Aggressive Lymphomas

Bortezomib in combination with rituximab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), compared with standard treatment, according to final results from the international, phase 3 LYM-3002 trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

After a median follow-up period of 82.0 months, median overall survival was 90.7 months among participants who were given first-line bortezomib in addition to rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) versus 55.7 months in the control arm, where patients were given rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), for a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.85; P = .001).

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues also reported that patients in the bortezomib arm experienced two novel adverse effects, which were different from findings reported in the primary analysis. Each case was classified as grade 4; there was one case of gastric cancer and one case of lung adenocarcinoma.

The findings were reported in the Lancet Oncology.

Among 268 patients in the follow-up analysis set, the median age was 66 years and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI). For those considered high risk, no significant difference was noted when comparing the two groups on the basis of overall survival.

“When analyzed according to MIPI risk category, VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved overall survival, compared with R-CHOP in the low-risk and intermediate-risk categories, but not in the high-risk category,” the investigators wrote.

The authors acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that rituximab was not given as a maintenance therapy since it was not considered standard of care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommended that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Robak T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30685-5.

Bortezomib in combination with rituximab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), compared with standard treatment, according to final results from the international, phase 3 LYM-3002 trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

After a median follow-up period of 82.0 months, median overall survival was 90.7 months among participants who were given first-line bortezomib in addition to rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) versus 55.7 months in the control arm, where patients were given rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), for a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.85; P = .001).

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues also reported that patients in the bortezomib arm experienced two novel adverse effects, which were different from findings reported in the primary analysis. Each case was classified as grade 4; there was one case of gastric cancer and one case of lung adenocarcinoma.

The findings were reported in the Lancet Oncology.

Among 268 patients in the follow-up analysis set, the median age was 66 years and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI). For those considered high risk, no significant difference was noted when comparing the two groups on the basis of overall survival.

“When analyzed according to MIPI risk category, VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved overall survival, compared with R-CHOP in the low-risk and intermediate-risk categories, but not in the high-risk category,” the investigators wrote.

The authors acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that rituximab was not given as a maintenance therapy since it was not considered standard of care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommended that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Robak T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30685-5.

Bortezomib in combination with rituximab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), compared with standard treatment, according to final results from the international, phase 3 LYM-3002 trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

After a median follow-up period of 82.0 months, median overall survival was 90.7 months among participants who were given first-line bortezomib in addition to rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) versus 55.7 months in the control arm, where patients were given rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), for a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.85; P = .001).

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues also reported that patients in the bortezomib arm experienced two novel adverse effects, which were different from findings reported in the primary analysis. Each case was classified as grade 4; there was one case of gastric cancer and one case of lung adenocarcinoma.

The findings were reported in the Lancet Oncology.

Among 268 patients in the follow-up analysis set, the median age was 66 years and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI). For those considered high risk, no significant difference was noted when comparing the two groups on the basis of overall survival.

“When analyzed according to MIPI risk category, VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved overall survival, compared with R-CHOP in the low-risk and intermediate-risk categories, but not in the high-risk category,” the investigators wrote.

The authors acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that rituximab was not given as a maintenance therapy since it was not considered standard of care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommended that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and others.

SOURCE: Robak T et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30685-5.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Elderly patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are more likely to die, but not relapse, within 1 year of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), compared with younger or middle-age patients, according to investigators.

copyright claudiobaba/iStockPhoto.com

Comorbidities also increased risks of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year, but to a lesser extent than that of elderly status, reported lead author Charalampia Kyriakou, MD, PhD, of the department of haematology at University College London Hospital and London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, and her colleagues.

“Although alloHCT is feasible and effective in very old patients, the increased NRM risk must be taken into account when assessing the indication for alloHCT for NHL in this age group,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

This decision is becoming more common, they noted. “With the advent of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) strategies and other improvements in transplantation technology, alloHCT is being increasingly considered in elderly patients with [relapsed and refractory] NHL.”

