B Cell Lymphoma

GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.

This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.

Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.

Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.

All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m² or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m² on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.

Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.

Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.

Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.

For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).

The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.

The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.

Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”

During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”

The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.

“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”

However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.

Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.

He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”

With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.

This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.

Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.

Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.

All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m² or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m² on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.

Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.

Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.

Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.

For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).

The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.

The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.

Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”

During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”

The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.

“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”

However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.

Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.

He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”

With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.

This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.

Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.

Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.

All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m² or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m² on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.

Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.

Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.

Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.

For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).

The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.

The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.

Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”

During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”

The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.

“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”

However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.

Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.

He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”

With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.

The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

Prolonged exposure to ibrutinib showed sustained progression-free and overall survival and had tolerable safety outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 RESONATE trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

“This study ... provides further evidence for efficacy and safety with prolonged treatment across multiple high-risk genomic and clinical disease features and with increasing depth of response,” John C. Byrd, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

RESONATE included 391 high-risk patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Study participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive ibrutinib 420 mg daily or ofatumumab (initial infusion of 300 mg followed by seven weekly infusions and four monthly infusions of 2,000 mg) for a maximum of 24 weeks. Drug therapy was continued until cancer progression or intolerable toxicity of either agent was seen.

“Primary analysis at median follow-up of 9.7 months demonstrated superiority of ibrutinib over ofatumumab in PFS [progression-free survival], OS [overall survival], and overall response,” the researchers wrote. “With extended follow-up of median 44 months, these same results persist; a plateau of PFS has not yet been reached in this long-term follow-up. We also observe very durable remissions among patients of all genomic groups, including those with del(17)(p13.1), del(11)(q22.3), or unmutated IgHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain gene], who are traditionally considered high-risk populations.”

After an extended follow-up (median, 44 months), the team found that the PFS benefit with ibrutinib was sustained, compared with ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 0.133; 95% confidence interval, 0.099-0.178; P less than .0001). The 3-year PFS rate was 59% for ibrutinib, compared with 3% for ofatumumab. Similar PFS benefits were seen among subgroups of high- and very high–risk patients, based on their scores on the International Prognostic Index for CLL.

The OS benefit was also sustained in those randomized to ibrutinib (HR, 0.591; 95% CI, 0.378-0.926; P = .0208). The continued OS benefit with ibrutinib versus ofatumumab continued even after a sensitivity analysis adjusted for crossover of patients to ibrutinib.

With respect to safety, adverse events of any grade were similar to previous reports of ibrutinib. In fact, the prevalence of adverse events (grade 3 or higher) decreased over time for participants that continued on ibrutinib.

“Multiple studies are ongoing to investigate ibrutinib earlier in the course of CLL therapy, including phase 3 studies of first-line ibrutinib [or ibrutinib combined with anti-CD20 therapy], compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens,” they wrote.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics and Janssen. The authors reported financial disclosures related to the sponsors and several other companies.

SOURCE: Byrd JC et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-870238.

Prolonged exposure to ibrutinib showed sustained progression-free and overall survival and had tolerable safety outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 RESONATE trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

“This study ... provides further evidence for efficacy and safety with prolonged treatment across multiple high-risk genomic and clinical disease features and with increasing depth of response,” John C. Byrd, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

RESONATE included 391 high-risk patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Study participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive ibrutinib 420 mg daily or ofatumumab (initial infusion of 300 mg followed by seven weekly infusions and four monthly infusions of 2,000 mg) for a maximum of 24 weeks. Drug therapy was continued until cancer progression or intolerable toxicity of either agent was seen.

“Primary analysis at median follow-up of 9.7 months demonstrated superiority of ibrutinib over ofatumumab in PFS [progression-free survival], OS [overall survival], and overall response,” the researchers wrote. “With extended follow-up of median 44 months, these same results persist; a plateau of PFS has not yet been reached in this long-term follow-up. We also observe very durable remissions among patients of all genomic groups, including those with del(17)(p13.1), del(11)(q22.3), or unmutated IgHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain gene], who are traditionally considered high-risk populations.”

After an extended follow-up (median, 44 months), the team found that the PFS benefit with ibrutinib was sustained, compared with ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 0.133; 95% confidence interval, 0.099-0.178; P less than .0001). The 3-year PFS rate was 59% for ibrutinib, compared with 3% for ofatumumab. Similar PFS benefits were seen among subgroups of high- and very high–risk patients, based on their scores on the International Prognostic Index for CLL.

The OS benefit was also sustained in those randomized to ibrutinib (HR, 0.591; 95% CI, 0.378-0.926; P = .0208). The continued OS benefit with ibrutinib versus ofatumumab continued even after a sensitivity analysis adjusted for crossover of patients to ibrutinib.

With respect to safety, adverse events of any grade were similar to previous reports of ibrutinib. In fact, the prevalence of adverse events (grade 3 or higher) decreased over time for participants that continued on ibrutinib.

“Multiple studies are ongoing to investigate ibrutinib earlier in the course of CLL therapy, including phase 3 studies of first-line ibrutinib [or ibrutinib combined with anti-CD20 therapy], compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens,” they wrote.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics and Janssen. The authors reported financial disclosures related to the sponsors and several other companies.

SOURCE: Byrd JC et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-870238.

Prolonged exposure to ibrutinib showed sustained progression-free and overall survival and had tolerable safety outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 RESONATE trial.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

“This study ... provides further evidence for efficacy and safety with prolonged treatment across multiple high-risk genomic and clinical disease features and with increasing depth of response,” John C. Byrd, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

RESONATE included 391 high-risk patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Study participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive ibrutinib 420 mg daily or ofatumumab (initial infusion of 300 mg followed by seven weekly infusions and four monthly infusions of 2,000 mg) for a maximum of 24 weeks. Drug therapy was continued until cancer progression or intolerable toxicity of either agent was seen.

“Primary analysis at median follow-up of 9.7 months demonstrated superiority of ibrutinib over ofatumumab in PFS [progression-free survival], OS [overall survival], and overall response,” the researchers wrote. “With extended follow-up of median 44 months, these same results persist; a plateau of PFS has not yet been reached in this long-term follow-up. We also observe very durable remissions among patients of all genomic groups, including those with del(17)(p13.1), del(11)(q22.3), or unmutated IgHV [immunoglobulin heavy chain gene], who are traditionally considered high-risk populations.”

After an extended follow-up (median, 44 months), the team found that the PFS benefit with ibrutinib was sustained, compared with ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 0.133; 95% confidence interval, 0.099-0.178; P less than .0001). The 3-year PFS rate was 59% for ibrutinib, compared with 3% for ofatumumab. Similar PFS benefits were seen among subgroups of high- and very high–risk patients, based on their scores on the International Prognostic Index for CLL.

The OS benefit was also sustained in those randomized to ibrutinib (HR, 0.591; 95% CI, 0.378-0.926; P = .0208). The continued OS benefit with ibrutinib versus ofatumumab continued even after a sensitivity analysis adjusted for crossover of patients to ibrutinib.

