Aggressive Lymphomas

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation to brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris) for use in combination with chemotherapy as frontline treatment of advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

Seattle Genetics and Takeda plan to submit a supplemental biologics license application seeking approval for BV in this indication before the end of this year.

The breakthrough designation is based on positive topline results from the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial.

Full results from this trial are expected to be presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

BV is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody attached by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E.

BV is currently FDA-approved to treat:

• Classical HL after failure of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or after failure of at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not auto-HSCT candidates
• Classical HL patients at high risk of relapse or progression as post-auto-HSCT consolidation.

BV also has accelerated approval from the FDA for the treatment of systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma after failure of at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This approval is based on overall response rate. Continued approval of BV for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

ECHELON-1 trial

In this phase 3 trial, researchers compared BV in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine to a recognized standard of care chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated, advanced classical HL.

The study enrolled 1334 patients who had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of stage III or IV classical HL and had not been previously treated with systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS) per an independent review facility. Modified PFS is defined as the time to progression, death, or receipt of additional anticancer therapy for patients who are not in complete response after completion of frontline therapy.

There was a significant improvement in modified PFS in the BV arm compared to the control arm (hazard ratio=0.770; P=0.035). The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the BV arm and 77.2% in the control arm.

An interim analysis of overall survival revealed a trend in favor of the BV arm.

The safety profile of BV plus chemotherapy was consistent with the profile known for the single-agent components of the regimen.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

The designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation to brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris) for use in combination with chemotherapy as frontline treatment of advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

Seattle Genetics and Takeda plan to submit a supplemental biologics license application seeking approval for BV in this indication before the end of this year.

The breakthrough designation is based on positive topline results from the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial.

Full results from this trial are expected to be presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

BV is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody attached by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E.

BV is currently FDA-approved to treat:

• Classical HL after failure of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or after failure of at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not auto-HSCT candidates
• Classical HL patients at high risk of relapse or progression as post-auto-HSCT consolidation.

BV also has accelerated approval from the FDA for the treatment of systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma after failure of at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This approval is based on overall response rate. Continued approval of BV for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

ECHELON-1 trial

In this phase 3 trial, researchers compared BV in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine to a recognized standard of care chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated, advanced classical HL.

The study enrolled 1334 patients who had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of stage III or IV classical HL and had not been previously treated with systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS) per an independent review facility. Modified PFS is defined as the time to progression, death, or receipt of additional anticancer therapy for patients who are not in complete response after completion of frontline therapy.

There was a significant improvement in modified PFS in the BV arm compared to the control arm (hazard ratio=0.770; P=0.035). The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the BV arm and 77.2% in the control arm.

An interim analysis of overall survival revealed a trend in favor of the BV arm.

The safety profile of BV plus chemotherapy was consistent with the profile known for the single-agent components of the regimen.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

The designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.

Photo from Business Wire

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough therapy designation to brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris) for use in combination with chemotherapy as frontline treatment of advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

Seattle Genetics and Takeda plan to submit a supplemental biologics license application seeking approval for BV in this indication before the end of this year.

The breakthrough designation is based on positive topline results from the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial.

Full results from this trial are expected to be presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting in December.

BV is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody attached by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E.

BV is currently FDA-approved to treat:

• Classical HL after failure of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) or after failure of at least 2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not auto-HSCT candidates
• Classical HL patients at high risk of relapse or progression as post-auto-HSCT consolidation.

BV also has accelerated approval from the FDA for the treatment of systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma after failure of at least 1 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This approval is based on overall response rate. Continued approval of BV for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

ECHELON-1 trial

In this phase 3 trial, researchers compared BV in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine to a recognized standard of care chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated, advanced classical HL.

The study enrolled 1334 patients who had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of stage III or IV classical HL and had not been previously treated with systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

The study’s primary endpoint is modified progression-free survival (PFS) per an independent review facility. Modified PFS is defined as the time to progression, death, or receipt of additional anticancer therapy for patients who are not in complete response after completion of frontline therapy.

There was a significant improvement in modified PFS in the BV arm compared to the control arm (hazard ratio=0.770; P=0.035). The 2-year modified PFS rate was 82.1% in the BV arm and 77.2% in the control arm.

An interim analysis of overall survival revealed a trend in favor of the BV arm.

The safety profile of BV plus chemotherapy was consistent with the profile known for the single-agent components of the regimen.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

The designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).

Photo courtesy of ASTRO

SAN DIEGO—New research suggests a need for mental health screening among cancer patients.

The study revealed a 40% rate of depression among patients treated at an urban cancer center over a 3-year period.

Three-quarters of the depressed patients were previously undiagnosed.

Female patients and those who were unable to work due to disability were more likely to be depressed.

Jason Domogauer, PhD, of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey, presented these findings at ASTRO’s 59th Annual Meeting.

“Depression is widely recognized as an underdiagnosed disorder, particularly among older adults and cancer patients,” Dr Domogauer said. “Our findings point to a clear need for action, including depression screening during initial and continuing patient visits, initiation of mental health treatments for identified patients, and increased collaboration with mental health providers in cancer treatment centers. These efforts are particularly important for patients in urban centers, those who are female, and those who are unable to work because of their disease.”