The retrospective study analyzed 3,919 patients with NHL who underwent alloHCT between 2003 and 2013. Patients were sorted into three age groups: young (18-50 years), middle age (51-65 years), or elderly (66-77 years).

Disease types also were reported: 1,461 patients had follicular lymphoma (FL; 37%), 1,192 had diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 30%), 823 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; 21%), and 443 had peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL; 11%).

At the time of alloHCT, about 85% of patients were chemosensitive, with the remainder being chemorefractory. The age groups had similar patient characteristics, with exceptions noted for unrelated donors, MCL, and RIC, which became increasingly overrepresented with age.

The results showed that NRM at 1 year was 13% for young patients, 20% for middle-age patients, and 33% for elderly patients (P less than .001). Overall survival at 3 years followed an inverse trend, decreasing with age from 60% in young patients to 54% in middle-age patients, before dropping more dramatically to 38% in the elderly (P less than .001).

In contrast to these significant associations between age and survival, relapse risk at 3 years remained relatively consistent, with young patients at 30%, middle-age patients at 31%, and elderly patients at 28% (P = .355).

The investigators noted that the risk of NRM increased most dramatically between middle age and old age, with less significant differences between the middle-age and young groups. They suggested that “age per se should have a limited impact on the indication for alloHCT for NHL in patients up to age 65 years.”

The increased risk with elderly status could not be fully explained by comorbidities, although these were more common in elderly patients. After analyzing information from a subset of patients, the investigators concluded that “the presence of comorbidities is a significant risk factor for NRM and survival, but this does not fully explain the outcome disadvantages in our [elderly] group.” Therefore, age remains an independent risk factor.

“The information provided in this cohort of patients with NHL, the largest reported to date, is useful and relevant, especially in the era of evolving therapies,” the investigators wrote. They added that the information is “even more relevant now with the availability of treatment with ... chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells ... after relapse post-alloHCT.”

The investigators reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kyriakou C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.08.025.

Elderly patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are more likely to die, but not relapse, within 1 year of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), compared with younger or middle-age patients, according to investigators.

copyright claudiobaba/iStockPhoto.com

Comorbidities also increased risks of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year, but to a lesser extent than that of elderly status, reported lead author Charalampia Kyriakou, MD, PhD, of the department of haematology at University College London Hospital and London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, and her colleagues.

“Although alloHCT is feasible and effective in very old patients, the increased NRM risk must be taken into account when assessing the indication for alloHCT for NHL in this age group,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

This decision is becoming more common, they noted. “With the advent of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) strategies and other improvements in transplantation technology, alloHCT is being increasingly considered in elderly patients with [relapsed and refractory] NHL.”

The retrospective study analyzed 3,919 patients with NHL who underwent alloHCT between 2003 and 2013. Patients were sorted into three age groups: young (18-50 years), middle age (51-65 years), or elderly (66-77 years).

Disease types also were reported: 1,461 patients had follicular lymphoma (FL; 37%), 1,192 had diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 30%), 823 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; 21%), and 443 had peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL; 11%).

At the time of alloHCT, about 85% of patients were chemosensitive, with the remainder being chemorefractory. The age groups had similar patient characteristics, with exceptions noted for unrelated donors, MCL, and RIC, which became increasingly overrepresented with age.

The results showed that NRM at 1 year was 13% for young patients, 20% for middle-age patients, and 33% for elderly patients (P less than .001). Overall survival at 3 years followed an inverse trend, decreasing with age from 60% in young patients to 54% in middle-age patients, before dropping more dramatically to 38% in the elderly (P less than .001).

In contrast to these significant associations between age and survival, relapse risk at 3 years remained relatively consistent, with young patients at 30%, middle-age patients at 31%, and elderly patients at 28% (P = .355).

The investigators noted that the risk of NRM increased most dramatically between middle age and old age, with less significant differences between the middle-age and young groups. They suggested that “age per se should have a limited impact on the indication for alloHCT for NHL in patients up to age 65 years.”