With respect to safety, adverse events of any grade were similar to previous reports of ibrutinib. In fact, the prevalence of adverse events (grade 3 or higher) decreased over time for participants that continued on ibrutinib.

“Multiple studies are ongoing to investigate ibrutinib earlier in the course of CLL therapy, including phase 3 studies of first-line ibrutinib [or ibrutinib combined with anti-CD20 therapy], compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens,” they wrote.

The study was sponsored by Pharmacyclics and Janssen. The authors reported financial disclosures related to the sponsors and several other companies.

SOURCE: Byrd JC et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-870238.

For patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), adding rituximab to combination high-dose methotrexate and temozolomide significantly boosted the 5-year overall survival rate, according to a retrospective study.

The triplet combination could be a safe and effective first-line option for patients with PCNSL, particularly the frail and elderly, who may have issues with toxicity when receiving current standard care, reported lead author Cui Chen, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and his colleagues.

“An increasing number of studies and meta‐analyses have investigated the effect of rituximab in PCNSL, indicating that rituximab can robustly enhance the response rate and possibly improve survival,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Medicine. “However, data regarding the addition of rituximab to [methotrexate and temozolomide] for PCNSL are limited, and no study has directly compared the efficacy of [rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide] to that of [high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide].”

The study involved 62 patients with untreated PCNSL who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2015. Out of the 62 patients, 32 received rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (RMT) and 30 received high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (MT). Patients received up to eight cycles of therapy, with discontinuation upon disease progression or toxicity.

The results showed that patients treated with RMT had significantly better outcomes than those who received MT, first marked by objective response rates, which were 93.7% for RMT and 69.0% for MT.

Survival rates also showed the advantage of rituximab. For the RMT group, 2-year and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 81.3% and 53.3%, respectively, compared with 46.5% and 29.1% for patients receiving MT.

Most importantly, rituximab boosted overall survival to a significant and notable extent, with higher rates at 2 years (82.3% vs. 65.7%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 50.0%).

Efficacy did not diminish safety, as no significant differences in toxicity were found between treatment types. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hematologic; most commonly, this entailed neutropenia, which occurred in about one-quarter of patients.

“Given its outstanding efficacy and favorable toxicity, we consider RMT to be a feasible and safe therapeutic approach as a first‐line treatment for PCNSL. Moreover, RMT is an ideal regimen for elderly patients and frail populations who may not tolerate [whole‐brain radiation therapy] or [autologous stem‐cell transplantation],” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chen C et al. Cancer Med. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1906.

For patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), adding rituximab to combination high-dose methotrexate and temozolomide significantly boosted the 5-year overall survival rate, according to a retrospective study.

The triplet combination could be a safe and effective first-line option for patients with PCNSL, particularly the frail and elderly, who may have issues with toxicity when receiving current standard care, reported lead author Cui Chen, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and his colleagues.

“An increasing number of studies and meta‐analyses have investigated the effect of rituximab in PCNSL, indicating that rituximab can robustly enhance the response rate and possibly improve survival,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Medicine. “However, data regarding the addition of rituximab to [methotrexate and temozolomide] for PCNSL are limited, and no study has directly compared the efficacy of [rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide] to that of [high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide].”

The study involved 62 patients with untreated PCNSL who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2015. Out of the 62 patients, 32 received rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (RMT) and 30 received high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (MT). Patients received up to eight cycles of therapy, with discontinuation upon disease progression or toxicity.

The results showed that patients treated with RMT had significantly better outcomes than those who received MT, first marked by objective response rates, which were 93.7% for RMT and 69.0% for MT.

Survival rates also showed the advantage of rituximab. For the RMT group, 2-year and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 81.3% and 53.3%, respectively, compared with 46.5% and 29.1% for patients receiving MT.

Most importantly, rituximab boosted overall survival to a significant and notable extent, with higher rates at 2 years (82.3% vs. 65.7%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 50.0%).

Efficacy did not diminish safety, as no significant differences in toxicity were found between treatment types. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hematologic; most commonly, this entailed neutropenia, which occurred in about one-quarter of patients.

“Given its outstanding efficacy and favorable toxicity, we consider RMT to be a feasible and safe therapeutic approach as a first‐line treatment for PCNSL. Moreover, RMT is an ideal regimen for elderly patients and frail populations who may not tolerate [whole‐brain radiation therapy] or [autologous stem‐cell transplantation],” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chen C et al. Cancer Med. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1906.

For patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), adding rituximab to combination high-dose methotrexate and temozolomide significantly boosted the 5-year overall survival rate, according to a retrospective study.

The triplet combination could be a safe and effective first-line option for patients with PCNSL, particularly the frail and elderly, who may have issues with toxicity when receiving current standard care, reported lead author Cui Chen, MD, of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, and his colleagues.

“An increasing number of studies and meta‐analyses have investigated the effect of rituximab in PCNSL, indicating that rituximab can robustly enhance the response rate and possibly improve survival,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Medicine. “However, data regarding the addition of rituximab to [methotrexate and temozolomide] for PCNSL are limited, and no study has directly compared the efficacy of [rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide] to that of [high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide].”

The study involved 62 patients with untreated PCNSL who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2015. Out of the 62 patients, 32 received rituximab/high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (RMT) and 30 received high-dose methotrexate/temozolomide (MT). Patients received up to eight cycles of therapy, with discontinuation upon disease progression or toxicity.

The results showed that patients treated with RMT had significantly better outcomes than those who received MT, first marked by objective response rates, which were 93.7% for RMT and 69.0% for MT.

Survival rates also showed the advantage of rituximab. For the RMT group, 2-year and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 81.3% and 53.3%, respectively, compared with 46.5% and 29.1% for patients receiving MT.

Most importantly, rituximab boosted overall survival to a significant and notable extent, with higher rates at 2 years (82.3% vs. 65.7%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 50.0%).

Efficacy did not diminish safety, as no significant differences in toxicity were found between treatment types. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hematologic; most commonly, this entailed neutropenia, which occurred in about one-quarter of patients.

“Given its outstanding efficacy and favorable toxicity, we consider RMT to be a feasible and safe therapeutic approach as a first‐line treatment for PCNSL. Moreover, RMT is an ideal regimen for elderly patients and frail populations who may not tolerate [whole‐brain radiation therapy] or [autologous stem‐cell transplantation],” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chen C et al. Cancer Med. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1906.

The prognosis post relapse following primary radiotherapy was found to be excellent for patients with localized follicular lymphoma (FL), according to a retrospective analysis.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

But patients who experienced early relapse – at 1 year or less after diagnosis – had significantly worse survival.

