for 28 days is currently enrolling.

Thus far, GBT440 treatment has conferred several improvements from baseline to day 28.

Hemoglobin increases were evident by day 4 of treatment. And the researchers observed absolute hemoglobin increases of 0.5 and 0.7 g/dL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 0.1 g/dL decrease with placebo.

The median reticulocyte count decreased by 31% and 37% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 7% increase with placebo, indicating that the hemoglobin rise is due to decreased hemolysis.

Median erythropoietin levels decreased by 9 and 18 mU/mL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 28 mU/mL with placebo.

Median unconjugated bilirubin levels decrease by 31% and 43% with GBT440 at 500 mg and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 2% with placebo.

Median lactate dehydrogenase levels decreased by 20% and 12% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a decrease of 7% with placebo.

Median sickle cell counts decreased by 56% and 46% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 14% increase with placebo.

The researchers noted high inter- and intra-patient variability in circulating sickle cell counts.

They said inflammatory soluble adhesion molecules for the 700 mg dose cohort showed promising trends in improvement. The median P-selectin decreased 19%, compared with an increase of 20% with placebo. And the median ICAM-1 decreased 6%, compared with an increase of 33% in placebo. Data for the 500 mg dose cohort has not yet been analyzed.

The researchers said pharmacokinetic data demonstrated linear and dose-proportional properties, with a half-life amenable to once-daily dosing.

And GBT440 was well tolerated over the 28 days of dosing. None of the SCD patients discontinued GBT440. The most common adverse event was headache, and there have been no serious adverse events thought to be drug-related.

“We continue to believe that GBT440 has the potential to become the first mechanism-based and disease-modifying therapeutic for this grievous disease and look forward to sharing full results from our phase 1/2 trial and potentially initiating a pivotal trial in adult patients with SCD in 2016,” Dr Love said.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Sickled and normal

red blood cells

Image by Graham Beards

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for the small molecule GBT440 to treat patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD. The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen.

Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the drug may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

“Receiving orphan drug designation, along with the previously announced fast track designation, are important milestones in our regulatory strategy for GBT440 and highlight the FDA’s agreement that the SCD community faces a critical need for new treatments,” said Ted W. Love, MD, chief executive officer of Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing GBT440.

The FDA grants orphan designation to drugs that are intended to treat diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US. The designation provides the drug’s sponsor with various development incentives, including opportunities to apply for research-related tax credits and grant funding, assistance in designing clinical trials, and 7 years of US market exclusivity if the drug is approved.

The FDA grants fast track designation to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need. Through the fast track program, a drug may be eligible for priority review and rolling review, and the company developing the drug may receive additional help from the FDA to expedite development.

GBT440 trial

Early results from an ongoing phase 1/2 study of GBT440 were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting last month (abstract 542*).

The trial, which includes healthy subjects and patients with SCD, is being conducted in 2 parts: part A (single-dose administration) and part B (multiple-dose administration, daily for 15 days in healthy subjects and 28 days in SCD patients).

As of November 20, 2015, 8 SCD patients completed part A, and 30 SCD patients had either completed or were ongoing in part B.

Of the 30 SCD patients, 16 patients completed 700 mg daily dosing and follow-up (12 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo), and 14 patients completed or were ongoing at 500 mg daily dosing and follow-up (10 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo). A cohort of SCD patients on 1000 mg per day for 28 days is currently enrolling.

Thus far, GBT440 treatment has conferred several improvements from baseline to day 28.

Hemoglobin increases were evident by day 4 of treatment. And the researchers observed absolute hemoglobin increases of 0.5 and 0.7 g/dL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 0.1 g/dL decrease with placebo.

The median reticulocyte count decreased by 31% and 37% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 7% increase with placebo, indicating that the hemoglobin rise is due to decreased hemolysis.

Median erythropoietin levels decreased by 9 and 18 mU/mL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 28 mU/mL with placebo.

Median unconjugated bilirubin levels decrease by 31% and 43% with GBT440 at 500 mg and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 2% with placebo.

Median lactate dehydrogenase levels decreased by 20% and 12% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a decrease of 7% with placebo.

Median sickle cell counts decreased by 56% and 46% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 14% increase with placebo.

The researchers noted high inter- and intra-patient variability in circulating sickle cell counts.

They said inflammatory soluble adhesion molecules for the 700 mg dose cohort showed promising trends in improvement. The median P-selectin decreased 19%, compared with an increase of 20% with placebo. And the median ICAM-1 decreased 6%, compared with an increase of 33% in placebo. Data for the 500 mg dose cohort has not yet been analyzed.

The researchers said pharmacokinetic data demonstrated linear and dose-proportional properties, with a half-life amenable to once-daily dosing.

And GBT440 was well tolerated over the 28 days of dosing. None of the SCD patients discontinued GBT440. The most common adverse event was headache, and there have been no serious adverse events thought to be drug-related.

“We continue to believe that GBT440 has the potential to become the first mechanism-based and disease-modifying therapeutic for this grievous disease and look forward to sharing full results from our phase 1/2 trial and potentially initiating a pivotal trial in adult patients with SCD in 2016,” Dr Love said.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Sickled and normal

red blood cells

Image by Graham Beards

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for the small molecule GBT440 to treat patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).

GBT440 is being developed as a potentially disease-modifying therapy for SCD. The drug works by increasing hemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen.

Since oxygenated sickle hemoglobin does not polymerize, it is believed that GBT440 blocks polymerization and the resultant sickling of red blood cells.

If GBT440 can restore normal hemoglobin function and improve oxygen delivery, the drug may be capable of modifying the progression of SCD.

“Receiving orphan drug designation, along with the previously announced fast track designation, are important milestones in our regulatory strategy for GBT440 and highlight the FDA’s agreement that the SCD community faces a critical need for new treatments,” said Ted W. Love, MD, chief executive officer of Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing GBT440.

The FDA grants orphan designation to drugs that are intended to treat diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the US. The designation provides the drug’s sponsor with various development incentives, including opportunities to apply for research-related tax credits and grant funding, assistance in designing clinical trials, and 7 years of US market exclusivity if the drug is approved.

The FDA grants fast track designation to facilitate and expedite the development and review of new drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need. Through the fast track program, a drug may be eligible for priority review and rolling review, and the company developing the drug may receive additional help from the FDA to expedite development.

GBT440 trial

Early results from an ongoing phase 1/2 study of GBT440 were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting last month (abstract 542*).

The trial, which includes healthy subjects and patients with SCD, is being conducted in 2 parts: part A (single-dose administration) and part B (multiple-dose administration, daily for 15 days in healthy subjects and 28 days in SCD patients).

As of November 20, 2015, 8 SCD patients completed part A, and 30 SCD patients had either completed or were ongoing in part B.

Of the 30 SCD patients, 16 patients completed 700 mg daily dosing and follow-up (12 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo), and 14 patients completed or were ongoing at 500 mg daily dosing and follow-up (10 on GBT440 and 4 on placebo). A cohort of SCD patients on 1000 mg per day for 28 days is currently enrolling.

Thus far, GBT440 treatment has conferred several improvements from baseline to day 28.

Hemoglobin increases were evident by day 4 of treatment. And the researchers observed absolute hemoglobin increases of 0.5 and 0.7 g/dL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 0.1 g/dL decrease with placebo.

The median reticulocyte count decreased by 31% and 37% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 7% increase with placebo, indicating that the hemoglobin rise is due to decreased hemolysis.

Median erythropoietin levels decreased by 9 and 18 mU/mL with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 28 mU/mL with placebo.

Median unconjugated bilirubin levels decrease by 31% and 43% with GBT440 at 500 mg and 700 mg, respectively, compared with an increase of 2% with placebo.

Median lactate dehydrogenase levels decreased by 20% and 12% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a decrease of 7% with placebo.

Median sickle cell counts decreased by 56% and 46% with GBT440 at 500 and 700 mg, respectively, compared with a 14% increase with placebo.

The researchers noted high inter- and intra-patient variability in circulating sickle cell counts.

They said inflammatory soluble adhesion molecules for the 700 mg dose cohort showed promising trends in improvement. The median P-selectin decreased 19%, compared with an increase of 20% with placebo. And the median ICAM-1 decreased 6%, compared with an increase of 33% in placebo. Data for the 500 mg dose cohort has not yet been analyzed.

The researchers said pharmacokinetic data demonstrated linear and dose-proportional properties, with a half-life amenable to once-daily dosing.

And GBT440 was well tolerated over the 28 days of dosing. None of the SCD patients discontinued GBT440. The most common adverse event was headache, and there have been no serious adverse events thought to be drug-related.

“We continue to believe that GBT440 has the potential to become the first mechanism-based and disease-modifying therapeutic for this grievous disease and look forward to sharing full results from our phase 1/2 trial and potentially initiating a pivotal trial in adult patients with SCD in 2016,” Dr Love said.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Philippe Moreau, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—Adding the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to interim results of the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 trial.

It is not yet clear if the 3-drug combination can prolong overall survival when compared to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

However, researchers believe the triplet shows promise and could become a new standard of care for relapsed/refractory MM.

Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, discussed this possibility while presenting results from TOURMALINE-MM1 at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 727*). The study was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial included 722 MM patients enrolled at 147 centers in 26 countries. Patients were randomized to receive ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd, n=360) or placebo, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Rd, n=362).

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the arms. The median age was 66 in both arms (overall range, 30-91), and nearly 60% of patients in both arms were male.

Fifty percent of patients in the IRd arm and 47% in the Rd arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty-three percent and 45%, respectively, had a status of 1, and 5% and 7%, respectively, had a status of 2.

Eighty-seven percent and 88%, respectively, had an ISS stage of I or II. Fifty-five percent of patients in the IRd arm had standard-risk cytogenetics, as did 60% in the Rd arm.

Fifty-nine percent of patients in both arms had received 1 prior line of therapy, and 41% in both arms had 2 or 3 prior lines.

Response and survival

“Ixazomib, when combined with len-dex . . . , was associated with a significant and meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, improved time to progression, and [higher] response rate as well,” Dr Moreau said.

At a median follow-up of about 15 months, the median PFS was 20.6 months in the IRd arm and 14.7 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.742 (P=0.012).

Dr Moreau said the PFS benefit was consistent across pre-specified subgroups. So the benefit was present regardless of age, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor, prior immunomodulatory therapy, whether the patient was refractory to his last therapy, and whether the patient had relapsed or refractory disease.

Dr Moreau also pointed out that, in the IRd arm, the median PFS in high-risk patients was similar to that in the overall patient population and in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. This suggests ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations.