The increased risk with elderly status could not be fully explained by comorbidities, although these were more common in elderly patients. After analyzing information from a subset of patients, the investigators concluded that “the presence of comorbidities is a significant risk factor for NRM and survival, but this does not fully explain the outcome disadvantages in our [elderly] group.” Therefore, age remains an independent risk factor.

“The information provided in this cohort of patients with NHL, the largest reported to date, is useful and relevant, especially in the era of evolving therapies,” the investigators wrote. They added that the information is “even more relevant now with the availability of treatment with ... chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells ... after relapse post-alloHCT.”

The investigators reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kyriakou C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.08.025.

Elderly patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are more likely to die, but not relapse, within 1 year of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), compared with younger or middle-age patients, according to investigators.

copyright claudiobaba/iStockPhoto.com

Comorbidities also increased risks of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year, but to a lesser extent than that of elderly status, reported lead author Charalampia Kyriakou, MD, PhD, of the department of haematology at University College London Hospital and London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, and her colleagues.

“Although alloHCT is feasible and effective in very old patients, the increased NRM risk must be taken into account when assessing the indication for alloHCT for NHL in this age group,” the investigators wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

This decision is becoming more common, they noted. “With the advent of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) strategies and other improvements in transplantation technology, alloHCT is being increasingly considered in elderly patients with [relapsed and refractory] NHL.”

The retrospective study analyzed 3,919 patients with NHL who underwent alloHCT between 2003 and 2013. Patients were sorted into three age groups: young (18-50 years), middle age (51-65 years), or elderly (66-77 years).

Disease types also were reported: 1,461 patients had follicular lymphoma (FL; 37%), 1,192 had diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 30%), 823 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; 21%), and 443 had peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL; 11%).

At the time of alloHCT, about 85% of patients were chemosensitive, with the remainder being chemorefractory. The age groups had similar patient characteristics, with exceptions noted for unrelated donors, MCL, and RIC, which became increasingly overrepresented with age.

The results showed that NRM at 1 year was 13% for young patients, 20% for middle-age patients, and 33% for elderly patients (P less than .001). Overall survival at 3 years followed an inverse trend, decreasing with age from 60% in young patients to 54% in middle-age patients, before dropping more dramatically to 38% in the elderly (P less than .001).

In contrast to these significant associations between age and survival, relapse risk at 3 years remained relatively consistent, with young patients at 30%, middle-age patients at 31%, and elderly patients at 28% (P = .355).

The investigators noted that the risk of NRM increased most dramatically between middle age and old age, with less significant differences between the middle-age and young groups. They suggested that “age per se should have a limited impact on the indication for alloHCT for NHL in patients up to age 65 years.”

The increased risk with elderly status could not be fully explained by comorbidities, although these were more common in elderly patients. After analyzing information from a subset of patients, the investigators concluded that “the presence of comorbidities is a significant risk factor for NRM and survival, but this does not fully explain the outcome disadvantages in our [elderly] group.” Therefore, age remains an independent risk factor.

“The information provided in this cohort of patients with NHL, the largest reported to date, is useful and relevant, especially in the era of evolving therapies,” the investigators wrote. They added that the information is “even more relevant now with the availability of treatment with ... chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells ... after relapse post-alloHCT.”

The investigators reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kyriakou C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Sep 13. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.08.025.

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit or miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to one expert.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
 

State of PTCL treatment

Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
 

PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
 

ATLL

ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).

ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).

Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit or miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to one expert.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
 

State of PTCL treatment

Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
 

PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
 

ATLL

ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).

ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).

Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit or miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to one expert.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
 

State of PTCL treatment

Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
 

PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
 

ATLL

ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).

ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).

Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]

Measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before administering doxorubicin-based chemotherapy doesn’t appear to add clinically meaningful information, according to an analysis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients.

Current guidelines recommend prescreening with either echocardiography or multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan to identify asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction before administering doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy, since doxorubicin is known for its cardiotoxicity.

But other studies have challenged the usefulness of routine LVEF screening in DLBCL patients.

In the current study, Deborah L. Enns, PhD, and her colleagues at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle reviewed the medical records of 291 patients diagnosed with DLBCL between 2001 and 2013.