While primary radiotherapy may be curative for localized FL, about 30%-50% of patients will relapse and optimal salvage therapy is not well defined, Michael S. Binkley, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues wrote in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

The researchers retrospectively studied 512 patients with localized FL using data from multiple centers under the direction of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Clinical information was collected, including method of detection, age at relapse, location of recurrence, and response to salvage therapy.

The team defined disease recurrence as lymphoma nonresponsive to primary radiotherapy inside of the prescribed dose volume, which included having no radiographic or clinical response within 6 months of initial radiotherapy treatment.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, Dr. Binkley and his colleagues found that 29.1% of patients developed relapsed lymphoma at a median 23 months (range, 1-143 months) following primary radiotherapy.

The team reported that the 3-year overall survival rate was 91.4% for patients with lymphoma recurrence after primary radiotherapy. In total, 16 deaths occurred during follow-up: eight were lymphoma specific deaths, three were from other causes, and in five patients the cause was unknown.

Of the 149 cases of relapsed lymphoma, 93 were indolent. There were also three cases of FL grade 3B/not otherwise specified and 18 cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. In 35 patients who relapsed, biopsies were not performed.

“The excellent prognosis observed for this relapse cohort emphasizes that primary radiation for localized follicular lymphoma is an excellent treatment option,” the researchers wrote.

When the researchers examined survival based on the time of relapse, they found that overall survival was “significantly worse” for patients who had relapsed 12 months or less after the date of diagnosis, at 88.7%, compared with all others at 95.8% (P = .01).

They found no difference in overall survival between patients who received immediate salvage treatment, compared with observation after relapse (P = .28). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who relapsed in 1 year or less but underwent immediate treatment, compared to early relapsed patients who were observed (log-rank P = .34).

“[A]ny decision to offer treatment at time of relapse must be weighed with the risk of acute and late adverse effects. Greater than 60% of patients in our cohort with indolent recurrence who underwent salvage treatment received rituximab, likely contributing to the excellent outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “However, nearly 60% of patients with indolent recurrence who were observed did not have disease progression nor [did they] receive treatment within 3 years.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Binkley MS et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.004.

The prognosis post relapse following primary radiotherapy was found to be excellent for patients with localized follicular lymphoma (FL), according to a retrospective analysis.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

But patients who experienced early relapse – at 1 year or less after diagnosis – had significantly worse survival.

While primary radiotherapy may be curative for localized FL, about 30%-50% of patients will relapse and optimal salvage therapy is not well defined, Michael S. Binkley, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues wrote in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

The researchers retrospectively studied 512 patients with localized FL using data from multiple centers under the direction of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Clinical information was collected, including method of detection, age at relapse, location of recurrence, and response to salvage therapy.

The team defined disease recurrence as lymphoma nonresponsive to primary radiotherapy inside of the prescribed dose volume, which included having no radiographic or clinical response within 6 months of initial radiotherapy treatment.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, Dr. Binkley and his colleagues found that 29.1% of patients developed relapsed lymphoma at a median 23 months (range, 1-143 months) following primary radiotherapy.

The team reported that the 3-year overall survival rate was 91.4% for patients with lymphoma recurrence after primary radiotherapy. In total, 16 deaths occurred during follow-up: eight were lymphoma specific deaths, three were from other causes, and in five patients the cause was unknown.

Of the 149 cases of relapsed lymphoma, 93 were indolent. There were also three cases of FL grade 3B/not otherwise specified and 18 cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. In 35 patients who relapsed, biopsies were not performed.

“The excellent prognosis observed for this relapse cohort emphasizes that primary radiation for localized follicular lymphoma is an excellent treatment option,” the researchers wrote.

When the researchers examined survival based on the time of relapse, they found that overall survival was “significantly worse” for patients who had relapsed 12 months or less after the date of diagnosis, at 88.7%, compared with all others at 95.8% (P = .01).

They found no difference in overall survival between patients who received immediate salvage treatment, compared with observation after relapse (P = .28). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who relapsed in 1 year or less but underwent immediate treatment, compared to early relapsed patients who were observed (log-rank P = .34).

“[A]ny decision to offer treatment at time of relapse must be weighed with the risk of acute and late adverse effects. Greater than 60% of patients in our cohort with indolent recurrence who underwent salvage treatment received rituximab, likely contributing to the excellent outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “However, nearly 60% of patients with indolent recurrence who were observed did not have disease progression nor [did they] receive treatment within 3 years.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Binkley MS et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.004.

The prognosis post relapse following primary radiotherapy was found to be excellent for patients with localized follicular lymphoma (FL), according to a retrospective analysis.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

But patients who experienced early relapse – at 1 year or less after diagnosis – had significantly worse survival.

While primary radiotherapy may be curative for localized FL, about 30%-50% of patients will relapse and optimal salvage therapy is not well defined, Michael S. Binkley, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues wrote in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

The researchers retrospectively studied 512 patients with localized FL using data from multiple centers under the direction of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Clinical information was collected, including method of detection, age at relapse, location of recurrence, and response to salvage therapy.

The team defined disease recurrence as lymphoma nonresponsive to primary radiotherapy inside of the prescribed dose volume, which included having no radiographic or clinical response within 6 months of initial radiotherapy treatment.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, Dr. Binkley and his colleagues found that 29.1% of patients developed relapsed lymphoma at a median 23 months (range, 1-143 months) following primary radiotherapy.

The team reported that the 3-year overall survival rate was 91.4% for patients with lymphoma recurrence after primary radiotherapy. In total, 16 deaths occurred during follow-up: eight were lymphoma specific deaths, three were from other causes, and in five patients the cause was unknown.

Of the 149 cases of relapsed lymphoma, 93 were indolent. There were also three cases of FL grade 3B/not otherwise specified and 18 cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. In 35 patients who relapsed, biopsies were not performed.

“The excellent prognosis observed for this relapse cohort emphasizes that primary radiation for localized follicular lymphoma is an excellent treatment option,” the researchers wrote.

When the researchers examined survival based on the time of relapse, they found that overall survival was “significantly worse” for patients who had relapsed 12 months or less after the date of diagnosis, at 88.7%, compared with all others at 95.8% (P = .01).

They found no difference in overall survival between patients who received immediate salvage treatment, compared with observation after relapse (P = .28). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who relapsed in 1 year or less but underwent immediate treatment, compared to early relapsed patients who were observed (log-rank P = .34).

“[A]ny decision to offer treatment at time of relapse must be weighed with the risk of acute and late adverse effects. Greater than 60% of patients in our cohort with indolent recurrence who underwent salvage treatment received rituximab, likely contributing to the excellent outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “However, nearly 60% of patients with indolent recurrence who were observed did not have disease progression nor [did they] receive treatment within 3 years.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Binkley MS et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.004.

Survival outcomes for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) substantially improved from 1995 to 2013, particularly for those with advanced-stage tumors, according to a retrospective analysis.

The median overall survival for the study period was 52 months and 57 months in two cancer databases.

“Over the past 20 years, many novel agents and treatment regimens have been developed to treat MCL,” Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and her colleagues wrote in Cancer Epidemiology.