Dr Domogauer and his colleagues studied 400 cancer patients who received treatment at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School/University Hospital Cancer Center between 2013 and 2016.

The average patient age was 55 (range, 20-86), and 53% of patients were female. Forty-eight percent of patients were African-American, 29% were non-Hispanic white, and 16% were Hispanic.

Nearly equal numbers of patients reported being able to work (49%) or unable to work due to disability (51%). Most patients (85%) received radiation as part of their cancer treatment.

The researchers assessed depression in the patients using a minimum score of 16 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

In this way, 40% of the patients were diagnosed with depression. In 75% of these patients, depression was previously undiagnosed. This means roughly 30% of the overall patient population suffered from undiagnosed and untreated depression.

Depression was more common among females than males—47% and 32%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.9, P=0.007).

Depression was also more likely among patients who were unable to work due to disability—48%, compared to 33% of those able to work (OR=1.9, P=0.005).

Depression prevalence did not differ significantly among racial/ethnic groups.

When the researchers looked specifically at patients who were previously not diagnosed with depression, the effects of being female or unable to work persisted.

In this subgroup, depression was more common among women than men—43% and 29%, respectively (OR=1.9, P=0.02)—and patients with disability compared to able patients—43% and 31%, respectively (OR=1.7, P=0.03).

Adding bortezomib to the standard treatment regimen for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) did not significantly impact outcomes, findings from the phase-2 PYRAMID trial showed.

When the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated non–germinal center B-cell–like (non-GCB) DLBCL, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was not observed.

There also was no increase in 2-year PFS among patients treated with the combination of bortezomib plus R-CHOP (VR-CHOP), according to findings from the open-label, randomized study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Sep 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.2784).

Adding bortezomib to the standard treatment regimen for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) did not significantly impact outcomes, findings from the phase-2 PYRAMID trial showed.

When the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated non–germinal center B-cell–like (non-GCB) DLBCL, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was not observed.

There also was no increase in 2-year PFS among patients treated with the combination of bortezomib plus R-CHOP (VR-CHOP), according to findings from the open-label, randomized study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Sep 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.2784).

Adding bortezomib to the standard treatment regimen for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) did not significantly impact outcomes, findings from the phase-2 PYRAMID trial showed.

When the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated non–germinal center B-cell–like (non-GCB) DLBCL, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) was not observed.

There also was no increase in 2-year PFS among patients treated with the combination of bortezomib plus R-CHOP (VR-CHOP), according to findings from the open-label, randomized study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Sep 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.2784).

Mantle cell lymphoma

Results of a phase 3 trial suggest rituximab maintenance after transplant can prolong survival in non-elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Compared to patients who did not receive maintenance, those who received rituximab every other month for 3 years after autologous transplant had superior event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Researchers reported these results in NEJM. The study was funded by Roche and Amgen.

“We demonstrate, with this study, that treatment with immunotherapy can delay the onset of relapse and prolong the survival of patients,” said study author Steven Le Gouill, MD, PhD, of CHU de Nantes in France.*

“It is clear that the use of rituximab maintenance after chemotherapy in this type of lymphoma will become a new standard of treatment.”

Dr Le Gouill and his colleagues began this study with 299 MCL patients. Their median age was 57 (range, 27-65), and 79% were male. Most had Ann Arbor stage IV disease (84%), followed by III (10%), and II (6%).

According to MIPI, 53% of patients had low-risk disease, 27% had intermediate-risk MCL, and 19% had high-risk disease. Ninety-four percent of patients had an ECOG performance status score below 3.

Treatment

Patients first received 4 courses of induction with R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, and a platinum derivative [carboplatin, oxaliplatin, or cisplatin]).

The overall response rate was 94%, with 41% (n=124) achieving a complete response (CR) and 36% (n=107) achieving an unconfirmed CR.

Twenty patients who had an insufficient response then received 4 courses of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Eleven of these patients went on to receive an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

In all, 257 patients (86%) underwent autologous HSCT. The conditioning regimen was R-BEAM (rituximab, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan).

Sixty-five percent of patients (n=168) achieved a CR after HSCT, and 24% (n=61) had an unconfirmed CR.

Up to 3 months after HSCT, patients were randomized to observation (n=120) or to receive rituximab (375 mg/m²) every 2 months for 3 years (n=120).

The researchers said there were no significant differences between these 2 groups regarding characteristics at study enrollment or the patients’ disease status at randomization.

Results

The median follow-up from randomization was 50.2 months (range, 46.4 to 54.2). The median EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached in either group.

The 4-year EFS was 79% in the rituximab group and 61% in the observation group (P=0.001). The 4-year PFS was 83% and 64%, respectively (P<0.001). And the 4-year OS was 89% and 80%, respectively (P=0.04).

Of the 11 patients who received R-CHOP before randomization, 4 were randomized to the rituximab group and 7 to the observation group.

One patient in the rituximab group relapsed and died. The other 3 were still alive and disease-free at the final analysis.