In total, 206 patients with normal LVEF and 8 patients with low LVEF received doxorubicin (P = .006). But while that association appears to support routine prescreening to inform clinical decision making, the link disappeared when the researchers factored out previous cardiac disease (P = .51).

“It is possible that previous [heart failure] may have played a larger role in shaping treatment decisions than did LVEF test results alone,” the researchers wrote. The report is in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes.

In addition, for patients who had their LVEF measured, the researchers found no difference in posttreatment incidence of heart failure based on whether patients received doxorubicin (7.0%) or did not (6.8%). The same was true for patients with LVEF values of less than 50% before treatment (13% vs. 14%).

The researchers noted that there are several reasons why LVEF prescreening may not be needed before treatment in DLBCL. For instance, DLBCL patients typically receive low cumulative doses of doxorubicin. Also, doxorubicin’s high efficacy in DLBCL should be balanced with the relatively low risk of death from heart failure due to doxorubicin treatment, at around 4% after 5 years for patients without preexisting cardiac conditions.

“We recommend that the policy of routinely performing prescreening LVEF measurements in all patients with DLBCL before administering anthracycline-based chemotherapy treatments be reevaluated,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Enns DL et al. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Aug 3;2(3):277-85.

Measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before administering doxorubicin-based chemotherapy doesn’t appear to add clinically meaningful information, according to an analysis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients.

Current guidelines recommend prescreening with either echocardiography or multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan to identify asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction before administering doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy, since doxorubicin is known for its cardiotoxicity.

But other studies have challenged the usefulness of routine LVEF screening in DLBCL patients.

In the current study, Deborah L. Enns, PhD, and her colleagues at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle reviewed the medical records of 291 patients diagnosed with DLBCL between 2001 and 2013.

In total, 206 patients with normal LVEF and 8 patients with low LVEF received doxorubicin (P = .006). But while that association appears to support routine prescreening to inform clinical decision making, the link disappeared when the researchers factored out previous cardiac disease (P = .51).

“It is possible that previous [heart failure] may have played a larger role in shaping treatment decisions than did LVEF test results alone,” the researchers wrote. The report is in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes.

In addition, for patients who had their LVEF measured, the researchers found no difference in posttreatment incidence of heart failure based on whether patients received doxorubicin (7.0%) or did not (6.8%). The same was true for patients with LVEF values of less than 50% before treatment (13% vs. 14%).

The researchers noted that there are several reasons why LVEF prescreening may not be needed before treatment in DLBCL. For instance, DLBCL patients typically receive low cumulative doses of doxorubicin. Also, doxorubicin’s high efficacy in DLBCL should be balanced with the relatively low risk of death from heart failure due to doxorubicin treatment, at around 4% after 5 years for patients without preexisting cardiac conditions.

“We recommend that the policy of routinely performing prescreening LVEF measurements in all patients with DLBCL before administering anthracycline-based chemotherapy treatments be reevaluated,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Enns DL et al. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Aug 3;2(3):277-85.

Measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before administering doxorubicin-based chemotherapy doesn’t appear to add clinically meaningful information, according to an analysis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients.

Current guidelines recommend prescreening with either echocardiography or multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan to identify asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction before administering doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy, since doxorubicin is known for its cardiotoxicity.

But other studies have challenged the usefulness of routine LVEF screening in DLBCL patients.

In the current study, Deborah L. Enns, PhD, and her colleagues at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle reviewed the medical records of 291 patients diagnosed with DLBCL between 2001 and 2013.

In total, 206 patients with normal LVEF and 8 patients with low LVEF received doxorubicin (P = .006). But while that association appears to support routine prescreening to inform clinical decision making, the link disappeared when the researchers factored out previous cardiac disease (P = .51).

“It is possible that previous [heart failure] may have played a larger role in shaping treatment decisions than did LVEF test results alone,” the researchers wrote. The report is in Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes.