Whether IRd confers an overall survival benefit is not clear, as those data are not yet mature. At a median follow-up of about 23 months, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The researchers conducted a non-inferential PFS analysis at the same time point (23 months) and found the median PFS was 20 months in the IRd arm and 15.9 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.82.

As for other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 78.3% in the IRd arm and 71.5% in the Rd arm (P=0.035). The rates of complete response were 11.7% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.019). And the rates of very good partial response or greater were 48.1% and 39%, respectively (P=0.014).

The median time to response was 1.1 months in the IRd arm and 1.9 months in the Rd arm. The median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15 months, respectively. And the median time to progression was 21.4 months and 15.7 months, respectively.

Adverse events

At a median follow-up of about 23 months, patients had received a median of 17 cycles of IRd and a median of 15 cycles of Rd.

The incidence of any adverse event (AE) was 98% in the IRd arm and 99% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 74% and 69%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 47% and 49%, respectively.

The incidence of AEs resulting in discontinuation was 17% and 14%, respectively. And the incidence of on-study deaths (occurring within 30 days of the last dose) was 4% and 6%, respectively.

Common AEs in the IRd and Rd arms, respectively, were diarrhea (45% vs 39%), constipation (35% vs 26%), nausea (29% vs 22%), vomiting (23% vs 12%), rash (36% vs 23%), back pain (24% vs 17%), upper respiratory tract infection (23% vs 19%), thrombocytopenia (31% vs 16%), peripheral neuropathy (27% vs 22%), peripheral edema (28% vs 20%), thromboembolism (8% vs 11%), and neutropenia (33% vs 31%).

“Ixazomib is adding limited toxicity to lenalidomide and dex, with a very low rate of peripheral neuropathy and no cardiovascular or renal adverse signals,” Dr Moreau said.

“This all-oral triplet regimen may become one of the new standards of care in the relapsed setting. [It has] a very safe profile, [is] a very effective combination, [and is] simple and convenient.”

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Philippe Moreau, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—Adding the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to interim results of the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 trial.

It is not yet clear if the 3-drug combination can prolong overall survival when compared to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

However, researchers believe the triplet shows promise and could become a new standard of care for relapsed/refractory MM.

Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, discussed this possibility while presenting results from TOURMALINE-MM1 at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 727*). The study was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial included 722 MM patients enrolled at 147 centers in 26 countries. Patients were randomized to receive ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd, n=360) or placebo, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Rd, n=362).

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the arms. The median age was 66 in both arms (overall range, 30-91), and nearly 60% of patients in both arms were male.

Fifty percent of patients in the IRd arm and 47% in the Rd arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty-three percent and 45%, respectively, had a status of 1, and 5% and 7%, respectively, had a status of 2.

Eighty-seven percent and 88%, respectively, had an ISS stage of I or II. Fifty-five percent of patients in the IRd arm had standard-risk cytogenetics, as did 60% in the Rd arm.

Fifty-nine percent of patients in both arms had received 1 prior line of therapy, and 41% in both arms had 2 or 3 prior lines.

Response and survival

“Ixazomib, when combined with len-dex . . . , was associated with a significant and meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, improved time to progression, and [higher] response rate as well,” Dr Moreau said.

At a median follow-up of about 15 months, the median PFS was 20.6 months in the IRd arm and 14.7 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.742 (P=0.012).

Dr Moreau said the PFS benefit was consistent across pre-specified subgroups. So the benefit was present regardless of age, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor, prior immunomodulatory therapy, whether the patient was refractory to his last therapy, and whether the patient had relapsed or refractory disease.

Dr Moreau also pointed out that, in the IRd arm, the median PFS in high-risk patients was similar to that in the overall patient population and in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. This suggests ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations.

Whether IRd confers an overall survival benefit is not clear, as those data are not yet mature. At a median follow-up of about 23 months, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The researchers conducted a non-inferential PFS analysis at the same time point (23 months) and found the median PFS was 20 months in the IRd arm and 15.9 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.82.

As for other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 78.3% in the IRd arm and 71.5% in the Rd arm (P=0.035). The rates of complete response were 11.7% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.019). And the rates of very good partial response or greater were 48.1% and 39%, respectively (P=0.014).

The median time to response was 1.1 months in the IRd arm and 1.9 months in the Rd arm. The median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15 months, respectively. And the median time to progression was 21.4 months and 15.7 months, respectively.

Adverse events

At a median follow-up of about 23 months, patients had received a median of 17 cycles of IRd and a median of 15 cycles of Rd.

The incidence of any adverse event (AE) was 98% in the IRd arm and 99% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 74% and 69%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 47% and 49%, respectively.

The incidence of AEs resulting in discontinuation was 17% and 14%, respectively. And the incidence of on-study deaths (occurring within 30 days of the last dose) was 4% and 6%, respectively.

Common AEs in the IRd and Rd arms, respectively, were diarrhea (45% vs 39%), constipation (35% vs 26%), nausea (29% vs 22%), vomiting (23% vs 12%), rash (36% vs 23%), back pain (24% vs 17%), upper respiratory tract infection (23% vs 19%), thrombocytopenia (31% vs 16%), peripheral neuropathy (27% vs 22%), peripheral edema (28% vs 20%), thromboembolism (8% vs 11%), and neutropenia (33% vs 31%).

“Ixazomib is adding limited toxicity to lenalidomide and dex, with a very low rate of peripheral neuropathy and no cardiovascular or renal adverse signals,” Dr Moreau said.

“This all-oral triplet regimen may become one of the new standards of care in the relapsed setting. [It has] a very safe profile, [is] a very effective combination, [and is] simple and convenient.”

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Philippe Moreau, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—Adding the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to interim results of the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 trial.

It is not yet clear if the 3-drug combination can prolong overall survival when compared to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

However, researchers believe the triplet shows promise and could become a new standard of care for relapsed/refractory MM.

Philippe Moreau, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, discussed this possibility while presenting results from TOURMALINE-MM1 at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 727*). The study was sponsored by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The trial included 722 MM patients enrolled at 147 centers in 26 countries. Patients were randomized to receive ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd, n=360) or placebo, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Rd, n=362).

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the arms. The median age was 66 in both arms (overall range, 30-91), and nearly 60% of patients in both arms were male.

Fifty percent of patients in the IRd arm and 47% in the Rd arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty-three percent and 45%, respectively, had a status of 1, and 5% and 7%, respectively, had a status of 2.

Eighty-seven percent and 88%, respectively, had an ISS stage of I or II. Fifty-five percent of patients in the IRd arm had standard-risk cytogenetics, as did 60% in the Rd arm.

Fifty-nine percent of patients in both arms had received 1 prior line of therapy, and 41% in both arms had 2 or 3 prior lines.

Response and survival

“Ixazomib, when combined with len-dex . . . , was associated with a significant and meaningful improvement in progression-free survival, improved time to progression, and [higher] response rate as well,” Dr Moreau said.

At a median follow-up of about 15 months, the median PFS was 20.6 months in the IRd arm and 14.7 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.742 (P=0.012).

Dr Moreau said the PFS benefit was consistent across pre-specified subgroups. So the benefit was present regardless of age, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, prior exposure to a proteasome inhibitor, prior immunomodulatory therapy, whether the patient was refractory to his last therapy, and whether the patient had relapsed or refractory disease.

Dr Moreau also pointed out that, in the IRd arm, the median PFS in high-risk patients was similar to that in the overall patient population and in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. This suggests ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations.

Whether IRd confers an overall survival benefit is not clear, as those data are not yet mature. At a median follow-up of about 23 months, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The researchers conducted a non-inferential PFS analysis at the same time point (23 months) and found the median PFS was 20 months in the IRd arm and 15.9 months in the Rd arm. The hazard ratio was 0.82.

As for other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 78.3% in the IRd arm and 71.5% in the Rd arm (P=0.035). The rates of complete response were 11.7% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.019). And the rates of very good partial response or greater were 48.1% and 39%, respectively (P=0.014).

The median time to response was 1.1 months in the IRd arm and 1.9 months in the Rd arm. The median duration of response was 20.5 months and 15 months, respectively. And the median time to progression was 21.4 months and 15.7 months, respectively.

Adverse events

At a median follow-up of about 23 months, patients had received a median of 17 cycles of IRd and a median of 15 cycles of Rd.

The incidence of any adverse event (AE) was 98% in the IRd arm and 99% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 74% and 69%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 47% and 49%, respectively.

The incidence of AEs resulting in discontinuation was 17% and 14%, respectively. And the incidence of on-study deaths (occurring within 30 days of the last dose) was 4% and 6%, respectively.

Common AEs in the IRd and Rd arms, respectively, were diarrhea (45% vs 39%), constipation (35% vs 26%), nausea (29% vs 22%), vomiting (23% vs 12%), rash (36% vs 23%), back pain (24% vs 17%), upper respiratory tract infection (23% vs 19%), thrombocytopenia (31% vs 16%), peripheral neuropathy (27% vs 22%), peripheral edema (28% vs 20%), thromboembolism (8% vs 11%), and neutropenia (33% vs 31%).

“Ixazomib is adding limited toxicity to lenalidomide and dex, with a very low rate of peripheral neuropathy and no cardiovascular or renal adverse signals,” Dr Moreau said.

“This all-oral triplet regimen may become one of the new standards of care in the relapsed setting. [It has] a very safe profile, [is] a very effective combination, [and is] simple and convenient.”

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—A subgroup of young patients with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) can have “outstanding outcomes” with contemporary therapy, according to researchers.

Results of a large study suggested that patients ages 1 to 30 who have high-risk B-ALL according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification can have high rates of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) if they have favorable cytogenetic features, have no evidence of CNS disease, and have rapid minimal residual disease (MRD) responses.

The research suggested these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 807).

She and her colleagues analyzed patients enrolled on the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL03B1 classification study at the time of B-ALL diagnosis. From December 2003 to September 2011, there were 11,144 eligible patients enrolled on this trial.

Eighty-nine percent of these patients were also enrolled on a frontline ALL therapeutic trial, and 96% of these patients were evaluable for post-induction treatment assignment. Sixty-five percent of these patients were treated on a trial for NCI standard-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0331), and 35% were treated on a trial for high-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0232).

At the end of induction therapy, patients were classified into low-risk (29%), standard-risk (33%), high-risk (34%), and very-high-risk (4%) groups for further treatment allocation. The variables used for risk classification were age, initial white blood cell count, extramedullary disease status, blast cytogenetics, and early treatment response based on bone marrow morphology and day 29 MRD.