In the observation group, 4 patients had relapsed but were alive as of the final analysis, while 3 patients had died.

There were 59 patients who did not undergo randomization (due to disease progression, death, HSCT ineligibility, toxic effects, and other reasons).

For these patients, the median PFS was 11.0 months, and the median OS was 30.6 months.

*Quote has been translated from French.

Mantle cell lymphoma

Results of a phase 3 trial suggest rituximab maintenance after transplant can prolong survival in non-elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Compared to patients who did not receive maintenance, those who received rituximab every other month for 3 years after autologous transplant had superior event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Researchers reported these results in NEJM. The study was funded by Roche and Amgen.

“We demonstrate, with this study, that treatment with immunotherapy can delay the onset of relapse and prolong the survival of patients,” said study author Steven Le Gouill, MD, PhD, of CHU de Nantes in France.*

“It is clear that the use of rituximab maintenance after chemotherapy in this type of lymphoma will become a new standard of treatment.”

Dr Le Gouill and his colleagues began this study with 299 MCL patients. Their median age was 57 (range, 27-65), and 79% were male. Most had Ann Arbor stage IV disease (84%), followed by III (10%), and II (6%).

According to MIPI, 53% of patients had low-risk disease, 27% had intermediate-risk MCL, and 19% had high-risk disease. Ninety-four percent of patients had an ECOG performance status score below 3.

Treatment

Patients first received 4 courses of induction with R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, and a platinum derivative [carboplatin, oxaliplatin, or cisplatin]).

The overall response rate was 94%, with 41% (n=124) achieving a complete response (CR) and 36% (n=107) achieving an unconfirmed CR.

Twenty patients who had an insufficient response then received 4 courses of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Eleven of these patients went on to receive an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

In all, 257 patients (86%) underwent autologous HSCT. The conditioning regimen was R-BEAM (rituximab, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan).

Sixty-five percent of patients (n=168) achieved a CR after HSCT, and 24% (n=61) had an unconfirmed CR.

Up to 3 months after HSCT, patients were randomized to observation (n=120) or to receive rituximab (375 mg/m²) every 2 months for 3 years (n=120).

The researchers said there were no significant differences between these 2 groups regarding characteristics at study enrollment or the patients’ disease status at randomization.

Results

The median follow-up from randomization was 50.2 months (range, 46.4 to 54.2). The median EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached in either group.

The 4-year EFS was 79% in the rituximab group and 61% in the observation group (P=0.001). The 4-year PFS was 83% and 64%, respectively (P<0.001). And the 4-year OS was 89% and 80%, respectively (P=0.04).

Of the 11 patients who received R-CHOP before randomization, 4 were randomized to the rituximab group and 7 to the observation group.

One patient in the rituximab group relapsed and died. The other 3 were still alive and disease-free at the final analysis.

In the observation group, 4 patients had relapsed but were alive as of the final analysis, while 3 patients had died.

There were 59 patients who did not undergo randomization (due to disease progression, death, HSCT ineligibility, toxic effects, and other reasons).

For these patients, the median PFS was 11.0 months, and the median OS was 30.6 months.

*Quote has been translated from French.

Mantle cell lymphoma

Results of a phase 3 trial suggest rituximab maintenance after transplant can prolong survival in non-elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Compared to patients who did not receive maintenance, those who received rituximab every other month for 3 years after autologous transplant had superior event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Researchers reported these results in NEJM. The study was funded by Roche and Amgen.

“We demonstrate, with this study, that treatment with immunotherapy can delay the onset of relapse and prolong the survival of patients,” said study author Steven Le Gouill, MD, PhD, of CHU de Nantes in France.*

“It is clear that the use of rituximab maintenance after chemotherapy in this type of lymphoma will become a new standard of treatment.”

Dr Le Gouill and his colleagues began this study with 299 MCL patients. Their median age was 57 (range, 27-65), and 79% were male. Most had Ann Arbor stage IV disease (84%), followed by III (10%), and II (6%).

According to MIPI, 53% of patients had low-risk disease, 27% had intermediate-risk MCL, and 19% had high-risk disease. Ninety-four percent of patients had an ECOG performance status score below 3.

Treatment

Patients first received 4 courses of induction with R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, and a platinum derivative [carboplatin, oxaliplatin, or cisplatin]).

The overall response rate was 94%, with 41% (n=124) achieving a complete response (CR) and 36% (n=107) achieving an unconfirmed CR.

Twenty patients who had an insufficient response then received 4 courses of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Eleven of these patients went on to receive an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

In all, 257 patients (86%) underwent autologous HSCT. The conditioning regimen was R-BEAM (rituximab, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan).

Sixty-five percent of patients (n=168) achieved a CR after HSCT, and 24% (n=61) had an unconfirmed CR.

Up to 3 months after HSCT, patients were randomized to observation (n=120) or to receive rituximab (375 mg/m²) every 2 months for 3 years (n=120).

The researchers said there were no significant differences between these 2 groups regarding characteristics at study enrollment or the patients’ disease status at randomization.