In addition, for patients who had their LVEF measured, the researchers found no difference in posttreatment incidence of heart failure based on whether patients received doxorubicin (7.0%) or did not (6.8%). The same was true for patients with LVEF values of less than 50% before treatment (13% vs. 14%).

The researchers noted that there are several reasons why LVEF prescreening may not be needed before treatment in DLBCL. For instance, DLBCL patients typically receive low cumulative doses of doxorubicin. Also, doxorubicin’s high efficacy in DLBCL should be balanced with the relatively low risk of death from heart failure due to doxorubicin treatment, at around 4% after 5 years for patients without preexisting cardiac conditions.

“We recommend that the policy of routinely performing prescreening LVEF measurements in all patients with DLBCL before administering anthracycline-based chemotherapy treatments be reevaluated,” the researchers wrote.

They reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Enns DL et al. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Aug 3;2(3):277-85.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Entospletinib, a selective inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk), showed a dismal rate of progression-free survival and a high rate of adverse events in a cohort of previously treated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

Entospletinib was evaluated in an open-label, single-agent, phase 2 trial (NCT01799889) with five relapsed/refractory patient cohorts: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), follicular lymphoma, other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, mantle cell lymphoma, and DLBCL.

John M. Burke, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Aurora, Colo., and his colleagues reported on the current analysis, which looked specifically at the 43 patients in the trial with previously treated DLBCL. Patients received at least one starting dose of 800 mg of entospletinib orally twice daily. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a previous report on the relapsed/refractory CLL cohort, the investigational agent demonstrated clinical activity with acceptable toxicity (Blood. 2015 Apr 9;125[15]:2336-43).

In the current report, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks was 3.6% and the median PFS was 1.5 months. None of the patients in the study achieved a complete or partial response to treatment, and just five patients had stable disease.

All patients in the study eventually discontinued treatment and the median treatment duration was 1 month.

“The lack of activity of Syk inhibition in patients with relapsed DLBCL is in contrast to what would have been expected from preclinical data,” the investigators wrote. “Although it is unclear why entospletinib monotherapy lacked activity in the present study, it is possible that resistance to Syk inhibition played a role. Potential mechanisms of resistance of DLBCL to Syk inhibition include transcriptional upregulation of Syk mediated by FOXO1 and PTEN depletion.”

The investigators said that Syk inhibition in combination with BCL2 inhibitors could potentially overcome this resistance. Another approach, they suggested, would be to offer entospletinib in combination with Janus kinase (JAK) 1/3 inhibition.

“Based on results of the preclinical data, the efficacy of entospletinib in combination will be evaluated in future clinical trials,” the investigators wrote.

The rate of adverse events was high in the DLBCL cohort. Forty-two patients (98%) experienced an adverse event and nearly three-quarters experienced a grade 3 event. Overall, 30% of the grade 3 adverse events were related to treatment. More than 40% of patients interrupted treatment because of adverse events, and 19% discontinued. Four patients experienced an adverse event that led to death.

While the lack of clinical activity may have surprised investigators, the safety profile was in line with other patient cohorts in the phase 2 study. In the CLL and indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts, the rates of treatment interruption were 45% and 54%, respectively.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Burke reported relationships with Gilead and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burke JM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug;18(8):e327-e331.

Entospletinib, a selective inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk), showed a dismal rate of progression-free survival and a high rate of adverse events in a cohort of previously treated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

Entospletinib was evaluated in an open-label, single-agent, phase 2 trial (NCT01799889) with five relapsed/refractory patient cohorts: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), follicular lymphoma, other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, mantle cell lymphoma, and DLBCL.

John M. Burke, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Aurora, Colo., and his colleagues reported on the current analysis, which looked specifically at the 43 patients in the trial with previously treated DLBCL. Patients received at least one starting dose of 800 mg of entospletinib orally twice daily. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a previous report on the relapsed/refractory CLL cohort, the investigational agent demonstrated clinical activity with acceptable toxicity (Blood. 2015 Apr 9;125[15]:2336-43).

In the current report, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks was 3.6% and the median PFS was 1.5 months. None of the patients in the study achieved a complete or partial response to treatment, and just five patients had stable disease.