Patients with very-high-risk features (BCR-ABL1, hypodiploidy, induction failure, or poor response at day 43) did not continue on AALL0232/AALL0331 post-induction but did have outcome data captured for analysis.

Response and survival

Rapid early response was defined as M1 (<5% blasts) bone marrow by day 15 plus flow cytometry-based MRD <0.1% on day 29 of induction. Patients with either M2/M3 (≥5% blasts) day 15 marrow or MRD ≥0.1% at day 29 were deemed slow early responders.

Eighty-four percent of patients had a rapid early response to induction, and 16% had a slow early response.

For rapid early responders, the 5-year EFS was 89.3%, and the 5-year OS was 95.2%. For slow early responders, the EFS and OS rates were 67.9% and 84.3%, respectively (P<0.0001 for both EFS and OS comparisons).

Survival according to cytogenetics

Having favorable cytogenetic abnormalities (triple trisomies of chromosomes 4, 10, and 17 or ETV6-RUNX1 fusion) was associated with significantly better EFS and OS than having unfavorable cytogenetics (hypodiploidy [DNA index <0.81 or chromosomes < 44], MLL rearrangements, BCR-ABL1, or iAMP21).

And Dr Raetz pointed out that the 5-year OS exceeded 98% for patients with either standard- or high-risk disease who had favorable cytogenetics.

For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1-positive, the EFS was 93.2% and the OS was 98.3%. For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1 negative, the rates were 83.5% and 92%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with triple trisomy, EFS was 94.7% and OS was 98.7%. For those without triple trisomy, the rates were 83.6% and 92.2%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with MLL rearrangement, the EFS was 73.9% and the OS was 83.1%. For patients without MLL rearrangement, the rates were 85.9% and 93.6%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients who were positive for iAMP21, the EFS was 69.5% and the OS was 90.1%. For iAMP21-negative patients, the rates were 86.1% and 93.4%, respectively (P<0.0001 for PFS comparison and P=0.0026 for OS comparison).

Survival according to risk group and MRD

The researchers also assessed EFS and OS among patients with favorable cytogenetics according to NCI risk group and MRD at days 8 and 29.

“One thing to point out is that, regardless of having favorable cytogenetics, those individuals who had end-induction MRD values of greater than 0.01% had inferior outcomes, so that was still a prognostic marker,” Dr Raetz said.

“And one thing that we were pleasantly surprised to see was that, among the NCI high-risk patients, those who had very rapid MRD responses—so less than 1% at day 8 in the blood and less than 0.01% in the marrow on day 29—had a 94.9% 5-year event-free survival and 98.1% overall survival.”

The researchers also divided this group according to age—patients younger than 10 and those 10 years or older. There was no significant difference in EFS or OS between the age groups (P=0.126 and P=0.411).

Standard-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 95.7% and the OS was 99.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 91.7% and the OS was 99.4%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 88.1% and the OS was 96.8%.

High-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 94.9% and the OS was 98.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 93.6% and the OS was 95.5%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 75.4% and the OS was 90.4%.

In closing, Dr Raetz said this study showed that real‐time classification incorporating clinical features, blast cytogenetics, and early response was feasible in a large group of patients enrolled on COG ALL trials and identified patients with varying outcomes for risk‐based treatment allocation.

She noted that early response by marrow morphology was not prognostic when MRD response was used and is therefore no longer used in COG studies.

And although favorable cytogenetic features were not prognostic in NCI high-risk B‐ALL patients in prior COG studies, the current study indicates that these patients can have “excellent outcomes” if they have no evidence of CNS leukemia and are rapid MRD responders. So these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—A subgroup of young patients with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) can have “outstanding outcomes” with contemporary therapy, according to researchers.

Results of a large study suggested that patients ages 1 to 30 who have high-risk B-ALL according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification can have high rates of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) if they have favorable cytogenetic features, have no evidence of CNS disease, and have rapid minimal residual disease (MRD) responses.

The research suggested these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 807).

She and her colleagues analyzed patients enrolled on the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL03B1 classification study at the time of B-ALL diagnosis. From December 2003 to September 2011, there were 11,144 eligible patients enrolled on this trial.

Eighty-nine percent of these patients were also enrolled on a frontline ALL therapeutic trial, and 96% of these patients were evaluable for post-induction treatment assignment. Sixty-five percent of these patients were treated on a trial for NCI standard-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0331), and 35% were treated on a trial for high-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0232).

At the end of induction therapy, patients were classified into low-risk (29%), standard-risk (33%), high-risk (34%), and very-high-risk (4%) groups for further treatment allocation. The variables used for risk classification were age, initial white blood cell count, extramedullary disease status, blast cytogenetics, and early treatment response based on bone marrow morphology and day 29 MRD.

Patients with very-high-risk features (BCR-ABL1, hypodiploidy, induction failure, or poor response at day 43) did not continue on AALL0232/AALL0331 post-induction but did have outcome data captured for analysis.

Response and survival

Rapid early response was defined as M1 (<5% blasts) bone marrow by day 15 plus flow cytometry-based MRD <0.1% on day 29 of induction. Patients with either M2/M3 (≥5% blasts) day 15 marrow or MRD ≥0.1% at day 29 were deemed slow early responders.

Eighty-four percent of patients had a rapid early response to induction, and 16% had a slow early response.

For rapid early responders, the 5-year EFS was 89.3%, and the 5-year OS was 95.2%. For slow early responders, the EFS and OS rates were 67.9% and 84.3%, respectively (P<0.0001 for both EFS and OS comparisons).

Survival according to cytogenetics

Having favorable cytogenetic abnormalities (triple trisomies of chromosomes 4, 10, and 17 or ETV6-RUNX1 fusion) was associated with significantly better EFS and OS than having unfavorable cytogenetics (hypodiploidy [DNA index <0.81 or chromosomes < 44], MLL rearrangements, BCR-ABL1, or iAMP21).

And Dr Raetz pointed out that the 5-year OS exceeded 98% for patients with either standard- or high-risk disease who had favorable cytogenetics.

For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1-positive, the EFS was 93.2% and the OS was 98.3%. For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1 negative, the rates were 83.5% and 92%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with triple trisomy, EFS was 94.7% and OS was 98.7%. For those without triple trisomy, the rates were 83.6% and 92.2%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with MLL rearrangement, the EFS was 73.9% and the OS was 83.1%. For patients without MLL rearrangement, the rates were 85.9% and 93.6%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients who were positive for iAMP21, the EFS was 69.5% and the OS was 90.1%. For iAMP21-negative patients, the rates were 86.1% and 93.4%, respectively (P<0.0001 for PFS comparison and P=0.0026 for OS comparison).

Survival according to risk group and MRD

The researchers also assessed EFS and OS among patients with favorable cytogenetics according to NCI risk group and MRD at days 8 and 29.

“One thing to point out is that, regardless of having favorable cytogenetics, those individuals who had end-induction MRD values of greater than 0.01% had inferior outcomes, so that was still a prognostic marker,” Dr Raetz said.

“And one thing that we were pleasantly surprised to see was that, among the NCI high-risk patients, those who had very rapid MRD responses—so less than 1% at day 8 in the blood and less than 0.01% in the marrow on day 29—had a 94.9% 5-year event-free survival and 98.1% overall survival.”

The researchers also divided this group according to age—patients younger than 10 and those 10 years or older. There was no significant difference in EFS or OS between the age groups (P=0.126 and P=0.411).

Standard-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 95.7% and the OS was 99.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 91.7% and the OS was 99.4%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 88.1% and the OS was 96.8%.

High-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 94.9% and the OS was 98.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 93.6% and the OS was 95.5%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 75.4% and the OS was 90.4%.

In closing, Dr Raetz said this study showed that real‐time classification incorporating clinical features, blast cytogenetics, and early response was feasible in a large group of patients enrolled on COG ALL trials and identified patients with varying outcomes for risk‐based treatment allocation.

She noted that early response by marrow morphology was not prognostic when MRD response was used and is therefore no longer used in COG studies.

And although favorable cytogenetic features were not prognostic in NCI high-risk B‐ALL patients in prior COG studies, the current study indicates that these patients can have “excellent outcomes” if they have no evidence of CNS leukemia and are rapid MRD responders. So these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—A subgroup of young patients with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) can have “outstanding outcomes” with contemporary therapy, according to researchers.

Results of a large study suggested that patients ages 1 to 30 who have high-risk B-ALL according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) classification can have high rates of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) if they have favorable cytogenetic features, have no evidence of CNS disease, and have rapid minimal residual disease (MRD) responses.

The research suggested these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

Elizabeth Raetz, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 807).

She and her colleagues analyzed patients enrolled on the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL03B1 classification study at the time of B-ALL diagnosis. From December 2003 to September 2011, there were 11,144 eligible patients enrolled on this trial.

Eighty-nine percent of these patients were also enrolled on a frontline ALL therapeutic trial, and 96% of these patients were evaluable for post-induction treatment assignment. Sixty-five percent of these patients were treated on a trial for NCI standard-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0331), and 35% were treated on a trial for high-risk B-ALL (COG-AALL0232).

At the end of induction therapy, patients were classified into low-risk (29%), standard-risk (33%), high-risk (34%), and very-high-risk (4%) groups for further treatment allocation. The variables used for risk classification were age, initial white blood cell count, extramedullary disease status, blast cytogenetics, and early treatment response based on bone marrow morphology and day 29 MRD.

Patients with very-high-risk features (BCR-ABL1, hypodiploidy, induction failure, or poor response at day 43) did not continue on AALL0232/AALL0331 post-induction but did have outcome data captured for analysis.

Response and survival

Rapid early response was defined as M1 (<5% blasts) bone marrow by day 15 plus flow cytometry-based MRD <0.1% on day 29 of induction. Patients with either M2/M3 (≥5% blasts) day 15 marrow or MRD ≥0.1% at day 29 were deemed slow early responders.

Eighty-four percent of patients had a rapid early response to induction, and 16% had a slow early response.

For rapid early responders, the 5-year EFS was 89.3%, and the 5-year OS was 95.2%. For slow early responders, the EFS and OS rates were 67.9% and 84.3%, respectively (P<0.0001 for both EFS and OS comparisons).

Survival according to cytogenetics

Having favorable cytogenetic abnormalities (triple trisomies of chromosomes 4, 10, and 17 or ETV6-RUNX1 fusion) was associated with significantly better EFS and OS than having unfavorable cytogenetics (hypodiploidy [DNA index <0.81 or chromosomes < 44], MLL rearrangements, BCR-ABL1, or iAMP21).