Results

The median follow-up from randomization was 50.2 months (range, 46.4 to 54.2). The median EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached in either group.

The 4-year EFS was 79% in the rituximab group and 61% in the observation group (P=0.001). The 4-year PFS was 83% and 64%, respectively (P<0.001). And the 4-year OS was 89% and 80%, respectively (P=0.04).

Of the 11 patients who received R-CHOP before randomization, 4 were randomized to the rituximab group and 7 to the observation group.

One patient in the rituximab group relapsed and died. The other 3 were still alive and disease-free at the final analysis.

In the observation group, 4 patients had relapsed but were alive as of the final analysis, while 3 patients had died.

There were 59 patients who did not undergo randomization (due to disease progression, death, HSCT ineligibility, toxic effects, and other reasons).

For these patients, the median PFS was 11.0 months, and the median OS was 30.6 months.

*Quote has been translated from French.

Photo by Esther Dyson

ATLANTA—New research suggests some racial/ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials for cancer patients in the US.

African-American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials studied, while Asian and non-Hispanic white patients were not.

Patients belonging to other racial/ethnic groups were not studied in detail.

The research also showed that elderly patients were less likely than other age groups to enroll in a cancer trial.

However, the percentage of elderly patients in the trials studied (36%) was more than double the percentage of elderly individuals in the US population (15.2%).

This research was presented at the 10th AACR Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved (abstract A26).

“Clinical trials are crucial in studying the effectiveness of new drugs and ultimately bringing them to the market to benefit patients,” said Narjust Duma, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“However, many clinical trials lack appropriate representation of certain patient populations. As a result, the findings of a clinical trial might not be generalizable to all patients.”

Dr Duma and her colleagues analyzed enrollment data from all cancer therapeutic trials reported as completed on clinicaltrials.gov from 2003 to 2016. These trials included 55,689 subjects, and the racial/ethnic breakdown of the group was as follows:

• Non-Hispanic white—83%
• African-American—6%
• Asian—5.3%
• Hispanic—2.6%
• “Other”—2.4%.

According to the US Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2016, the estimated total US population was 323,127,516. The racial/ethnic breakdown of that population is as follows:

• White alone (excluding Hispanics/Latinos)—61.3%
• Hispanic/Latino*—17.8%
• Black/African-American alone—13.3%
• Asian alone—5.7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native—1.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander—0.2%
• Two or more races—2.6%.

Dr Duma and her colleagues said their study suggests African-American and Hispanic representation in cancer trials has declined in recent years, when compared to historical data from 1996 to 2002.

In the 1996-2002 period, African-Americans represented 9.2% of patients in cancer trials (vs 6% in 2003-2016), and Hispanics represented 3.1% (vs 2.6% in 2003-2016).

On the other hand, the recruitment of Asians in cancer trials has more than doubled, from 2% in the historical data to 5.3% in the current data.

The current study also showed that elderly patients (age 65 and older) represented 36% of the subjects enrolled in cancer trials. In comparison, 15.2% of the total US population is 65 or older.

Previous research suggested the elderly are often underrepresented in clinical trials, despite the fact that most cancer cases are diagnosed in individuals age 65 and older, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Dr Duma said the increasing use of genetic information in clinical trials may be decreasing the numbers of ethnic minorities and elderly patients. In recent years, researchers have sought to study drugs that treat cancers by targeting certain mutations. In order to identify the patients who are most likely to respond to the drugs, many trials now require molecular testing of tumors.

“This is leading to significant advances,” Dr Duma said. “However, it is vastly more expensive to run these trials, often leaving a limited budget to recruit patients or do outreach to the elderly or minorities.”

“Also, this type of testing can only be conducted at the major cancer centers. The mid-sized, regional hospitals are excluded because they don’t have the capacity, and, sadly, this leaves us farther away from these populations.”

Dr Duma added that cultural biases may also make minorities less likely to enroll in clinical trials. Previous research has indicated that members of certain minority groups may be less likely to trust healthcare providers.

Language barriers may also be a factor for minority patients, and the elderly may be dissuaded by difficulty in traveling to and from major cancer centers, Dr Duma noted.

She identified a few potential ways to narrow the gap of participation in clinical trials:

• Increase clinical trial partnerships between major cancer centers and satellite hospitals. Dr Duma suggested that patients could be enrolled at their local hospital and undergo treatment there, while data could be sent to the partnering cancer center.
• Targeted interventions, such as Spanish interpreters, could be used to help enroll minority patients in clinical trials.
• Healthcare providers should be mindful of the need to enroll more patients from underrepresented populations and should be willing to discuss risks and benefits with patients.

Dr Duma said the main limitation of this study is that race and ethnicity are generally self-reported, which could lead to some inconsistencies in data.

*The US Census Bureau notes that Hispanics may be of any race, so they are also included in applicable race categories.

Photo by Esther Dyson

ATLANTA—New research suggests some racial/ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials for cancer patients in the US.

African-American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials studied, while Asian and non-Hispanic white patients were not.

Patients belonging to other racial/ethnic groups were not studied in detail.

The research also showed that elderly patients were less likely than other age groups to enroll in a cancer trial.