The researchers retrospectively studied population-based data from two separate databases: the national Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR). They identified all adult patients who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2013.

A total of 9,610 patients were included in the study: 7,555 patients from SEER and 2,055 from the TCR. The team collected data related to MCL diagnosis, mortality, and other variables, including age at diagnosis, marital status, sex, and tumor stage.

In total, 76.2% and 61.6% of patients from the SEER and TCR databases, respectively, had an advanced-stage tumor.

Dr. Fu and her colleagues found that all-cause mortality rates in both groups were significantly reduced from 1995 to 2013 (SEER, P less than .001; TCR, P = .03).

In addition, the team reported that the median overall survival time for all patients in the SEER database was 52 months, and it was 57 months for the TCR database.

“MCL patients with [an] advanced stage tumor benefitted most from the introduction of newly developed regimens,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the inability to assess treatment regimen–specific survival, which could only be estimated with these data.

“The findings of our study further confirmed the impact of novel agents on improved survival over time that was shown in other studies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grant funding from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fu S et al. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;58:89-97.

Survival outcomes for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) substantially improved from 1995 to 2013, particularly for those with advanced-stage tumors, according to a retrospective analysis.

The median overall survival for the study period was 52 months and 57 months in two cancer databases.

“Over the past 20 years, many novel agents and treatment regimens have been developed to treat MCL,” Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and her colleagues wrote in Cancer Epidemiology.

The researchers retrospectively studied population-based data from two separate databases: the national Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR). They identified all adult patients who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2013.

A total of 9,610 patients were included in the study: 7,555 patients from SEER and 2,055 from the TCR. The team collected data related to MCL diagnosis, mortality, and other variables, including age at diagnosis, marital status, sex, and tumor stage.

In total, 76.2% and 61.6% of patients from the SEER and TCR databases, respectively, had an advanced-stage tumor.

Dr. Fu and her colleagues found that all-cause mortality rates in both groups were significantly reduced from 1995 to 2013 (SEER, P less than .001; TCR, P = .03).

In addition, the team reported that the median overall survival time for all patients in the SEER database was 52 months, and it was 57 months for the TCR database.

“MCL patients with [an] advanced stage tumor benefitted most from the introduction of newly developed regimens,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the inability to assess treatment regimen–specific survival, which could only be estimated with these data.

“The findings of our study further confirmed the impact of novel agents on improved survival over time that was shown in other studies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grant funding from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fu S et al. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;58:89-97.

Survival outcomes for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) substantially improved from 1995 to 2013, particularly for those with advanced-stage tumors, according to a retrospective analysis.

The median overall survival for the study period was 52 months and 57 months in two cancer databases.

“Over the past 20 years, many novel agents and treatment regimens have been developed to treat MCL,” Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and her colleagues wrote in Cancer Epidemiology.

The researchers retrospectively studied population-based data from two separate databases: the national Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR). They identified all adult patients who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2013.

A total of 9,610 patients were included in the study: 7,555 patients from SEER and 2,055 from the TCR. The team collected data related to MCL diagnosis, mortality, and other variables, including age at diagnosis, marital status, sex, and tumor stage.

In total, 76.2% and 61.6% of patients from the SEER and TCR databases, respectively, had an advanced-stage tumor.

Dr. Fu and her colleagues found that all-cause mortality rates in both groups were significantly reduced from 1995 to 2013 (SEER, P less than .001; TCR, P = .03).

In addition, the team reported that the median overall survival time for all patients in the SEER database was 52 months, and it was 57 months for the TCR database.

“MCL patients with [an] advanced stage tumor benefitted most from the introduction of newly developed regimens,” they added.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the inability to assess treatment regimen–specific survival, which could only be estimated with these data.

“The findings of our study further confirmed the impact of novel agents on improved survival over time that was shown in other studies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grant funding from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fu S et al. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;58:89-97.

Black non-Hispanic patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have a lower rate of 5-year overall survival, compared with white non-Hispanic and Hispanic patients, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 18,000 cases.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

However, black patients were also most likely to receive treatment at an academic center, which was an independent predictor of better survival, reported Nikesh N. Shah, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his colleagues. This finding suggests that even academic centers still need to focus on overcoming demographic disparities.

“Racial and socioeconomic differences have been reported in many malignancies and certain lymphomas; however, few studies report on disparities in MCL,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. “To our knowledge this is the first such study to assess racial and socioeconomic disparities in this disease.”

The investigators reviewed 18,120 patients with MCL diagnosed between 2004 and 2013; data were drawn from the National Cancer Database. The primary endpoint was overall survival from the time of diagnosis, with analyses conducted to assess various associations with race/ethnicity, facility type, clinical/tumor characteristics, cancer stage, insurance type, and other factors.

Results showed that Hispanic patients had the highest rate of overall survival, at 55.8%, followed by white patients, at 50.1%. Trailing behind these groups were black patients (46.8%) and patients of other races/ethnicities (46.0%).

Along with survival disparities, race/ethnicity was tied to certain clinical and treatment characteristics. Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to experience B symptoms (28% vs. 25%) and have Medicaid or lack insurance (15% vs. 5%). Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely than white non-Hispanic patients to receive stem cell transplant (13% vs. 10% vs. 10%).

Although black patients were more likely than white patients to receive treatment at an academic center (51% vs. 38%), a factor independently associated with best survival among center types, whatever advantage provided apparently did not exceed disadvantages associated with race.

“We report inferior overall survival in black patients after accounting for socioeconomic status, as seen in other malignancies,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, these patients were more likely to be treated at academic centers, which independently showed improved overall survival in multivariable analysis that controlled for age, disease stage, insurance status, and other socioeconomic factors.”

The researchers cited a number of steps that could help close the survival gap, including providing more comprehensive supportive care between physician visits and enrollment of patients from diverse racial background on clinical trials.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.03.006.

Black non-Hispanic patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have a lower rate of 5-year overall survival, compared with white non-Hispanic and Hispanic patients, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 18,000 cases.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

However, black patients were also most likely to receive treatment at an academic center, which was an independent predictor of better survival, reported Nikesh N. Shah, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his colleagues. This finding suggests that even academic centers still need to focus on overcoming demographic disparities.

“Racial and socioeconomic differences have been reported in many malignancies and certain lymphomas; however, few studies report on disparities in MCL,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. “To our knowledge this is the first such study to assess racial and socioeconomic disparities in this disease.”

The investigators reviewed 18,120 patients with MCL diagnosed between 2004 and 2013; data were drawn from the National Cancer Database. The primary endpoint was overall survival from the time of diagnosis, with analyses conducted to assess various associations with race/ethnicity, facility type, clinical/tumor characteristics, cancer stage, insurance type, and other factors.

Results showed that Hispanic patients had the highest rate of overall survival, at 55.8%, followed by white patients, at 50.1%. Trailing behind these groups were black patients (46.8%) and patients of other races/ethnicities (46.0%).