And Dr Raetz pointed out that the 5-year OS exceeded 98% for patients with either standard- or high-risk disease who had favorable cytogenetics.

For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1-positive, the EFS was 93.2% and the OS was 98.3%. For patients who were ETV6-RUNX1 negative, the rates were 83.5% and 92%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with triple trisomy, EFS was 94.7% and OS was 98.7%. For those without triple trisomy, the rates were 83.6% and 92.2%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients with MLL rearrangement, the EFS was 73.9% and the OS was 83.1%. For patients without MLL rearrangement, the rates were 85.9% and 93.6%, respectively (P<0.0001).

For patients who were positive for iAMP21, the EFS was 69.5% and the OS was 90.1%. For iAMP21-negative patients, the rates were 86.1% and 93.4%, respectively (P<0.0001 for PFS comparison and P=0.0026 for OS comparison).

Survival according to risk group and MRD

The researchers also assessed EFS and OS among patients with favorable cytogenetics according to NCI risk group and MRD at days 8 and 29.

“One thing to point out is that, regardless of having favorable cytogenetics, those individuals who had end-induction MRD values of greater than 0.01% had inferior outcomes, so that was still a prognostic marker,” Dr Raetz said.

“And one thing that we were pleasantly surprised to see was that, among the NCI high-risk patients, those who had very rapid MRD responses—so less than 1% at day 8 in the blood and less than 0.01% in the marrow on day 29—had a 94.9% 5-year event-free survival and 98.1% overall survival.”

The researchers also divided this group according to age—patients younger than 10 and those 10 years or older. There was no significant difference in EFS or OS between the age groups (P=0.126 and P=0.411).

Standard-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 95.7% and the OS was 99.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 91.7% and the OS was 99.4%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 88.1% and the OS was 96.8%.

High-risk group

Among patients with <1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 94.9% and the OS was 98.1%.

Among patients with ≥1% MRD on day 8 and <0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 93.6% and the OS was 95.5%.

Among patients with any MRD on day 8 and ≥0.01% MRD on day 29, the EFS was 75.4% and the OS was 90.4%.

In closing, Dr Raetz said this study showed that real‐time classification incorporating clinical features, blast cytogenetics, and early response was feasible in a large group of patients enrolled on COG ALL trials and identified patients with varying outcomes for risk‐based treatment allocation.

She noted that early response by marrow morphology was not prognostic when MRD response was used and is therefore no longer used in COG studies.

And although favorable cytogenetic features were not prognostic in NCI high-risk B‐ALL patients in prior COG studies, the current study indicates that these patients can have “excellent outcomes” if they have no evidence of CNS leukemia and are rapid MRD responders. So these patients will not benefit from further chemotherapy intensification.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

ORLANDO, FL—Updated results of a phase 1 study suggest the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (EPZ-6438) can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The drug has demonstrated activity against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

The overall response rate among NHL patients in this study was 56%, and 1 patient has maintained a response for more than 21 months.

In addition, the drug’s safety profile is “still acceptable,” according to Vincent Ribrag, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr Ribrag presented the results of this study at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 473*). The research, which was previously presented at the 13th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma, was sponsored by Epizyme, Inc., the company developing tazemetostat.

The trial has enrolled 58 patients, 21 with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL and 37 with advanced solid tumors. The NHL cohort includes 5 patients with germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 6 cases of non-GCB DLBCL, 3 DLBCL cases of an undetermined subtype, 6 patients with FL, and 1 case of MZL.

At baseline, the NHL patients had a median age of 63 (range, 24-84) and were heavily pretreated. Eighty-five percent of patients had received 3 or more prior therapies, and 33% had received 5 or more. Thirty-eight percent of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 57% had received radiotherapy.

The patients received tazemetostat twice daily at a range of doses. For the dose-escalation portion of the trial, they received 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, 800 mg, or 1600 mg. For the dose-expansion phase, they received 800 mg or 1600 mg.

The researchers are now conducting a drug-drug interaction substudy in which patients receive 800 mg of tazemetostat twice daily and a food-effect substudy in which patients receive the drug at 400 mg twice daily.

Dr Ribrag said the recommended phase 2 dose of tazemetostat is 800 mg twice daily.

Safety

At the data cutoff point (November 7, 2015), 55 patients—20 with NHL and 35 with solid tumors—were evaluable for safety.

Treatment-related adverse events in these patients included asthenia (n=13), nausea (n=8), thrombocytopenia (n=7), dysgeusia (n=5), vomiting (n=5), dry skin (n=4), decreased appetite (n=4), diarrhea (n=4), muscle spasms (n=3), neutropenia (n=3), anemia (n=3), night sweats (n=3), hypertension (n=2), constipation (n=2), peripheral edema (n=2), hypophosphatemia (n=1), anxiety (n=1), depression (n=1), abdominal pain (n=1), and hepatocellular injury (n=1).

There were 4 grade 3 or higher adverse events that were considered treatment-related, including nausea, hypertension, neutropenia, and hepatocellular injury.

Efficacy

Sixteen of the NHL patients were evaluable for efficacy. Nine patients responded to treatment, 2 with complete responses (CRs) and 7 with partial responses (PRs).

Five of the 10 DLBCL patients responded, 4 with PRs and 1 with a CR. Three of the 5 FL patients responded, 2 with PRs and 1 with a CR. The patient with MZL achieved a PR.

Four responders remain on study—2 with DLBCL and 2 with FL.

One DLBCL patient with an EZH2 mutation (Y646H) had relapsed after or was refractory to 6 previous treatment regimens. This patient achieved a PR after 16 weeks of tazemetostat. The patient is still in PR at week 44 and remains on study.

Based on these results, Epizyme is currently enrolling patients in a phase 2 study of tazemetostat monotherapy. The trial is open to patients with DLBCL or FL in France, Australia, and the UK.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

ORLANDO, FL—Updated results of a phase 1 study suggest the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (EPZ-6438) can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The drug has demonstrated activity against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

The overall response rate among NHL patients in this study was 56%, and 1 patient has maintained a response for more than 21 months.

In addition, the drug’s safety profile is “still acceptable,” according to Vincent Ribrag, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr Ribrag presented the results of this study at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 473*). The research, which was previously presented at the 13th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma, was sponsored by Epizyme, Inc., the company developing tazemetostat.

The trial has enrolled 58 patients, 21 with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL and 37 with advanced solid tumors. The NHL cohort includes 5 patients with germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 6 cases of non-GCB DLBCL, 3 DLBCL cases of an undetermined subtype, 6 patients with FL, and 1 case of MZL.

At baseline, the NHL patients had a median age of 63 (range, 24-84) and were heavily pretreated. Eighty-five percent of patients had received 3 or more prior therapies, and 33% had received 5 or more. Thirty-eight percent of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 57% had received radiotherapy.

The patients received tazemetostat twice daily at a range of doses. For the dose-escalation portion of the trial, they received 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, 800 mg, or 1600 mg. For the dose-expansion phase, they received 800 mg or 1600 mg.

The researchers are now conducting a drug-drug interaction substudy in which patients receive 800 mg of tazemetostat twice daily and a food-effect substudy in which patients receive the drug at 400 mg twice daily.

Dr Ribrag said the recommended phase 2 dose of tazemetostat is 800 mg twice daily.

Safety

At the data cutoff point (November 7, 2015), 55 patients—20 with NHL and 35 with solid tumors—were evaluable for safety.

Treatment-related adverse events in these patients included asthenia (n=13), nausea (n=8), thrombocytopenia (n=7), dysgeusia (n=5), vomiting (n=5), dry skin (n=4), decreased appetite (n=4), diarrhea (n=4), muscle spasms (n=3), neutropenia (n=3), anemia (n=3), night sweats (n=3), hypertension (n=2), constipation (n=2), peripheral edema (n=2), hypophosphatemia (n=1), anxiety (n=1), depression (n=1), abdominal pain (n=1), and hepatocellular injury (n=1).

There were 4 grade 3 or higher adverse events that were considered treatment-related, including nausea, hypertension, neutropenia, and hepatocellular injury.

Efficacy

Sixteen of the NHL patients were evaluable for efficacy. Nine patients responded to treatment, 2 with complete responses (CRs) and 7 with partial responses (PRs).

Five of the 10 DLBCL patients responded, 4 with PRs and 1 with a CR. Three of the 5 FL patients responded, 2 with PRs and 1 with a CR. The patient with MZL achieved a PR.

Four responders remain on study—2 with DLBCL and 2 with FL.

One DLBCL patient with an EZH2 mutation (Y646H) had relapsed after or was refractory to 6 previous treatment regimens. This patient achieved a PR after 16 weeks of tazemetostat. The patient is still in PR at week 44 and remains on study.

Based on these results, Epizyme is currently enrolling patients in a phase 2 study of tazemetostat monotherapy. The trial is open to patients with DLBCL or FL in France, Australia, and the UK.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

ORLANDO, FL—Updated results of a phase 1 study suggest the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat (EPZ-6438) can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

The drug has demonstrated activity against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).

The overall response rate among NHL patients in this study was 56%, and 1 patient has maintained a response for more than 21 months.

In addition, the drug’s safety profile is “still acceptable,” according to Vincent Ribrag, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr Ribrag presented the results of this study at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 473*). The research, which was previously presented at the 13th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma, was sponsored by Epizyme, Inc., the company developing tazemetostat.

The trial has enrolled 58 patients, 21 with relapsed or refractory B-cell NHL and 37 with advanced solid tumors. The NHL cohort includes 5 patients with germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, 6 cases of non-GCB DLBCL, 3 DLBCL cases of an undetermined subtype, 6 patients with FL, and 1 case of MZL.

At baseline, the NHL patients had a median age of 63 (range, 24-84) and were heavily pretreated. Eighty-five percent of patients had received 3 or more prior therapies, and 33% had received 5 or more. Thirty-eight percent of patients had undergone an autologous transplant, and 57% had received radiotherapy.

The patients received tazemetostat twice daily at a range of doses. For the dose-escalation portion of the trial, they received 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, 800 mg, or 1600 mg. For the dose-expansion phase, they received 800 mg or 1600 mg.

The researchers are now conducting a drug-drug interaction substudy in which patients receive 800 mg of tazemetostat twice daily and a food-effect substudy in which patients receive the drug at 400 mg twice daily.

Dr Ribrag said the recommended phase 2 dose of tazemetostat is 800 mg twice daily.

Safety

At the data cutoff point (November 7, 2015), 55 patients—20 with NHL and 35 with solid tumors—were evaluable for safety.