However, the percentage of elderly patients in the trials studied (36%) was more than double the percentage of elderly individuals in the US population (15.2%).

This research was presented at the 10th AACR Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved (abstract A26).

“Clinical trials are crucial in studying the effectiveness of new drugs and ultimately bringing them to the market to benefit patients,” said Narjust Duma, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“However, many clinical trials lack appropriate representation of certain patient populations. As a result, the findings of a clinical trial might not be generalizable to all patients.”

Dr Duma and her colleagues analyzed enrollment data from all cancer therapeutic trials reported as completed on clinicaltrials.gov from 2003 to 2016. These trials included 55,689 subjects, and the racial/ethnic breakdown of the group was as follows:

• Non-Hispanic white—83%
• African-American—6%
• Asian—5.3%
• Hispanic—2.6%
• “Other”—2.4%.

According to the US Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2016, the estimated total US population was 323,127,516. The racial/ethnic breakdown of that population is as follows:

• White alone (excluding Hispanics/Latinos)—61.3%
• Hispanic/Latino*—17.8%
• Black/African-American alone—13.3%
• Asian alone—5.7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native—1.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander—0.2%
• Two or more races—2.6%.

Dr Duma and her colleagues said their study suggests African-American and Hispanic representation in cancer trials has declined in recent years, when compared to historical data from 1996 to 2002.

In the 1996-2002 period, African-Americans represented 9.2% of patients in cancer trials (vs 6% in 2003-2016), and Hispanics represented 3.1% (vs 2.6% in 2003-2016).

On the other hand, the recruitment of Asians in cancer trials has more than doubled, from 2% in the historical data to 5.3% in the current data.

The current study also showed that elderly patients (age 65 and older) represented 36% of the subjects enrolled in cancer trials. In comparison, 15.2% of the total US population is 65 or older.

Previous research suggested the elderly are often underrepresented in clinical trials, despite the fact that most cancer cases are diagnosed in individuals age 65 and older, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Dr Duma said the increasing use of genetic information in clinical trials may be decreasing the numbers of ethnic minorities and elderly patients. In recent years, researchers have sought to study drugs that treat cancers by targeting certain mutations. In order to identify the patients who are most likely to respond to the drugs, many trials now require molecular testing of tumors.

“This is leading to significant advances,” Dr Duma said. “However, it is vastly more expensive to run these trials, often leaving a limited budget to recruit patients or do outreach to the elderly or minorities.”

“Also, this type of testing can only be conducted at the major cancer centers. The mid-sized, regional hospitals are excluded because they don’t have the capacity, and, sadly, this leaves us farther away from these populations.”

Dr Duma added that cultural biases may also make minorities less likely to enroll in clinical trials. Previous research has indicated that members of certain minority groups may be less likely to trust healthcare providers.

Language barriers may also be a factor for minority patients, and the elderly may be dissuaded by difficulty in traveling to and from major cancer centers, Dr Duma noted.

She identified a few potential ways to narrow the gap of participation in clinical trials:

• Increase clinical trial partnerships between major cancer centers and satellite hospitals. Dr Duma suggested that patients could be enrolled at their local hospital and undergo treatment there, while data could be sent to the partnering cancer center.
• Targeted interventions, such as Spanish interpreters, could be used to help enroll minority patients in clinical trials.
• Healthcare providers should be mindful of the need to enroll more patients from underrepresented populations and should be willing to discuss risks and benefits with patients.

Dr Duma said the main limitation of this study is that race and ethnicity are generally self-reported, which could lead to some inconsistencies in data.

*The US Census Bureau notes that Hispanics may be of any race, so they are also included in applicable race categories.

Photo by Esther Dyson

ATLANTA—New research suggests some racial/ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials for cancer patients in the US.

African-American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials studied, while Asian and non-Hispanic white patients were not.

Patients belonging to other racial/ethnic groups were not studied in detail.

The research also showed that elderly patients were less likely than other age groups to enroll in a cancer trial.

However, the percentage of elderly patients in the trials studied (36%) was more than double the percentage of elderly individuals in the US population (15.2%).

This research was presented at the 10th AACR Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved (abstract A26).

“Clinical trials are crucial in studying the effectiveness of new drugs and ultimately bringing them to the market to benefit patients,” said Narjust Duma, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“However, many clinical trials lack appropriate representation of certain patient populations. As a result, the findings of a clinical trial might not be generalizable to all patients.”

Dr Duma and her colleagues analyzed enrollment data from all cancer therapeutic trials reported as completed on clinicaltrials.gov from 2003 to 2016. These trials included 55,689 subjects, and the racial/ethnic breakdown of the group was as follows:

• Non-Hispanic white—83%
• African-American—6%
• Asian—5.3%
• Hispanic—2.6%
• “Other”—2.4%.

According to the US Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2016, the estimated total US population was 323,127,516. The racial/ethnic breakdown of that population is as follows:

• White alone (excluding Hispanics/Latinos)—61.3%
• Hispanic/Latino*—17.8%
• Black/African-American alone—13.3%
• Asian alone—5.7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native—1.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander—0.2%
• Two or more races—2.6%.