Along with survival disparities, race/ethnicity was tied to certain clinical and treatment characteristics. Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to experience B symptoms (28% vs. 25%) and have Medicaid or lack insurance (15% vs. 5%). Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely than white non-Hispanic patients to receive stem cell transplant (13% vs. 10% vs. 10%).

Although black patients were more likely than white patients to receive treatment at an academic center (51% vs. 38%), a factor independently associated with best survival among center types, whatever advantage provided apparently did not exceed disadvantages associated with race.

“We report inferior overall survival in black patients after accounting for socioeconomic status, as seen in other malignancies,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, these patients were more likely to be treated at academic centers, which independently showed improved overall survival in multivariable analysis that controlled for age, disease stage, insurance status, and other socioeconomic factors.”

The researchers cited a number of steps that could help close the survival gap, including providing more comprehensive supportive care between physician visits and enrollment of patients from diverse racial background on clinical trials.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.03.006.

Black non-Hispanic patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have a lower rate of 5-year overall survival, compared with white non-Hispanic and Hispanic patients, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 18,000 cases.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

However, black patients were also most likely to receive treatment at an academic center, which was an independent predictor of better survival, reported Nikesh N. Shah, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and his colleagues. This finding suggests that even academic centers still need to focus on overcoming demographic disparities.

“Racial and socioeconomic differences have been reported in many malignancies and certain lymphomas; however, few studies report on disparities in MCL,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. “To our knowledge this is the first such study to assess racial and socioeconomic disparities in this disease.”

The investigators reviewed 18,120 patients with MCL diagnosed between 2004 and 2013; data were drawn from the National Cancer Database. The primary endpoint was overall survival from the time of diagnosis, with analyses conducted to assess various associations with race/ethnicity, facility type, clinical/tumor characteristics, cancer stage, insurance type, and other factors.

Results showed that Hispanic patients had the highest rate of overall survival, at 55.8%, followed by white patients, at 50.1%. Trailing behind these groups were black patients (46.8%) and patients of other races/ethnicities (46.0%).

Along with survival disparities, race/ethnicity was tied to certain clinical and treatment characteristics. Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to experience B symptoms (28% vs. 25%) and have Medicaid or lack insurance (15% vs. 5%). Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely than white non-Hispanic patients to receive stem cell transplant (13% vs. 10% vs. 10%).

Although black patients were more likely than white patients to receive treatment at an academic center (51% vs. 38%), a factor independently associated with best survival among center types, whatever advantage provided apparently did not exceed disadvantages associated with race.

“We report inferior overall survival in black patients after accounting for socioeconomic status, as seen in other malignancies,” the investigators wrote. “Surprisingly, these patients were more likely to be treated at academic centers, which independently showed improved overall survival in multivariable analysis that controlled for age, disease stage, insurance status, and other socioeconomic factors.”

The researchers cited a number of steps that could help close the survival gap, including providing more comprehensive supportive care between physician visits and enrollment of patients from diverse racial background on clinical trials.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.03.006.

The combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab provided high response rates and deep remissions regardless of cytogenetic risk factors in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to recently reported results of a phase 1b study.

The regimen elicited high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease in peripheral blood and had an acceptable safety profile with manageable toxicities in the study reported in Blood, which included patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“The deep remission rates we observed with venetoclax-obinutuzumab have not been reported with previously available CLL treatments, including FCR [fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab], which is currently considered the most efficacious regimen with limited-duration therapy,” wrote the investigators, led by Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville.

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combinations are meanwhile being tested in other studies – including the phase 3 CLL13 and CLL14 studies – which have enrolled previously untreated fit or unfit CLL patients, respectively.

“If the primary endpoints of these large-scale trials are met, venetoclax-obinutuzumab may become a new standard treatment option in [first-line] CLL, irrespective of clinical fitness,” Dr. Flinn and his colleagues wrote in their report.

The present phase 1b, dose-escalation study enrolled 32 patients who were previously untreated (median age, 63 years) and 46 patients who were relapsed or refractory to previous treatments (median age, 61 years).

Doses of venetoclax were escalated from 100 mg to 400 mg to determine its maximum tolerated dose when combined with obinutuzumab, the investigators wrote. Some patients received venetoclax first, while others received obinutuzumab first, for a total of 1 year of treatment.

The study confirmed favorable risk-benefit treatment used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax plus the standard dose of obinutuzumab, according to the researchers.

The overall best response rate was 95% for relapsed/refractory patients, including a 37% rate of complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. In previously untreated patients, the overall best response rate was 100%, including a 78% rate of complete responses by those criteria.

Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 64% of relapsed/refractory patients and 91% of previously untreated patients at 3 months after the last obinutuzumab dose, the investigators reported.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the study, no clinical tumor lysis syndrome, and no differences between the two schedules (venetoclax first or obinutuzumab first) in terms of adverse events, the investigators wrote.

Neutropenia was the most common serious (grade 3-4) adverse event, occurring in 58% of relapsed/refractory patients and 53% of patients treated in the first line. Grade 3-4 infections were seen in 29% and 13% of the relapsed/refractory and previously untreated patients, respectively.

There were no fatal infections among previously untreated patients, while three relapsed/refractory patients (7%) had fatal adverse events, including one case of acute respiratory failure in a patient with suspected Richter’s transformation, pneumonia in a patient with metastatic squamous cell lung carcinoma, and another case of pneumonia occurring about 3 months after the last dose of venetoclax.

Genentech and AbbVie provided financial support for the study. Dr. Flinn reported receiving research funding for his institution from Genentech, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 12. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-01-896290.

The combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab provided high response rates and deep remissions regardless of cytogenetic risk factors in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to recently reported results of a phase 1b study.

The regimen elicited high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease in peripheral blood and had an acceptable safety profile with manageable toxicities in the study reported in Blood, which included patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“The deep remission rates we observed with venetoclax-obinutuzumab have not been reported with previously available CLL treatments, including FCR [fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab], which is currently considered the most efficacious regimen with limited-duration therapy,” wrote the investigators, led by Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville.

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combinations are meanwhile being tested in other studies – including the phase 3 CLL13 and CLL14 studies – which have enrolled previously untreated fit or unfit CLL patients, respectively.

“If the primary endpoints of these large-scale trials are met, venetoclax-obinutuzumab may become a new standard treatment option in [first-line] CLL, irrespective of clinical fitness,” Dr. Flinn and his colleagues wrote in their report.

The present phase 1b, dose-escalation study enrolled 32 patients who were previously untreated (median age, 63 years) and 46 patients who were relapsed or refractory to previous treatments (median age, 61 years).

Doses of venetoclax were escalated from 100 mg to 400 mg to determine its maximum tolerated dose when combined with obinutuzumab, the investigators wrote. Some patients received venetoclax first, while others received obinutuzumab first, for a total of 1 year of treatment.