Treatment-related adverse events in these patients included asthenia (n=13), nausea (n=8), thrombocytopenia (n=7), dysgeusia (n=5), vomiting (n=5), dry skin (n=4), decreased appetite (n=4), diarrhea (n=4), muscle spasms (n=3), neutropenia (n=3), anemia (n=3), night sweats (n=3), hypertension (n=2), constipation (n=2), peripheral edema (n=2), hypophosphatemia (n=1), anxiety (n=1), depression (n=1), abdominal pain (n=1), and hepatocellular injury (n=1).

There were 4 grade 3 or higher adverse events that were considered treatment-related, including nausea, hypertension, neutropenia, and hepatocellular injury.

Efficacy

Sixteen of the NHL patients were evaluable for efficacy. Nine patients responded to treatment, 2 with complete responses (CRs) and 7 with partial responses (PRs).

Five of the 10 DLBCL patients responded, 4 with PRs and 1 with a CR. Three of the 5 FL patients responded, 2 with PRs and 1 with a CR. The patient with MZL achieved a PR.

Four responders remain on study—2 with DLBCL and 2 with FL.

One DLBCL patient with an EZH2 mutation (Y646H) had relapsed after or was refractory to 6 previous treatment regimens. This patient achieved a PR after 16 weeks of tazemetostat. The patient is still in PR at week 44 and remains on study.

Based on these results, Epizyme is currently enrolling patients in a phase 2 study of tazemetostat monotherapy. The trial is open to patients with DLBCL or FL in France, Australia, and the UK.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Micrograph showing PMF

ORLANDO, FL—Having a higher grade of bone marrow (BM) fibrosis may confer inferior overall survival (OS) in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), according to a retrospective study.

Investigators found that having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher at diagnosis was associated with “unique clinical and molecular variables” that suggested a more aggressive disease phenotype.

And the median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher grades of fibrosis.

However, when the investigators divided patients according to their International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk group, having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher was only significantly associated with reduced OS among patients in the low-risk or intermediate-1-risk categories.

Paola Guglielmelli, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence in Italy, presented these findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 351*).

Dr Guglielmelli noted that the prognostic significance of BM fibrosis grade in PMF has been debated. So she and her colleagues set out to analyze the prognostic impact of fibrosis in 540 PMF patients from 6 Italian centers belonging to AGIMM (AIRC-Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative).

BM biopsies were obtained at diagnosis and evaluated by local pathologists according to 2008 World Health Organization criteria. The European consensus scoring system was used to grade fibrosis on a scale of MF-0 to MF-3.

Fifty patients were classified as MF-0 (9.3%), 180 were MF-1 (33.3%), 196 were MF-2 (36.3%), and 114 were MF-3 (21.1%).

Patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to have constitutional symptoms (P<0.0001), splenomegaly ≥10 cm from left costal margin (P<0.0001), a peripheral blast count ≥1% (P<0.0001), a greater risk of anemia (P<0.0001) or thrombocytopenia (P=0.001), and belong to the intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS categories (P<0.0001).

In addition, patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to qualify as high-molecular-risk (HMR), which was defined as having at least 1 mutation in ASXL1, EZH2, SRSF2, or IDH1/2 (P<0.0001). The frequency of HMR patients increased progressively according to fibrosis grade: MF-0 (16%), MF-1 (25.6%), MF-2 (33.7%), and MF-3 (44.7%).

Patients with 2 or more HMR mutated genes were preferentially MF-2 or MF-3. None of the MF-0 patients fell into this category, compared to 4.4% for MF-1, 10.2% for MF-2, and 10.5% for MF-3 (P<0.0001).

Survival

The median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher BM fibrosis grades (P<0.0001). The median OS was 7.2 years in the MF-3 group (hazard ratio [HR]=8.7), 6.7 years in the MF-2 group (HR=7.3), 14.7 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and not reached in the MF-0 group (reference).

In multivariable analysis, having a BM fibrosis grade of 2 or greater was significantly associated with reduced OS (HR=3.8, P=0.01).

Other variables significantly associated with reduced OS were being in the intermediate-1 (HR=2.9, P<0.0001), intermedicate-2 (HR=10.0, P<0.0001), or high-risk IPSS categories (HR=9.7, P<0.0001); having CALR type 2 mutation (HR=3.4, P=0.010), JAK2/MPL mutation (HR=2.4, P=0.003), or being triple-negative (HR=4.5, P<0.0001); being classified as HMR (HR=2.4, P<0.0001); and having 2 or more HMR mutations (HR=4.3, P=0.009).

Dr Guglielmelli and her colleagues also assessed the impact of BM fibrosis grade according to IPSS risk score.

They found that, for patients in the low/intermediate-1-risk categories, the median OS was not reached in the MF-0 group, was 22.8 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and was 15.4 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups combined (HR=7.4, P=0.001).

In the intermediate-2/high-risk categories, the median OS was 11 years for the MF-0 group, 3.6 years for the MF-1 group (HR=2.2), and 3.6 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups (HR=2.7, P=0.28).

Dr Guglielmelli therefore concluded that BM fibrosis grade might help refine prognostic stratification for PMF patients in the lower-risk IPSS categories. However, she noted that this study had limitations, and the results should be confirmed with prospective research.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Micrograph showing PMF

ORLANDO, FL—Having a higher grade of bone marrow (BM) fibrosis may confer inferior overall survival (OS) in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), according to a retrospective study.

Investigators found that having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher at diagnosis was associated with “unique clinical and molecular variables” that suggested a more aggressive disease phenotype.

And the median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher grades of fibrosis.

However, when the investigators divided patients according to their International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk group, having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher was only significantly associated with reduced OS among patients in the low-risk or intermediate-1-risk categories.

Paola Guglielmelli, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence in Italy, presented these findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 351*).

Dr Guglielmelli noted that the prognostic significance of BM fibrosis grade in PMF has been debated. So she and her colleagues set out to analyze the prognostic impact of fibrosis in 540 PMF patients from 6 Italian centers belonging to AGIMM (AIRC-Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative).

BM biopsies were obtained at diagnosis and evaluated by local pathologists according to 2008 World Health Organization criteria. The European consensus scoring system was used to grade fibrosis on a scale of MF-0 to MF-3.

Fifty patients were classified as MF-0 (9.3%), 180 were MF-1 (33.3%), 196 were MF-2 (36.3%), and 114 were MF-3 (21.1%).

Patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to have constitutional symptoms (P<0.0001), splenomegaly ≥10 cm from left costal margin (P<0.0001), a peripheral blast count ≥1% (P<0.0001), a greater risk of anemia (P<0.0001) or thrombocytopenia (P=0.001), and belong to the intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS categories (P<0.0001).

In addition, patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to qualify as high-molecular-risk (HMR), which was defined as having at least 1 mutation in ASXL1, EZH2, SRSF2, or IDH1/2 (P<0.0001). The frequency of HMR patients increased progressively according to fibrosis grade: MF-0 (16%), MF-1 (25.6%), MF-2 (33.7%), and MF-3 (44.7%).

Patients with 2 or more HMR mutated genes were preferentially MF-2 or MF-3. None of the MF-0 patients fell into this category, compared to 4.4% for MF-1, 10.2% for MF-2, and 10.5% for MF-3 (P<0.0001).

Survival

The median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher BM fibrosis grades (P<0.0001). The median OS was 7.2 years in the MF-3 group (hazard ratio [HR]=8.7), 6.7 years in the MF-2 group (HR=7.3), 14.7 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and not reached in the MF-0 group (reference).

In multivariable analysis, having a BM fibrosis grade of 2 or greater was significantly associated with reduced OS (HR=3.8, P=0.01).

Other variables significantly associated with reduced OS were being in the intermediate-1 (HR=2.9, P<0.0001), intermedicate-2 (HR=10.0, P<0.0001), or high-risk IPSS categories (HR=9.7, P<0.0001); having CALR type 2 mutation (HR=3.4, P=0.010), JAK2/MPL mutation (HR=2.4, P=0.003), or being triple-negative (HR=4.5, P<0.0001); being classified as HMR (HR=2.4, P<0.0001); and having 2 or more HMR mutations (HR=4.3, P=0.009).

Dr Guglielmelli and her colleagues also assessed the impact of BM fibrosis grade according to IPSS risk score.

They found that, for patients in the low/intermediate-1-risk categories, the median OS was not reached in the MF-0 group, was 22.8 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and was 15.4 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups combined (HR=7.4, P=0.001).

In the intermediate-2/high-risk categories, the median OS was 11 years for the MF-0 group, 3.6 years for the MF-1 group (HR=2.2), and 3.6 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups (HR=2.7, P=0.28).

Dr Guglielmelli therefore concluded that BM fibrosis grade might help refine prognostic stratification for PMF patients in the lower-risk IPSS categories. However, she noted that this study had limitations, and the results should be confirmed with prospective research.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Micrograph showing PMF

ORLANDO, FL—Having a higher grade of bone marrow (BM) fibrosis may confer inferior overall survival (OS) in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), according to a retrospective study.

Investigators found that having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher at diagnosis was associated with “unique clinical and molecular variables” that suggested a more aggressive disease phenotype.

And the median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher grades of fibrosis.

However, when the investigators divided patients according to their International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk group, having a fibrosis grade of 2 or higher was only significantly associated with reduced OS among patients in the low-risk or intermediate-1-risk categories.

Paola Guglielmelli, MD, PhD, of the University of Florence in Italy, presented these findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 351*).

Dr Guglielmelli noted that the prognostic significance of BM fibrosis grade in PMF has been debated. So she and her colleagues set out to analyze the prognostic impact of fibrosis in 540 PMF patients from 6 Italian centers belonging to AGIMM (AIRC-Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative).

BM biopsies were obtained at diagnosis and evaluated by local pathologists according to 2008 World Health Organization criteria. The European consensus scoring system was used to grade fibrosis on a scale of MF-0 to MF-3.

Fifty patients were classified as MF-0 (9.3%), 180 were MF-1 (33.3%), 196 were MF-2 (36.3%), and 114 were MF-3 (21.1%).

Patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to have constitutional symptoms (P<0.0001), splenomegaly ≥10 cm from left costal margin (P<0.0001), a peripheral blast count ≥1% (P<0.0001), a greater risk of anemia (P<0.0001) or thrombocytopenia (P=0.001), and belong to the intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS categories (P<0.0001).

In addition, patients in the MF-2 and MF-3 groups were significantly more likely to qualify as high-molecular-risk (HMR), which was defined as having at least 1 mutation in ASXL1, EZH2, SRSF2, or IDH1/2 (P<0.0001). The frequency of HMR patients increased progressively according to fibrosis grade: MF-0 (16%), MF-1 (25.6%), MF-2 (33.7%), and MF-3 (44.7%).