Dr Duma and her colleagues said their study suggests African-American and Hispanic representation in cancer trials has declined in recent years, when compared to historical data from 1996 to 2002.

In the 1996-2002 period, African-Americans represented 9.2% of patients in cancer trials (vs 6% in 2003-2016), and Hispanics represented 3.1% (vs 2.6% in 2003-2016).

On the other hand, the recruitment of Asians in cancer trials has more than doubled, from 2% in the historical data to 5.3% in the current data.

The current study also showed that elderly patients (age 65 and older) represented 36% of the subjects enrolled in cancer trials. In comparison, 15.2% of the total US population is 65 or older.

Previous research suggested the elderly are often underrepresented in clinical trials, despite the fact that most cancer cases are diagnosed in individuals age 65 and older, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database.

Dr Duma said the increasing use of genetic information in clinical trials may be decreasing the numbers of ethnic minorities and elderly patients. In recent years, researchers have sought to study drugs that treat cancers by targeting certain mutations. In order to identify the patients who are most likely to respond to the drugs, many trials now require molecular testing of tumors.

“This is leading to significant advances,” Dr Duma said. “However, it is vastly more expensive to run these trials, often leaving a limited budget to recruit patients or do outreach to the elderly or minorities.”

“Also, this type of testing can only be conducted at the major cancer centers. The mid-sized, regional hospitals are excluded because they don’t have the capacity, and, sadly, this leaves us farther away from these populations.”

Dr Duma added that cultural biases may also make minorities less likely to enroll in clinical trials. Previous research has indicated that members of certain minority groups may be less likely to trust healthcare providers.

Language barriers may also be a factor for minority patients, and the elderly may be dissuaded by difficulty in traveling to and from major cancer centers, Dr Duma noted.

She identified a few potential ways to narrow the gap of participation in clinical trials:

• Increase clinical trial partnerships between major cancer centers and satellite hospitals. Dr Duma suggested that patients could be enrolled at their local hospital and undergo treatment there, while data could be sent to the partnering cancer center.
• Targeted interventions, such as Spanish interpreters, could be used to help enroll minority patients in clinical trials.
• Healthcare providers should be mindful of the need to enroll more patients from underrepresented populations and should be willing to discuss risks and benefits with patients.

Dr Duma said the main limitation of this study is that race and ethnicity are generally self-reported, which could lead to some inconsistencies in data.

*The US Census Bureau notes that Hispanics may be of any race, so they are also included in applicable race categories.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cancer patients may be open to using marijuana, but healthcare providers may be falling short in educating patients on marijuana use.

This single-center study included more than 900 cancer patients in a US state with legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana.

More than 90% of the patients surveyed said they were interested in learning more about marijuana use in the context of cancer, and nearly three-quarters of the patients wanted their cancer care providers to supply information on the topic.

However, less than 15% of patients received such information from providers. Instead, patients learned about marijuana use from sources such as the Internet or other patients.

“Cancer patients desire but are not receiving information from their cancer doctors about marijuana use during their treatment, so many of them are seeking information from alternate, non-scientific sources,” said Steven Pergam, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

Dr Pergam and his colleagues reported this finding in the journal Cancer.

Eight US states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and more than half of states have passed laws allowing for medical marijuana in some form. Marijuana is purported to alleviate symptoms related to cancer treatment, but patterns of use among cancer patients are not well known.

To investigate, Dr Pergam and his colleagues surveyed 926 patients at the Seattle Cancer Center Alliance. The patients’ median age was 58, 52% were male, and 59% had at least a college degree. Thirty-four percent of patients had hematologic malignancies.

Results

Sixty-six percent of patients said they had used marijuana in the past, 24% used in the last year, and 21% used in the last month.

A random analysis of patient urine samples showed that 14% of patients had evidence of recent marijuana use, similar to the 18% of users who reported at least weekly marijuana use.

When compared to patients who never used marijuana and those who previously used marijuana but quit, patients currently using marijuana said they were more likely to do so because the drug had been legalized. Women were more likely than men to use because of legalization.

Current marijuana users were younger, had less education, and were less likely to have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant. There was no difference in marijuana use according to a patient’s cancer type.

Most patients said they used marijuana to relieve physical symptoms (75%) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (63%), though some also used it recreationally (35%).

In addition, 26% of current marijuana users said they believed the drug was helping to treat their cancer. And 5% of these users said this was their only reason for marijuana use.

Most patients (92%) said they wanted to learn more about marijuana and cancer. However, the level of interest varied with age, with younger patients expressing the most interest.

Seventy-four percent of patients said they would prefer to get information on marijuana use from their cancer team, but less than 15% received such information from their cancer physician or nurse.

Patients said they received information on marijuana and cancer from friends and family, newspaper and magazine articles, websites and blogs, or another cancer patient.

More than a third of patients said they had not received any information on marijuana and cancer.

“We hope that this study helps to open up the door for more studies aimed at evaluating the risks and benefits of marijuana in this population,” Dr Pergam said. “This is important because if we do not educate our patients about marijuana, they will continue to get their information elsewhere.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cancer patients may be open to using marijuana, but healthcare providers may be falling short in educating patients on marijuana use.