The study confirmed favorable risk-benefit treatment used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax plus the standard dose of obinutuzumab, according to the researchers.

The overall best response rate was 95% for relapsed/refractory patients, including a 37% rate of complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. In previously untreated patients, the overall best response rate was 100%, including a 78% rate of complete responses by those criteria.

Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 64% of relapsed/refractory patients and 91% of previously untreated patients at 3 months after the last obinutuzumab dose, the investigators reported.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the study, no clinical tumor lysis syndrome, and no differences between the two schedules (venetoclax first or obinutuzumab first) in terms of adverse events, the investigators wrote.

Neutropenia was the most common serious (grade 3-4) adverse event, occurring in 58% of relapsed/refractory patients and 53% of patients treated in the first line. Grade 3-4 infections were seen in 29% and 13% of the relapsed/refractory and previously untreated patients, respectively.

There were no fatal infections among previously untreated patients, while three relapsed/refractory patients (7%) had fatal adverse events, including one case of acute respiratory failure in a patient with suspected Richter’s transformation, pneumonia in a patient with metastatic squamous cell lung carcinoma, and another case of pneumonia occurring about 3 months after the last dose of venetoclax.

Genentech and AbbVie provided financial support for the study. Dr. Flinn reported receiving research funding for his institution from Genentech, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 12. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-01-896290.

The combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab provided high response rates and deep remissions regardless of cytogenetic risk factors in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, according to recently reported results of a phase 1b study.

The regimen elicited high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease in peripheral blood and had an acceptable safety profile with manageable toxicities in the study reported in Blood, which included patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“The deep remission rates we observed with venetoclax-obinutuzumab have not been reported with previously available CLL treatments, including FCR [fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab], which is currently considered the most efficacious regimen with limited-duration therapy,” wrote the investigators, led by Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville.

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab combinations are meanwhile being tested in other studies – including the phase 3 CLL13 and CLL14 studies – which have enrolled previously untreated fit or unfit CLL patients, respectively.

“If the primary endpoints of these large-scale trials are met, venetoclax-obinutuzumab may become a new standard treatment option in [first-line] CLL, irrespective of clinical fitness,” Dr. Flinn and his colleagues wrote in their report.

The present phase 1b, dose-escalation study enrolled 32 patients who were previously untreated (median age, 63 years) and 46 patients who were relapsed or refractory to previous treatments (median age, 61 years).

Doses of venetoclax were escalated from 100 mg to 400 mg to determine its maximum tolerated dose when combined with obinutuzumab, the investigators wrote. Some patients received venetoclax first, while others received obinutuzumab first, for a total of 1 year of treatment.

The study confirmed favorable risk-benefit treatment used a dose of 400 mg venetoclax plus the standard dose of obinutuzumab, according to the researchers.

The overall best response rate was 95% for relapsed/refractory patients, including a 37% rate of complete response or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery. In previously untreated patients, the overall best response rate was 100%, including a 78% rate of complete responses by those criteria.

Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 64% of relapsed/refractory patients and 91% of previously untreated patients at 3 months after the last obinutuzumab dose, the investigators reported.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the study, no clinical tumor lysis syndrome, and no differences between the two schedules (venetoclax first or obinutuzumab first) in terms of adverse events, the investigators wrote.

Neutropenia was the most common serious (grade 3-4) adverse event, occurring in 58% of relapsed/refractory patients and 53% of patients treated in the first line. Grade 3-4 infections were seen in 29% and 13% of the relapsed/refractory and previously untreated patients, respectively.

There were no fatal infections among previously untreated patients, while three relapsed/refractory patients (7%) had fatal adverse events, including one case of acute respiratory failure in a patient with suspected Richter’s transformation, pneumonia in a patient with metastatic squamous cell lung carcinoma, and another case of pneumonia occurring about 3 months after the last dose of venetoclax.

Genentech and AbbVie provided financial support for the study. Dr. Flinn reported receiving research funding for his institution from Genentech, AbbVie, and several other companies.

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. Blood. 2019 Mar 12. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-01-896290.

A telomere-length analysis tool appears to identify reliably which chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients will benefit from frontline chemotherapy, according to an analysis of 260 patients across two separate trials.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

The analysis compared the use of high-throughput, single telomere–length analysis (HTSTELA) with other commonly used markers including beta-2 microglobulin, fluorescence-in-situ hybridization (FISH) cytogenetics, CD38 expression, ZAP70 expression, and IGHV mutation status. The researchers looked specifically at whether telomere length could predict response to frontline treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (FCR)–based regimens.

“[T]elomere length is a powerful predictor of both [progression-free survival] and [overall survival] in patients treated with FCR-based therapies. In contrast, CD38 expression and beta-2 microglobulin expression were not predictive, and IGHV mutation status was only predictive of PFS (progression-free survival),” Kevin Norris, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and his colleagues wrote in Leukemia.

Previous studies have shown that telomere-length analysis offers independent prognostic information in all stages of CLL. In the present study, the researchers used HTSTELA to analyze patient samples taken from two concurrent, phase 2 clinical trials of frontline FCR-based treatment – ARCTIC and ADMIRE.

The researchers divided the cohort based on a threshold of telomere dysfunction – the point at which the chromosome end-capping function is lost and there is genomic instability. Shorter telomeres are inside the fusogenic range (TL-IFR) and longer telomeres are outside fusogenic range (TL-OFR).

Patients with TL-IFR had significantly shorter PFS on FCR-based treatment (P less than .0001). They also had reduced overall survival (OS; P = .0002). In the same cohort of patients, IGHV mutation status was predictive of PFS (P = .0016), but it was not predictive for OS (P = .38), while CD38 and beta-2 microglobulin were not predictive of PFS or OS.

The researchers also looked at the value of telomere length in predicting outcomes among IGHV-mutated and -unmutated patients.

Patients with IGHV-mutated disease and TL-IFR had worse PFS and OS than did patients with TL-OFR. TL-IFR patients in this cohort were more likely to progress (hazard ratio, 4.35; P less than .0001) and more likely to die from their disease (HR, 3.81; P = .006).

“Although the number of IGHV-mutated patients with TL-IFR was relatively small (n = 16), our data suggests that telomere length can identify a subset of “bad risk” IGHV-mutated patients who do not respond well to FCR,” the researchers wrote.

Among IGHV unmutated patients, those with short telomeres had worse PFS (HR, 1.48; P = .08) and OS (HR, 2.18; P = .025) than did those with longer telomeres.

In multivariate modeling of all the potential markers, telomere length was the statistically significant dominant covariable for both PFS and OS.

The study was funded by a Bloodwise grant and the Wales Cancer Research Center. Dr. Norris and three coauthors reported that they are coinventors of patents relevant to the study and hold shares in a company set to provide telomere length testing.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norris K et al. Leukemia. 2019 Jan 30. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0389-9.
 