Patients with 2 or more HMR mutated genes were preferentially MF-2 or MF-3. None of the MF-0 patients fell into this category, compared to 4.4% for MF-1, 10.2% for MF-2, and 10.5% for MF-3 (P<0.0001).

Survival

The median OS was significantly shorter in patients with higher BM fibrosis grades (P<0.0001). The median OS was 7.2 years in the MF-3 group (hazard ratio [HR]=8.7), 6.7 years in the MF-2 group (HR=7.3), 14.7 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and not reached in the MF-0 group (reference).

In multivariable analysis, having a BM fibrosis grade of 2 or greater was significantly associated with reduced OS (HR=3.8, P=0.01).

Other variables significantly associated with reduced OS were being in the intermediate-1 (HR=2.9, P<0.0001), intermedicate-2 (HR=10.0, P<0.0001), or high-risk IPSS categories (HR=9.7, P<0.0001); having CALR type 2 mutation (HR=3.4, P=0.010), JAK2/MPL mutation (HR=2.4, P=0.003), or being triple-negative (HR=4.5, P<0.0001); being classified as HMR (HR=2.4, P<0.0001); and having 2 or more HMR mutations (HR=4.3, P=0.009).

Dr Guglielmelli and her colleagues also assessed the impact of BM fibrosis grade according to IPSS risk score.

They found that, for patients in the low/intermediate-1-risk categories, the median OS was not reached in the MF-0 group, was 22.8 years in the MF-1 group (HR=3.9), and was 15.4 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups combined (HR=7.4, P=0.001).

In the intermediate-2/high-risk categories, the median OS was 11 years for the MF-0 group, 3.6 years for the MF-1 group (HR=2.2), and 3.6 years in the MF-2 and -3 groups (HR=2.7, P=0.28).

Dr Guglielmelli therefore concluded that BM fibrosis grade might help refine prognostic stratification for PMF patients in the lower-risk IPSS categories. However, she noted that this study had limitations, and the results should be confirmed with prospective research.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Woman exercising in a park

Photo by Peter Griffin

ORLANDO, FL—Frailty after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), while associated with higher mortality, is not necessarily a function of age, according to investigators studying the impact of frailty on transplant outcomes.

Instead, other factors, such as increasing time from transplant, employment status, medical leave or disability, and limitations of social activities, were significantly associated with higher odds of frailty.

The investigators prospectively studied 96 HSCT recipients, age 40 and older, to determine the prevalence of frailty in HSCT populations and its impact on outcomes, including early post-transplant non-relapse mortality (NRM).

Mukta Arora, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, reported the findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 388*).

The investigators defined frailty as the presence of 3 or more of the following criteria: low grip strength, exhaustion, slowed walking speed, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. They defined pre-frailty as having 1 or 2 of these characteristics.

The investigators conducted multi-domain geriatric assessments of patients prior to HSCT and after transplant at 100 days, 6 months, and 1 year. The assessment included function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, nutritional status, and demographic, transplant, and disease-related information.

Forty-eight patients were in the younger age group (40–59), and 48 were in the older age group (60–74). All had undergone HSCT between February 2014 and April 2015.

Patient demographics

Patients in the younger group were a median age of 54 (range, 40–59) at transplant. Sixty-five percent were male, 58% had an autologous transplant, and 79% received myeloablative conditioning.

Patients in the older group were a median age of 65 (range, 60–73) at transplant. Fifty-four percent were male, 46% had an autologous transplant, and 46% had myeloablative conditioning.

The difference between the older and younger groups in their conditioning regimen was significant (P<0.01).

The groups were comparable in terms of the HSCT comorbidity index but were significantly different in employment status (P<0.01).

“As expected,” Dr Arora said, “there were more patients who were retired in the older group.”

In the younger group, 31% were employed, 3% retired, 56% on medical leave or disabled, and 10% unemployed.

In the older group, 6% were employed, 62% retired, 28% on medical leave or disabled, and 4% unemployed.

“There was no difference in the social activity and social support scores between the 2 groups,” Dr Arora observed.

Frailty assessments

In the younger group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 47%, and the prevalence of frailty was 11%. At 6 months after HSCT, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 45%, and the prevalence of frailty was 41% (P<0.01).

In the older group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 42%, and the prevalence of frailty was 6%. At 6 months, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 44%, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (P<0.01).

The investigators then estimated the predictors of frailty.

Significant predictors of frailty included time since HSCT (odds ratio [OR]=3.7, 95% CI: 1.9-7.2, P<0.01), employment status (retired: OR=7.3, 95% CI 1.2 – 46.2, P=0.03), on medical leave or disabled (OR=11.2, 95% CI: 1.8 – 67.7, P=0.01), limitations in social activities (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 – 1.08, P=0.01), and baseline pre-frailty (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 2.3 – 45.5, P<0.01).

Allogeneic transplant was associated with higher odds of frailty than autologous (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 0.9 – 10.2), although it did not reach significance (P=0.06).

Investigators next estimated the impact of frailty or pre-frailty on NRM and identified a trend toward increased NRM in frail patients.

The 46 patients classified as not frail at baseline had a 7% cumulative incidence of NRM (P=0.07). The 42 patients classified as pre-frail had a 23% cumulative incidence of NRM, while the 8 patients classified as frail at baseline had a 28% cumulative incidence of NRM.

“So, to conclude, in this early study, frailty was noted in 8% and pre-frailty in 44% of the transplant population prior to transplant, and was not dependent on age,” Dr Arora said. “Frailty is a transitional state and appears to reflect a dynamic progression from robustness to functional decline with time since [HSCT].”

Because frailty is associated with higher mortality, the investigators believe vulnerable populations should be identified and their need for specific interventions defined.

This research was funded by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Woman exercising in a park

Photo by Peter Griffin

ORLANDO, FL—Frailty after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), while associated with higher mortality, is not necessarily a function of age, according to investigators studying the impact of frailty on transplant outcomes.

Instead, other factors, such as increasing time from transplant, employment status, medical leave or disability, and limitations of social activities, were significantly associated with higher odds of frailty.

The investigators prospectively studied 96 HSCT recipients, age 40 and older, to determine the prevalence of frailty in HSCT populations and its impact on outcomes, including early post-transplant non-relapse mortality (NRM).

Mukta Arora, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, reported the findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 388*).

The investigators defined frailty as the presence of 3 or more of the following criteria: low grip strength, exhaustion, slowed walking speed, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. They defined pre-frailty as having 1 or 2 of these characteristics.

The investigators conducted multi-domain geriatric assessments of patients prior to HSCT and after transplant at 100 days, 6 months, and 1 year. The assessment included function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, nutritional status, and demographic, transplant, and disease-related information.

Forty-eight patients were in the younger age group (40–59), and 48 were in the older age group (60–74). All had undergone HSCT between February 2014 and April 2015.

Patient demographics

Patients in the younger group were a median age of 54 (range, 40–59) at transplant. Sixty-five percent were male, 58% had an autologous transplant, and 79% received myeloablative conditioning.

Patients in the older group were a median age of 65 (range, 60–73) at transplant. Fifty-four percent were male, 46% had an autologous transplant, and 46% had myeloablative conditioning.

The difference between the older and younger groups in their conditioning regimen was significant (P<0.01).

The groups were comparable in terms of the HSCT comorbidity index but were significantly different in employment status (P<0.01).

“As expected,” Dr Arora said, “there were more patients who were retired in the older group.”

In the younger group, 31% were employed, 3% retired, 56% on medical leave or disabled, and 10% unemployed.

In the older group, 6% were employed, 62% retired, 28% on medical leave or disabled, and 4% unemployed.

“There was no difference in the social activity and social support scores between the 2 groups,” Dr Arora observed.

Frailty assessments

In the younger group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 47%, and the prevalence of frailty was 11%. At 6 months after HSCT, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 45%, and the prevalence of frailty was 41% (P<0.01).

In the older group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 42%, and the prevalence of frailty was 6%. At 6 months, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 44%, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (P<0.01).

The investigators then estimated the predictors of frailty.

Significant predictors of frailty included time since HSCT (odds ratio [OR]=3.7, 95% CI: 1.9-7.2, P<0.01), employment status (retired: OR=7.3, 95% CI 1.2 – 46.2, P=0.03), on medical leave or disabled (OR=11.2, 95% CI: 1.8 – 67.7, P=0.01), limitations in social activities (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 – 1.08, P=0.01), and baseline pre-frailty (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 2.3 – 45.5, P<0.01).

Allogeneic transplant was associated with higher odds of frailty than autologous (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 0.9 – 10.2), although it did not reach significance (P=0.06).

Investigators next estimated the impact of frailty or pre-frailty on NRM and identified a trend toward increased NRM in frail patients.

The 46 patients classified as not frail at baseline had a 7% cumulative incidence of NRM (P=0.07). The 42 patients classified as pre-frail had a 23% cumulative incidence of NRM, while the 8 patients classified as frail at baseline had a 28% cumulative incidence of NRM.

“So, to conclude, in this early study, frailty was noted in 8% and pre-frailty in 44% of the transplant population prior to transplant, and was not dependent on age,” Dr Arora said. “Frailty is a transitional state and appears to reflect a dynamic progression from robustness to functional decline with time since [HSCT].”

Because frailty is associated with higher mortality, the investigators believe vulnerable populations should be identified and their need for specific interventions defined.

This research was funded by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Woman exercising in a park

Photo by Peter Griffin

ORLANDO, FL—Frailty after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), while associated with higher mortality, is not necessarily a function of age, according to investigators studying the impact of frailty on transplant outcomes.

Instead, other factors, such as increasing time from transplant, employment status, medical leave or disability, and limitations of social activities, were significantly associated with higher odds of frailty.

The investigators prospectively studied 96 HSCT recipients, age 40 and older, to determine the prevalence of frailty in HSCT populations and its impact on outcomes, including early post-transplant non-relapse mortality (NRM).

Mukta Arora, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, reported the findings at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 388*).

The investigators defined frailty as the presence of 3 or more of the following criteria: low grip strength, exhaustion, slowed walking speed, low physical activity, and unintentional weight loss. They defined pre-frailty as having 1 or 2 of these characteristics.

The investigators conducted multi-domain geriatric assessments of patients prior to HSCT and after transplant at 100 days, 6 months, and 1 year. The assessment included function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, nutritional status, and demographic, transplant, and disease-related information.