This single-center study included more than 900 cancer patients in a US state with legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana.

More than 90% of the patients surveyed said they were interested in learning more about marijuana use in the context of cancer, and nearly three-quarters of the patients wanted their cancer care providers to supply information on the topic.

However, less than 15% of patients received such information from providers. Instead, patients learned about marijuana use from sources such as the Internet or other patients.

“Cancer patients desire but are not receiving information from their cancer doctors about marijuana use during their treatment, so many of them are seeking information from alternate, non-scientific sources,” said Steven Pergam, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

Dr Pergam and his colleagues reported this finding in the journal Cancer.

Eight US states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and more than half of states have passed laws allowing for medical marijuana in some form. Marijuana is purported to alleviate symptoms related to cancer treatment, but patterns of use among cancer patients are not well known.

To investigate, Dr Pergam and his colleagues surveyed 926 patients at the Seattle Cancer Center Alliance. The patients’ median age was 58, 52% were male, and 59% had at least a college degree. Thirty-four percent of patients had hematologic malignancies.

Results

Sixty-six percent of patients said they had used marijuana in the past, 24% used in the last year, and 21% used in the last month.

A random analysis of patient urine samples showed that 14% of patients had evidence of recent marijuana use, similar to the 18% of users who reported at least weekly marijuana use.

When compared to patients who never used marijuana and those who previously used marijuana but quit, patients currently using marijuana said they were more likely to do so because the drug had been legalized. Women were more likely than men to use because of legalization.

Current marijuana users were younger, had less education, and were less likely to have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant. There was no difference in marijuana use according to a patient’s cancer type.

Most patients said they used marijuana to relieve physical symptoms (75%) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (63%), though some also used it recreationally (35%).

In addition, 26% of current marijuana users said they believed the drug was helping to treat their cancer. And 5% of these users said this was their only reason for marijuana use.

Most patients (92%) said they wanted to learn more about marijuana and cancer. However, the level of interest varied with age, with younger patients expressing the most interest.

Seventy-four percent of patients said they would prefer to get information on marijuana use from their cancer team, but less than 15% received such information from their cancer physician or nurse.

Patients said they received information on marijuana and cancer from friends and family, newspaper and magazine articles, websites and blogs, or another cancer patient.

More than a third of patients said they had not received any information on marijuana and cancer.

“We hope that this study helps to open up the door for more studies aimed at evaluating the risks and benefits of marijuana in this population,” Dr Pergam said. “This is important because if we do not educate our patients about marijuana, they will continue to get their information elsewhere.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A new study suggests cancer patients may be open to using marijuana, but healthcare providers may be falling short in educating patients on marijuana use.

This single-center study included more than 900 cancer patients in a US state with legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana.

More than 90% of the patients surveyed said they were interested in learning more about marijuana use in the context of cancer, and nearly three-quarters of the patients wanted their cancer care providers to supply information on the topic.

However, less than 15% of patients received such information from providers. Instead, patients learned about marijuana use from sources such as the Internet or other patients.

“Cancer patients desire but are not receiving information from their cancer doctors about marijuana use during their treatment, so many of them are seeking information from alternate, non-scientific sources,” said Steven Pergam, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

Dr Pergam and his colleagues reported this finding in the journal Cancer.

Eight US states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and more than half of states have passed laws allowing for medical marijuana in some form. Marijuana is purported to alleviate symptoms related to cancer treatment, but patterns of use among cancer patients are not well known.

To investigate, Dr Pergam and his colleagues surveyed 926 patients at the Seattle Cancer Center Alliance. The patients’ median age was 58, 52% were male, and 59% had at least a college degree. Thirty-four percent of patients had hematologic malignancies.

Results

Sixty-six percent of patients said they had used marijuana in the past, 24% used in the last year, and 21% used in the last month.

A random analysis of patient urine samples showed that 14% of patients had evidence of recent marijuana use, similar to the 18% of users who reported at least weekly marijuana use.

When compared to patients who never used marijuana and those who previously used marijuana but quit, patients currently using marijuana said they were more likely to do so because the drug had been legalized. Women were more likely than men to use because of legalization.

Current marijuana users were younger, had less education, and were less likely to have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant. There was no difference in marijuana use according to a patient’s cancer type.

Most patients said they used marijuana to relieve physical symptoms (75%) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (63%), though some also used it recreationally (35%).

In addition, 26% of current marijuana users said they believed the drug was helping to treat their cancer. And 5% of these users said this was their only reason for marijuana use.

Most patients (92%) said they wanted to learn more about marijuana and cancer. However, the level of interest varied with age, with younger patients expressing the most interest.

Seventy-four percent of patients said they would prefer to get information on marijuana use from their cancer team, but less than 15% received such information from their cancer physician or nurse.

Patients said they received information on marijuana and cancer from friends and family, newspaper and magazine articles, websites and blogs, or another cancer patient.

More than a third of patients said they had not received any information on marijuana and cancer.