A telomere-length analysis tool appears to identify reliably which chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients will benefit from frontline chemotherapy, according to an analysis of 260 patients across two separate trials.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

The analysis compared the use of high-throughput, single telomere–length analysis (HTSTELA) with other commonly used markers including beta-2 microglobulin, fluorescence-in-situ hybridization (FISH) cytogenetics, CD38 expression, ZAP70 expression, and IGHV mutation status. The researchers looked specifically at whether telomere length could predict response to frontline treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (FCR)–based regimens.

“[T]elomere length is a powerful predictor of both [progression-free survival] and [overall survival] in patients treated with FCR-based therapies. In contrast, CD38 expression and beta-2 microglobulin expression were not predictive, and IGHV mutation status was only predictive of PFS (progression-free survival),” Kevin Norris, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and his colleagues wrote in Leukemia.

Previous studies have shown that telomere-length analysis offers independent prognostic information in all stages of CLL. In the present study, the researchers used HTSTELA to analyze patient samples taken from two concurrent, phase 2 clinical trials of frontline FCR-based treatment – ARCTIC and ADMIRE.

The researchers divided the cohort based on a threshold of telomere dysfunction – the point at which the chromosome end-capping function is lost and there is genomic instability. Shorter telomeres are inside the fusogenic range (TL-IFR) and longer telomeres are outside fusogenic range (TL-OFR).

Patients with TL-IFR had significantly shorter PFS on FCR-based treatment (P less than .0001). They also had reduced overall survival (OS; P = .0002). In the same cohort of patients, IGHV mutation status was predictive of PFS (P = .0016), but it was not predictive for OS (P = .38), while CD38 and beta-2 microglobulin were not predictive of PFS or OS.

The researchers also looked at the value of telomere length in predicting outcomes among IGHV-mutated and -unmutated patients.

Patients with IGHV-mutated disease and TL-IFR had worse PFS and OS than did patients with TL-OFR. TL-IFR patients in this cohort were more likely to progress (hazard ratio, 4.35; P less than .0001) and more likely to die from their disease (HR, 3.81; P = .006).

“Although the number of IGHV-mutated patients with TL-IFR was relatively small (n = 16), our data suggests that telomere length can identify a subset of “bad risk” IGHV-mutated patients who do not respond well to FCR,” the researchers wrote.

Among IGHV unmutated patients, those with short telomeres had worse PFS (HR, 1.48; P = .08) and OS (HR, 2.18; P = .025) than did those with longer telomeres.

In multivariate modeling of all the potential markers, telomere length was the statistically significant dominant covariable for both PFS and OS.

The study was funded by a Bloodwise grant and the Wales Cancer Research Center. Dr. Norris and three coauthors reported that they are coinventors of patents relevant to the study and hold shares in a company set to provide telomere length testing.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norris K et al. Leukemia. 2019 Jan 30. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0389-9.
 

A telomere-length analysis tool appears to identify reliably which chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients will benefit from frontline chemotherapy, according to an analysis of 260 patients across two separate trials.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

The analysis compared the use of high-throughput, single telomere–length analysis (HTSTELA) with other commonly used markers including beta-2 microglobulin, fluorescence-in-situ hybridization (FISH) cytogenetics, CD38 expression, ZAP70 expression, and IGHV mutation status. The researchers looked specifically at whether telomere length could predict response to frontline treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (FCR)–based regimens.

“[T]elomere length is a powerful predictor of both [progression-free survival] and [overall survival] in patients treated with FCR-based therapies. In contrast, CD38 expression and beta-2 microglobulin expression were not predictive, and IGHV mutation status was only predictive of PFS (progression-free survival),” Kevin Norris, PhD, of Cardiff (Wales) University and his colleagues wrote in Leukemia.

Previous studies have shown that telomere-length analysis offers independent prognostic information in all stages of CLL. In the present study, the researchers used HTSTELA to analyze patient samples taken from two concurrent, phase 2 clinical trials of frontline FCR-based treatment – ARCTIC and ADMIRE.

The researchers divided the cohort based on a threshold of telomere dysfunction – the point at which the chromosome end-capping function is lost and there is genomic instability. Shorter telomeres are inside the fusogenic range (TL-IFR) and longer telomeres are outside fusogenic range (TL-OFR).

Patients with TL-IFR had significantly shorter PFS on FCR-based treatment (P less than .0001). They also had reduced overall survival (OS; P = .0002). In the same cohort of patients, IGHV mutation status was predictive of PFS (P = .0016), but it was not predictive for OS (P = .38), while CD38 and beta-2 microglobulin were not predictive of PFS or OS.

The researchers also looked at the value of telomere length in predicting outcomes among IGHV-mutated and -unmutated patients.

Patients with IGHV-mutated disease and TL-IFR had worse PFS and OS than did patients with TL-OFR. TL-IFR patients in this cohort were more likely to progress (hazard ratio, 4.35; P less than .0001) and more likely to die from their disease (HR, 3.81; P = .006).

“Although the number of IGHV-mutated patients with TL-IFR was relatively small (n = 16), our data suggests that telomere length can identify a subset of “bad risk” IGHV-mutated patients who do not respond well to FCR,” the researchers wrote.

Among IGHV unmutated patients, those with short telomeres had worse PFS (HR, 1.48; P = .08) and OS (HR, 2.18; P = .025) than did those with longer telomeres.

In multivariate modeling of all the potential markers, telomere length was the statistically significant dominant covariable for both PFS and OS.

The study was funded by a Bloodwise grant and the Wales Cancer Research Center. Dr. Norris and three coauthors reported that they are coinventors of patents relevant to the study and hold shares in a company set to provide telomere length testing.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Norris K et al. Leukemia. 2019 Jan 30. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0389-9.
 

Frontline treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab outperformed other rituximab-based chemotherapy regimens in long-term follow-up of mantle cell and indolent lymphoma patients in the BRIGHT study.

The bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen had superior 5-year progression-free survival rates, event-free survival, and duration of response, compared with either rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). The follow-up study did not find a significant difference in overall survival, however.

While the cumulative evidence from BRIGHT and other studies supports BR as a first-line treatment option for patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), the lack of an overall survival benefit indicates that the sequence of BR and R-CHOP or R-CVP “may not be critical,” Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“[The] choice of regimen for the initial treatment of iNHL may be driven more by patient preferences regarding the differences in toxicity profile,” the researchers wrote.

Initial results from the BRIGHT study found that BR was noninferior to R-CHOP/R-CVP in terms of complete response rate (P = .0225 for noninferiority). The present study includes outcomes data for at least 5 years after completion of the study treatment.

For the entire study, the median follow-up was 65.0 months for patients in the BR group and 64.1 months for patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Overall, the intention-to-treat population included 224 patients receiving BR and 223 patients receiving R-CHOP and R-CVP.

The median time to progression was not reached in either treatment group. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 65.5% in the BR group and 55.8% in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. The difference between these rates was significant, with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.85; P = .0025).