Forty-eight patients were in the younger age group (40–59), and 48 were in the older age group (60–74). All had undergone HSCT between February 2014 and April 2015.

Patient demographics

Patients in the younger group were a median age of 54 (range, 40–59) at transplant. Sixty-five percent were male, 58% had an autologous transplant, and 79% received myeloablative conditioning.

Patients in the older group were a median age of 65 (range, 60–73) at transplant. Fifty-four percent were male, 46% had an autologous transplant, and 46% had myeloablative conditioning.

The difference between the older and younger groups in their conditioning regimen was significant (P<0.01).

The groups were comparable in terms of the HSCT comorbidity index but were significantly different in employment status (P<0.01).

“As expected,” Dr Arora said, “there were more patients who were retired in the older group.”

In the younger group, 31% were employed, 3% retired, 56% on medical leave or disabled, and 10% unemployed.

In the older group, 6% were employed, 62% retired, 28% on medical leave or disabled, and 4% unemployed.

“There was no difference in the social activity and social support scores between the 2 groups,” Dr Arora observed.

Frailty assessments

In the younger group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 47%, and the prevalence of frailty was 11%. At 6 months after HSCT, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 45%, and the prevalence of frailty was 41% (P<0.01).

In the older group, at baseline, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 42%, and the prevalence of frailty was 6%. At 6 months, the prevalence of pre-frailty was 44%, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (P<0.01).

The investigators then estimated the predictors of frailty.

Significant predictors of frailty included time since HSCT (odds ratio [OR]=3.7, 95% CI: 1.9-7.2, P<0.01), employment status (retired: OR=7.3, 95% CI 1.2 – 46.2, P=0.03), on medical leave or disabled (OR=11.2, 95% CI: 1.8 – 67.7, P=0.01), limitations in social activities (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 – 1.08, P=0.01), and baseline pre-frailty (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 2.3 – 45.5, P<0.01).

Allogeneic transplant was associated with higher odds of frailty than autologous (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 0.9 – 10.2), although it did not reach significance (P=0.06).

Investigators next estimated the impact of frailty or pre-frailty on NRM and identified a trend toward increased NRM in frail patients.

The 46 patients classified as not frail at baseline had a 7% cumulative incidence of NRM (P=0.07). The 42 patients classified as pre-frail had a 23% cumulative incidence of NRM, while the 8 patients classified as frail at baseline had a 28% cumulative incidence of NRM.

“So, to conclude, in this early study, frailty was noted in 8% and pre-frailty in 44% of the transplant population prior to transplant, and was not dependent on age,” Dr Arora said. “Frailty is a transitional state and appears to reflect a dynamic progression from robustness to functional decline with time since [HSCT].”

Because frailty is associated with higher mortality, the investigators believe vulnerable populations should be identified and their need for specific interventions defined.

This research was funded by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

*Data in the abstract differ from the presentation.

Jesús San-Miguel, MD, PhD

Photo courtesy of the

University of Navarra

ORLANDO, FL—The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients can double the rate of deep responses and prolong progression-free survival (PFS), according to an updated analysis of data from the PANORMA 1 trial.

Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, was the first agent of its class to produce a statistically significant and clinically meaningful increase in the median PFS of patients with relapsed/refractory MM in a phase 3 trial, noted Jesús F. San-Miguel, MD, PhD, of the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain.

Dr San-Miguel presented results of the updated analysis at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4230).

In the PANORAMA 1 trial, patients receiving panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone had a significantly prolonged median PFS of 12 months versus 8.1 months in patients treated with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone.

A subgroup analysis showed that the PFS benefit was improved in patients with previous exposure to bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone also led to a significant increase in high-quality responses.

With their analysis, Dr San-Miguel and his colleagues set out to determine the effect of responses on clinical outcomes of patients treated in PANORAMA 1, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs.

The researchers conducted a landmark analysis at 12, 18, and 24 weeks to assess the median PFS in patients who achieved a complete response (CR)/near complete response (nCR) or partial response (PR).

“For the total study population, the rates of high-quality responses [CR/nCR rate] were significantly higher in the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone arm [28%] than in the control arm [16%],” Dr San-Miguel said.

Among the subgroup with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, the CR/nCR rate was also higher in the triple-drug arm (22.3%) than in the 2-drug arm (9.9%).

Among patients who took panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone, the duration of response was twice as long in those who achieved CR/nCR (18.4 months) as in those who achieved a PR (9 months).

The median PFS at 12 weeks for patients who received panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone was increased in patients achieving high-quality responses: 16.5 months for nCR as compared to 10.3 months for PR.

The subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs who achieved deeper responses also demonstrated longer PFS at 12 weeks: a median of 13.7 months for nCR and 8.1 months for PR.

“In both the overall study population and the subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, a 2-fold increase in deep responses was achieved with panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone compared with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone,” Dr San-Miguel said. “In both groups, deep responses were associated with a prolonged PFS and a longer duration of response.”

He noted that the magnitude of benefit at each time point appeared greater among patients who received the triple-drug combination.

“These data further support achievement of deeper responses as a treatment goal and a robust and consistent benefit of panobinostat in the phase 3 study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs,” Dr San-Miguel said.

The PANORAMA 1 trial was sponsored by Novartis, the company developing panobinostat. Three researchers involved in the current analysis are employees of Novartis, and other researchers reported having relationships (receiving research funding, consulting, etc.) with a range of other pharmaceutical companies.

Jesús San-Miguel, MD, PhD

Photo courtesy of the

University of Navarra

ORLANDO, FL—The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients can double the rate of deep responses and prolong progression-free survival (PFS), according to an updated analysis of data from the PANORMA 1 trial.

Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, was the first agent of its class to produce a statistically significant and clinically meaningful increase in the median PFS of patients with relapsed/refractory MM in a phase 3 trial, noted Jesús F. San-Miguel, MD, PhD, of the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain.

Dr San-Miguel presented results of the updated analysis at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4230).

In the PANORAMA 1 trial, patients receiving panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone had a significantly prolonged median PFS of 12 months versus 8.1 months in patients treated with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone.

A subgroup analysis showed that the PFS benefit was improved in patients with previous exposure to bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone also led to a significant increase in high-quality responses.

With their analysis, Dr San-Miguel and his colleagues set out to determine the effect of responses on clinical outcomes of patients treated in PANORAMA 1, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs.

The researchers conducted a landmark analysis at 12, 18, and 24 weeks to assess the median PFS in patients who achieved a complete response (CR)/near complete response (nCR) or partial response (PR).

“For the total study population, the rates of high-quality responses [CR/nCR rate] were significantly higher in the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone arm [28%] than in the control arm [16%],” Dr San-Miguel said.

Among the subgroup with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, the CR/nCR rate was also higher in the triple-drug arm (22.3%) than in the 2-drug arm (9.9%).

Among patients who took panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone, the duration of response was twice as long in those who achieved CR/nCR (18.4 months) as in those who achieved a PR (9 months).

The median PFS at 12 weeks for patients who received panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone was increased in patients achieving high-quality responses: 16.5 months for nCR as compared to 10.3 months for PR.

The subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs who achieved deeper responses also demonstrated longer PFS at 12 weeks: a median of 13.7 months for nCR and 8.1 months for PR.

“In both the overall study population and the subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, a 2-fold increase in deep responses was achieved with panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone compared with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone,” Dr San-Miguel said. “In both groups, deep responses were associated with a prolonged PFS and a longer duration of response.”

He noted that the magnitude of benefit at each time point appeared greater among patients who received the triple-drug combination.

“These data further support achievement of deeper responses as a treatment goal and a robust and consistent benefit of panobinostat in the phase 3 study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs,” Dr San-Miguel said.

The PANORAMA 1 trial was sponsored by Novartis, the company developing panobinostat. Three researchers involved in the current analysis are employees of Novartis, and other researchers reported having relationships (receiving research funding, consulting, etc.) with a range of other pharmaceutical companies.

Jesús San-Miguel, MD, PhD

Photo courtesy of the

University of Navarra

ORLANDO, FL—The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients can double the rate of deep responses and prolong progression-free survival (PFS), according to an updated analysis of data from the PANORMA 1 trial.

Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, was the first agent of its class to produce a statistically significant and clinically meaningful increase in the median PFS of patients with relapsed/refractory MM in a phase 3 trial, noted Jesús F. San-Miguel, MD, PhD, of the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain.

Dr San-Miguel presented results of the updated analysis at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4230).

In the PANORAMA 1 trial, patients receiving panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone had a significantly prolonged median PFS of 12 months versus 8.1 months in patients treated with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone.

A subgroup analysis showed that the PFS benefit was improved in patients with previous exposure to bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib-dexamethasone also led to a significant increase in high-quality responses.

With their analysis, Dr San-Miguel and his colleagues set out to determine the effect of responses on clinical outcomes of patients treated in PANORAMA 1, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs.

The researchers conducted a landmark analysis at 12, 18, and 24 weeks to assess the median PFS in patients who achieved a complete response (CR)/near complete response (nCR) or partial response (PR).

“For the total study population, the rates of high-quality responses [CR/nCR rate] were significantly higher in the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone arm [28%] than in the control arm [16%],” Dr San-Miguel said.

Among the subgroup with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, the CR/nCR rate was also higher in the triple-drug arm (22.3%) than in the 2-drug arm (9.9%).

Among patients who took panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone, the duration of response was twice as long in those who achieved CR/nCR (18.4 months) as in those who achieved a PR (9 months).

The median PFS at 12 weeks for patients who received panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone was increased in patients achieving high-quality responses: 16.5 months for nCR as compared to 10.3 months for PR.

The subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs who achieved deeper responses also demonstrated longer PFS at 12 weeks: a median of 13.7 months for nCR and 8.1 months for PR.

“In both the overall study population and the subgroup of patients with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs, a 2-fold increase in deep responses was achieved with panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone compared with placebo-bortezomib-dexamethasone,” Dr San-Miguel said. “In both groups, deep responses were associated with a prolonged PFS and a longer duration of response.”

He noted that the magnitude of benefit at each time point appeared greater among patients who received the triple-drug combination.

“These data further support achievement of deeper responses as a treatment goal and a robust and consistent benefit of panobinostat in the phase 3 study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including those with prior exposure to bortezomib and IMiDs,” Dr San-Miguel said.

The PANORAMA 1 trial was sponsored by Novartis, the company developing panobinostat. Three researchers involved in the current analysis are employees of Novartis, and other researchers reported having relationships (receiving research funding, consulting, etc.) with a range of other pharmaceutical companies.