All patients in the study eventually discontinued treatment and the median treatment duration was 1 month.

“The lack of activity of Syk inhibition in patients with relapsed DLBCL is in contrast to what would have been expected from preclinical data,” the investigators wrote. “Although it is unclear why entospletinib monotherapy lacked activity in the present study, it is possible that resistance to Syk inhibition played a role. Potential mechanisms of resistance of DLBCL to Syk inhibition include transcriptional upregulation of Syk mediated by FOXO1 and PTEN depletion.”

The investigators said that Syk inhibition in combination with BCL2 inhibitors could potentially overcome this resistance. Another approach, they suggested, would be to offer entospletinib in combination with Janus kinase (JAK) 1/3 inhibition.

“Based on results of the preclinical data, the efficacy of entospletinib in combination will be evaluated in future clinical trials,” the investigators wrote.

The rate of adverse events was high in the DLBCL cohort. Forty-two patients (98%) experienced an adverse event and nearly three-quarters experienced a grade 3 event. Overall, 30% of the grade 3 adverse events were related to treatment. More than 40% of patients interrupted treatment because of adverse events, and 19% discontinued. Four patients experienced an adverse event that led to death.

While the lack of clinical activity may have surprised investigators, the safety profile was in line with other patient cohorts in the phase 2 study. In the CLL and indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts, the rates of treatment interruption were 45% and 54%, respectively.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Burke reported relationships with Gilead and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burke JM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug;18(8):e327-e331.

Entospletinib, a selective inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk), showed a dismal rate of progression-free survival and a high rate of adverse events in a cohort of previously treated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

Entospletinib was evaluated in an open-label, single-agent, phase 2 trial (NCT01799889) with five relapsed/refractory patient cohorts: chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), follicular lymphoma, other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, mantle cell lymphoma, and DLBCL.

John M. Burke, MD, of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers in Aurora, Colo., and his colleagues reported on the current analysis, which looked specifically at the 43 patients in the trial with previously treated DLBCL. Patients received at least one starting dose of 800 mg of entospletinib orally twice daily. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

In a previous report on the relapsed/refractory CLL cohort, the investigational agent demonstrated clinical activity with acceptable toxicity (Blood. 2015 Apr 9;125[15]:2336-43).

In the current report, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 weeks was 3.6% and the median PFS was 1.5 months. None of the patients in the study achieved a complete or partial response to treatment, and just five patients had stable disease.

All patients in the study eventually discontinued treatment and the median treatment duration was 1 month.

“The lack of activity of Syk inhibition in patients with relapsed DLBCL is in contrast to what would have been expected from preclinical data,” the investigators wrote. “Although it is unclear why entospletinib monotherapy lacked activity in the present study, it is possible that resistance to Syk inhibition played a role. Potential mechanisms of resistance of DLBCL to Syk inhibition include transcriptional upregulation of Syk mediated by FOXO1 and PTEN depletion.”

The investigators said that Syk inhibition in combination with BCL2 inhibitors could potentially overcome this resistance. Another approach, they suggested, would be to offer entospletinib in combination with Janus kinase (JAK) 1/3 inhibition.

“Based on results of the preclinical data, the efficacy of entospletinib in combination will be evaluated in future clinical trials,” the investigators wrote.

The rate of adverse events was high in the DLBCL cohort. Forty-two patients (98%) experienced an adverse event and nearly three-quarters experienced a grade 3 event. Overall, 30% of the grade 3 adverse events were related to treatment. More than 40% of patients interrupted treatment because of adverse events, and 19% discontinued. Four patients experienced an adverse event that led to death.

While the lack of clinical activity may have surprised investigators, the safety profile was in line with other patient cohorts in the phase 2 study. In the CLL and indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts, the rates of treatment interruption were 45% and 54%, respectively.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Burke reported relationships with Gilead and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burke JM et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Aug;18(8):e327-e331.

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.

Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.

The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).

In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.

Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.

The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).

In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.

Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.

Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.

The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).

In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.

[email protected]