Similarly, event-free survival was better in the BR group versus the R-CHOP/R-CVP group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84; P = .0020). Duration of response also favored the BR treatment regimen (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92; P = .0134).

The long-term follow-up showed no significant difference in overall survival, with an HR of 1.15 for BR versus R-CHOP/R-CVP (95% CI, 0.72-1.84; P = .5461). Overall, there were 40 deaths in the BR treatment group and 32 deaths in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group.

Whether patients received maintenance rituximab did not affect the overall survival between groups. Similarly, there was no difference in overall survival by lymphoma type.

“Benefit from BR treatment did not translate to prolonged [overall survival], possibly because of the subsequent lines of therapy, including the use of BR in patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group,” the researchers wrote.

In terms of safety, the follow-up data showed no significant difference in early non–disease-related mortality between the treatment groups. However, the BRIGHT study showed higher rates of secondary malignancies in the BR group, compared with R-CHOP/R-CVP. That finding was not seen in the Study Group of Indolent Lymphomas Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (StiL NHL) 1 trial, and the authors could not provide an explanation for the increase in their research.

This study was supported by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Flinn reported receiving institutional research funding from Teva and receiving institutional research funding from or serving as a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00605.

Frontline treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab outperformed other rituximab-based chemotherapy regimens in long-term follow-up of mantle cell and indolent lymphoma patients in the BRIGHT study.

The bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen had superior 5-year progression-free survival rates, event-free survival, and duration of response, compared with either rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). The follow-up study did not find a significant difference in overall survival, however.

While the cumulative evidence from BRIGHT and other studies supports BR as a first-line treatment option for patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), the lack of an overall survival benefit indicates that the sequence of BR and R-CHOP or R-CVP “may not be critical,” Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“[The] choice of regimen for the initial treatment of iNHL may be driven more by patient preferences regarding the differences in toxicity profile,” the researchers wrote.

Initial results from the BRIGHT study found that BR was noninferior to R-CHOP/R-CVP in terms of complete response rate (P = .0225 for noninferiority). The present study includes outcomes data for at least 5 years after completion of the study treatment.

For the entire study, the median follow-up was 65.0 months for patients in the BR group and 64.1 months for patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Overall, the intention-to-treat population included 224 patients receiving BR and 223 patients receiving R-CHOP and R-CVP.

The median time to progression was not reached in either treatment group. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 65.5% in the BR group and 55.8% in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. The difference between these rates was significant, with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.85; P = .0025).

Similarly, event-free survival was better in the BR group versus the R-CHOP/R-CVP group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84; P = .0020). Duration of response also favored the BR treatment regimen (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92; P = .0134).

The long-term follow-up showed no significant difference in overall survival, with an HR of 1.15 for BR versus R-CHOP/R-CVP (95% CI, 0.72-1.84; P = .5461). Overall, there were 40 deaths in the BR treatment group and 32 deaths in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group.

Whether patients received maintenance rituximab did not affect the overall survival between groups. Similarly, there was no difference in overall survival by lymphoma type.

“Benefit from BR treatment did not translate to prolonged [overall survival], possibly because of the subsequent lines of therapy, including the use of BR in patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group,” the researchers wrote.

In terms of safety, the follow-up data showed no significant difference in early non–disease-related mortality between the treatment groups. However, the BRIGHT study showed higher rates of secondary malignancies in the BR group, compared with R-CHOP/R-CVP. That finding was not seen in the Study Group of Indolent Lymphomas Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (StiL NHL) 1 trial, and the authors could not provide an explanation for the increase in their research.

This study was supported by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Flinn reported receiving institutional research funding from Teva and receiving institutional research funding from or serving as a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00605.

Frontline treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab outperformed other rituximab-based chemotherapy regimens in long-term follow-up of mantle cell and indolent lymphoma patients in the BRIGHT study.

The bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen had superior 5-year progression-free survival rates, event-free survival, and duration of response, compared with either rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). The follow-up study did not find a significant difference in overall survival, however.

While the cumulative evidence from BRIGHT and other studies supports BR as a first-line treatment option for patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), the lack of an overall survival benefit indicates that the sequence of BR and R-CHOP or R-CVP “may not be critical,” Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, and his colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“[The] choice of regimen for the initial treatment of iNHL may be driven more by patient preferences regarding the differences in toxicity profile,” the researchers wrote.

Initial results from the BRIGHT study found that BR was noninferior to R-CHOP/R-CVP in terms of complete response rate (P = .0225 for noninferiority). The present study includes outcomes data for at least 5 years after completion of the study treatment.

For the entire study, the median follow-up was 65.0 months for patients in the BR group and 64.1 months for patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. Overall, the intention-to-treat population included 224 patients receiving BR and 223 patients receiving R-CHOP and R-CVP.

The median time to progression was not reached in either treatment group. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 65.5% in the BR group and 55.8% in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group. The difference between these rates was significant, with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.85; P = .0025).

Similarly, event-free survival was better in the BR group versus the R-CHOP/R-CVP group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84; P = .0020). Duration of response also favored the BR treatment regimen (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92; P = .0134).

The long-term follow-up showed no significant difference in overall survival, with an HR of 1.15 for BR versus R-CHOP/R-CVP (95% CI, 0.72-1.84; P = .5461). Overall, there were 40 deaths in the BR treatment group and 32 deaths in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group.

Whether patients received maintenance rituximab did not affect the overall survival between groups. Similarly, there was no difference in overall survival by lymphoma type.

“Benefit from BR treatment did not translate to prolonged [overall survival], possibly because of the subsequent lines of therapy, including the use of BR in patients in the R-CHOP/R-CVP group,” the researchers wrote.

In terms of safety, the follow-up data showed no significant difference in early non–disease-related mortality between the treatment groups. However, the BRIGHT study showed higher rates of secondary malignancies in the BR group, compared with R-CHOP/R-CVP. That finding was not seen in the Study Group of Indolent Lymphomas Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (StiL NHL) 1 trial, and the authors could not provide an explanation for the increase in their research.

This study was supported by Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Flinn reported receiving institutional research funding from Teva and receiving institutional research funding from or serving as a consultant to several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Flinn IW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00605.

Burkitt-like lymphoma with 11q aberration (BLL-11q) is not very “Burkitt-like,” according to researchers.

They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).

The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.

“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.

To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.

The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.

The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.

Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.

However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.

“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.

Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.

All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.

The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).

Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”

This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.

Burkitt-like lymphoma with 11q aberration (BLL-11q) is not very “Burkitt-like,” according to researchers.

They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).

The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.

“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.

To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.

The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.

The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.

Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.

However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.

“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.

Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.

All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.

The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).

Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”

This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.

Burkitt-like lymphoma with 11q aberration (BLL-11q) is not very “Burkitt-like,” according to researchers.

They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).

The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.

“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.

To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.

The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.

The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.

Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.

However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.

“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.

Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.

All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.

The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).

Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”

This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.