ORLANDO – The one-two punch of combining the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab with the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone produced responses in 76% of 17 heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the KEYNOTE-023 study.

This included four very good partial responses (24%) and nine partial responses (53%).

In nine lenalidomide-refractory patients, the overall response rate was 56%, including two very good partial responses (22%) and three partial responses (33%).

The efficacy results are preliminary, but support the continued development of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Jesús San Miguel of Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He closed his presentation with two illustrative cases highlighting a rapid response lasting more than a year and a half in a 49-year-old man with myeloma triple-refractory to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone.

The second case involved a patient with double-refractory myeloma and extramedullary disease who achieved a stringent complete response after two cycles of fourth-line pembrolizumab that was associated with a “striking” reduction in lesion volume on computed tomography scans, he said.

The median duration of response among the 17 evaluable patients was 9.7 months.

The median time to first response was 1.2 months (range 1.0 months to 6.5 months). But some patients require more time and, interestingly, the quality of the response was upgraded in 11% with continued treatment, Dr. San Miguel said.

The rationale for combining PD-1 inhibitors with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) lies in recent research showing that lenalidomide reduces PD-ligand 1 and PD-1 expression on multiple myeloma cells as well as on T and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he explained. In addition, lenalidomide enhances checkpoint blockade–induced effector cytokine production in multiple myeloma bone marrow and induces cytotoxicity against myeloma cells.

“Lenalidomide will increase the number of T cells and the T-cell activation and anti-PD-1 will release the brake in order to allow these activated T cells to interact with the tumor,” Dr. San Miguel said.

Patients enrolled in KEYSTONE-023 were heavily pretreated, with 26% previously exposed to pomalidomide, 76% refractory to lenalidomide, 80% refractory to their last line of therapy, and 86% having undergone prior ASCT. Half the patients were double, triple, or quadruple refractory, he noted.

The study (Abstract 505) was designed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pembrolizumab and to assess its safety and tolerability when given with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma failing at least two prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an IMiD. Their median age was 62 years; 64% were male.

In the dose-determination stage, three of six patients treated with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 40 mg experienced dose-limiting toxicities that resolved without treatment discontinuation.

After dose adjustments, a “flat dose” of pembrolizumab 200 mg given every other week in a rapid 30-minute intravenous infusion without premedication with lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly did not cause any dose-limiting toxicities and was identified as the final MTD, Dr. San Miguel said.

The regimen is to continue for 24 months or until tumor progression or excessive side effects and was carried forward into the dose-expansion stage in 33 additional patients with a median follow-up of 48 days.

Among all 50 patients evaluable for safety, 72% experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event of any grade and 46% (23/50 patients) had grade 3/4 adverse events including neutropenia (22%), thrombocytopenia and anemia (8% each), hyperglycemia (6%), and fatigue, muscle spasms, and diarrhea (2% each).

The adverse events were consistent with the individual drug safety profiles, but “the incidence may be underestimated due to the limited drug exposure,” Dr. San Miguel cautioned.

Immune-mediated adverse events included two cases each of hyper- and hypothyroidism, one case of thyroiditis, and one grade 2 adrenal insufficiency. No cases of colitis or pneumonitis were reported. No dose modifications or treatment discontinuations were required to mange the immune-related side effects, he said. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

In a second study reported during the same oral myeloma session, pneumonitis cropped up in 10% of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed multiple myeloma receiving a slightly different regimen of pembrolizumab plus the IMiD pomalidomide (Pomalyst) and dexamethasone. The overall response rate in the phase II study was 60% among 27 evaluable patients and 55% in those double-refractory to IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The one-two punch of combining the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab with the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone produced responses in 76% of 17 heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the KEYNOTE-023 study.

This included four very good partial responses (24%) and nine partial responses (53%).

In nine lenalidomide-refractory patients, the overall response rate was 56%, including two very good partial responses (22%) and three partial responses (33%).

The efficacy results are preliminary, but support the continued development of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Jesús San Miguel of Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He closed his presentation with two illustrative cases highlighting a rapid response lasting more than a year and a half in a 49-year-old man with myeloma triple-refractory to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone.

The second case involved a patient with double-refractory myeloma and extramedullary disease who achieved a stringent complete response after two cycles of fourth-line pembrolizumab that was associated with a “striking” reduction in lesion volume on computed tomography scans, he said.

The median duration of response among the 17 evaluable patients was 9.7 months.

The median time to first response was 1.2 months (range 1.0 months to 6.5 months). But some patients require more time and, interestingly, the quality of the response was upgraded in 11% with continued treatment, Dr. San Miguel said.

The rationale for combining PD-1 inhibitors with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) lies in recent research showing that lenalidomide reduces PD-ligand 1 and PD-1 expression on multiple myeloma cells as well as on T and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he explained. In addition, lenalidomide enhances checkpoint blockade–induced effector cytokine production in multiple myeloma bone marrow and induces cytotoxicity against myeloma cells.

“Lenalidomide will increase the number of T cells and the T-cell activation and anti-PD-1 will release the brake in order to allow these activated T cells to interact with the tumor,” Dr. San Miguel said.

Patients enrolled in KEYSTONE-023 were heavily pretreated, with 26% previously exposed to pomalidomide, 76% refractory to lenalidomide, 80% refractory to their last line of therapy, and 86% having undergone prior ASCT. Half the patients were double, triple, or quadruple refractory, he noted.

The study (Abstract 505) was designed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pembrolizumab and to assess its safety and tolerability when given with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma failing at least two prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an IMiD. Their median age was 62 years; 64% were male.

In the dose-determination stage, three of six patients treated with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 40 mg experienced dose-limiting toxicities that resolved without treatment discontinuation.

After dose adjustments, a “flat dose” of pembrolizumab 200 mg given every other week in a rapid 30-minute intravenous infusion without premedication with lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly did not cause any dose-limiting toxicities and was identified as the final MTD, Dr. San Miguel said.

The regimen is to continue for 24 months or until tumor progression or excessive side effects and was carried forward into the dose-expansion stage in 33 additional patients with a median follow-up of 48 days.

Among all 50 patients evaluable for safety, 72% experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event of any grade and 46% (23/50 patients) had grade 3/4 adverse events including neutropenia (22%), thrombocytopenia and anemia (8% each), hyperglycemia (6%), and fatigue, muscle spasms, and diarrhea (2% each).

The adverse events were consistent with the individual drug safety profiles, but “the incidence may be underestimated due to the limited drug exposure,” Dr. San Miguel cautioned.

Immune-mediated adverse events included two cases each of hyper- and hypothyroidism, one case of thyroiditis, and one grade 2 adrenal insufficiency. No cases of colitis or pneumonitis were reported. No dose modifications or treatment discontinuations were required to mange the immune-related side effects, he said. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

In a second study reported during the same oral myeloma session, pneumonitis cropped up in 10% of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed multiple myeloma receiving a slightly different regimen of pembrolizumab plus the IMiD pomalidomide (Pomalyst) and dexamethasone. The overall response rate in the phase II study was 60% among 27 evaluable patients and 55% in those double-refractory to IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The one-two punch of combining the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab with the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone produced responses in 76% of 17 heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the KEYNOTE-023 study.

This included four very good partial responses (24%) and nine partial responses (53%).

In nine lenalidomide-refractory patients, the overall response rate was 56%, including two very good partial responses (22%) and three partial responses (33%).

The efficacy results are preliminary, but support the continued development of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with multiple myeloma, Dr. Jesús San Miguel of Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

He closed his presentation with two illustrative cases highlighting a rapid response lasting more than a year and a half in a 49-year-old man with myeloma triple-refractory to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone.

The second case involved a patient with double-refractory myeloma and extramedullary disease who achieved a stringent complete response after two cycles of fourth-line pembrolizumab that was associated with a “striking” reduction in lesion volume on computed tomography scans, he said.

The median duration of response among the 17 evaluable patients was 9.7 months.

The median time to first response was 1.2 months (range 1.0 months to 6.5 months). But some patients require more time and, interestingly, the quality of the response was upgraded in 11% with continued treatment, Dr. San Miguel said.

The rationale for combining PD-1 inhibitors with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) lies in recent research showing that lenalidomide reduces PD-ligand 1 and PD-1 expression on multiple myeloma cells as well as on T and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, he explained. In addition, lenalidomide enhances checkpoint blockade–induced effector cytokine production in multiple myeloma bone marrow and induces cytotoxicity against myeloma cells.

“Lenalidomide will increase the number of T cells and the T-cell activation and anti-PD-1 will release the brake in order to allow these activated T cells to interact with the tumor,” Dr. San Miguel said.

Patients enrolled in KEYSTONE-023 were heavily pretreated, with 26% previously exposed to pomalidomide, 76% refractory to lenalidomide, 80% refractory to their last line of therapy, and 86% having undergone prior ASCT. Half the patients were double, triple, or quadruple refractory, he noted.

The study (Abstract 505) was designed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pembrolizumab and to assess its safety and tolerability when given with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma failing at least two prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an IMiD. Their median age was 62 years; 64% were male.

In the dose-determination stage, three of six patients treated with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 40 mg experienced dose-limiting toxicities that resolved without treatment discontinuation.

After dose adjustments, a “flat dose” of pembrolizumab 200 mg given every other week in a rapid 30-minute intravenous infusion without premedication with lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly did not cause any dose-limiting toxicities and was identified as the final MTD, Dr. San Miguel said.

The regimen is to continue for 24 months or until tumor progression or excessive side effects and was carried forward into the dose-expansion stage in 33 additional patients with a median follow-up of 48 days.

Among all 50 patients evaluable for safety, 72% experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event of any grade and 46% (23/50 patients) had grade 3/4 adverse events including neutropenia (22%), thrombocytopenia and anemia (8% each), hyperglycemia (6%), and fatigue, muscle spasms, and diarrhea (2% each).

The adverse events were consistent with the individual drug safety profiles, but “the incidence may be underestimated due to the limited drug exposure,” Dr. San Miguel cautioned.

Immune-mediated adverse events included two cases each of hyper- and hypothyroidism, one case of thyroiditis, and one grade 2 adrenal insufficiency. No cases of colitis or pneumonitis were reported. No dose modifications or treatment discontinuations were required to mange the immune-related side effects, he said. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

In a second study reported during the same oral myeloma session, pneumonitis cropped up in 10% of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed multiple myeloma receiving a slightly different regimen of pembrolizumab plus the IMiD pomalidomide (Pomalyst) and dexamethasone. The overall response rate in the phase II study was 60% among 27 evaluable patients and 55% in those double-refractory to IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors.

[email protected]