“We hope that this study helps to open up the door for more studies aimed at evaluating the risks and benefits of marijuana in this population,” Dr Pergam said. “This is important because if we do not educate our patients about marijuana, they will continue to get their information elsewhere.”

follicular lymphoma

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated, advanced follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients who respond to this treatment can then receive obinutuzumab maintenance.

This is the third EC approval for obinutuzumab.

The drug was first approved by the EC in 2014 to be used in combination with chlorambucil to treat patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia and comorbidities that make them unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy.

In 2016, the EC approved obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab maintenance, in FL patients who did not respond to, or who progressed during or up to 6 months after, treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

The EC’s latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results of the phase 3 GALLIUM trial, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled 1401 patients with previously untreated, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including 1202 with FL.

Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).

The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.

Patients who received obinutuzumab had significantly better progression-free survival than patients who received rituximab. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 73.3% in the rituximab arm and 80% in the obinutuzumab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66, P=0.0012).

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to overall survival. The 3-year overall survival was 92.1% in the rituximab arm and 94% in the obinutuzumab arm (HR=0.75, P=0.21).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 98.3% in the rituximab arm and 99.5% in the obinutuzumab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 39.9% and 46.1%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was higher among patients who received obinutuzumab.

Grade 3 or higher AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in either arm (rituximab and obinutuzumab, respectively) included neutropenia (67.8% and 74.6%), leukopenia (37.9% and 43.9%), febrile neutropenia (4.9% and 6.9%), infections and infestations (3.7% and 6.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.7% and 6.1%).

follicular lymphoma

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated, advanced follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients who respond to this treatment can then receive obinutuzumab maintenance.

This is the third EC approval for obinutuzumab.

The drug was first approved by the EC in 2014 to be used in combination with chlorambucil to treat patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia and comorbidities that make them unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy.

In 2016, the EC approved obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab maintenance, in FL patients who did not respond to, or who progressed during or up to 6 months after, treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

The EC’s latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results of the phase 3 GALLIUM trial, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled 1401 patients with previously untreated, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including 1202 with FL.

Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).

The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.

Patients who received obinutuzumab had significantly better progression-free survival than patients who received rituximab. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 73.3% in the rituximab arm and 80% in the obinutuzumab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66, P=0.0012).

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to overall survival. The 3-year overall survival was 92.1% in the rituximab arm and 94% in the obinutuzumab arm (HR=0.75, P=0.21).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 98.3% in the rituximab arm and 99.5% in the obinutuzumab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 39.9% and 46.1%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was higher among patients who received obinutuzumab.

Grade 3 or higher AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in either arm (rituximab and obinutuzumab, respectively) included neutropenia (67.8% and 74.6%), leukopenia (37.9% and 43.9%), febrile neutropenia (4.9% and 6.9%), infections and infestations (3.7% and 6.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.7% and 6.1%).

follicular lymphoma

The European Commission (EC) has expanded the marketing authorization for obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated, advanced follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients who respond to this treatment can then receive obinutuzumab maintenance.

This is the third EC approval for obinutuzumab.

The drug was first approved by the EC in 2014 to be used in combination with chlorambucil to treat patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia and comorbidities that make them unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy.

In 2016, the EC approved obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab maintenance, in FL patients who did not respond to, or who progressed during or up to 6 months after, treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen.

The EC’s latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results of the phase 3 GALLIUM trial, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study enrolled 1401 patients with previously untreated, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including 1202 with FL.

Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).

The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.

Patients who received obinutuzumab had significantly better progression-free survival than patients who received rituximab. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 73.3% in the rituximab arm and 80% in the obinutuzumab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66, P=0.0012).

There was no significant difference between the treatment arms with regard to overall survival. The 3-year overall survival was 92.1% in the rituximab arm and 94% in the obinutuzumab arm (HR=0.75, P=0.21).

The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 98.3% in the rituximab arm and 99.5% in the obinutuzumab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 39.9% and 46.1%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was higher among patients who received obinutuzumab.

Grade 3 or higher AEs occurring in at least 5% of patients in either arm (rituximab and obinutuzumab, respectively) included neutropenia (67.8% and 74.6%), leukopenia (37.9% and 43.9%), febrile neutropenia (4.9% and 6.9%), infections and infestations (3.7% and 6.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.7% and 6.1%).

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa) for the treatment of adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior treatments.

Approval of the kinase inhibitor was based on an overall response rate of 59% in a single-arm trial of 104 patients with follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had relapsed disease following at least two prior treatments. These patients had a complete or partial response for a median 12.2 months.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa) for the treatment of adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior treatments.

Approval of the kinase inhibitor was based on an overall response rate of 59% in a single-arm trial of 104 patients with follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had relapsed disease following at least two prior treatments. These patients had a complete or partial response for a median 12.2 months.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to copanlisib (Aliqopa) for the treatment of adults with relapsed follicular lymphoma who have received at least two prior treatments.

Approval of the kinase inhibitor was based on an overall response rate of 59% in a single-arm trial of 104 patients with follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had relapsed disease following at least two prior treatments. These patients had a complete or partial response for a median 12.2 months.

[email protected]