Follicular Lymphoma

While optimal treatment for grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains in question, either anthracycline-based chemotherapy or bendamustine appear to be preferable to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP), results of a recent analysis suggest.

Time to progression with anthracycline-based chemotherapy was superior to that of CVP in the retrospective, multicenter study.

At the same time, clinical outcomes were comparable between anthracycline-based chemotherapy and bendamustine, according to Nirav N. Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and his coinvestigators.

“Both remain appropriate frontline options for this patient population,” Dr. Shah and his colleagues wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Frontline therapy for follicular lymphoma has evolved, and recently shifted toward bendamustine-based chemotherapy regimens in light of two large randomized trials, according to the investigators. However, optimal therapy – specifically for grade 3A follicular lymphoma – has been debated for more than 20 years, they added.

“While some approach it as an aggressive malignancy, others treat it as an indolent lymphoma,” they wrote.

Accordingly, Dr. Shah and his colleagues sought to evaluate treatment outcomes with these regimens in 103 advanced stage 3/4 follicular lymphoma patients from six centers seen over a 10-year period.

Of those patients, 65 had received anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 30 received bendamustine, and 8 received CVP. All received either rituximab or ofatumumab in combination with the chemotherapy, and about one-third went on to receive maintenance treatment with one of those two anti-CD20 antibodies.

The proportion of patients not experiencing disease progression at 24 months from the initiation of treatment was significantly different between arms, at 72% for those receiving anthracyclines, 79% for bendamustine, and 50% for CVP (P = .01).

Patients who received CVP had a significantly poorer time-to-progression outcomes versus anthracycline-based chemotherapy, an adjusted analysis showed (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-8.25; P = .01), while by contrast, there was no significant difference between bendamustine and anthracyclines on this endpoint.

Progression-free survival was likewise worse for CVP compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, but there was no significant difference in overall survival for either CVP or bendamustine compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the investigators said.

The 5-year overall survival was estimated to be 82% for anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 74% for bendamustine, and 58% for CVP (P = .23).

Optimal treatment of grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains controversial despite these findings, the investigators noted.

“Unfortunately, this specific histology was excluded from pivotal trials comparing anthracycline-based chemotherapy to bendamustine, leaving the question of optimal frontline treatment unanswered in this subset,” they wrote.

The situation could change with a subgroup analysis of GALLIUM, which might provide some prospective data for this histology. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have prospective, randomized studies specifically enrolling grade 3A disease, Dr. Shah and his coauthors wrote.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Exelixis, Oncosec, Geron, Jazz, Kite, Juno, and Lentigen Technology. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Sanofi-Genzyme, Celgene, Takeda, Otsuka, Spectrum, Merck, and Astellas, among others.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Feb;19(2):95-102.

While optimal treatment for grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains in question, either anthracycline-based chemotherapy or bendamustine appear to be preferable to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP), results of a recent analysis suggest.

Time to progression with anthracycline-based chemotherapy was superior to that of CVP in the retrospective, multicenter study.

At the same time, clinical outcomes were comparable between anthracycline-based chemotherapy and bendamustine, according to Nirav N. Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and his coinvestigators.

“Both remain appropriate frontline options for this patient population,” Dr. Shah and his colleagues wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Frontline therapy for follicular lymphoma has evolved, and recently shifted toward bendamustine-based chemotherapy regimens in light of two large randomized trials, according to the investigators. However, optimal therapy – specifically for grade 3A follicular lymphoma – has been debated for more than 20 years, they added.

“While some approach it as an aggressive malignancy, others treat it as an indolent lymphoma,” they wrote.

Accordingly, Dr. Shah and his colleagues sought to evaluate treatment outcomes with these regimens in 103 advanced stage 3/4 follicular lymphoma patients from six centers seen over a 10-year period.

Of those patients, 65 had received anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 30 received bendamustine, and 8 received CVP. All received either rituximab or ofatumumab in combination with the chemotherapy, and about one-third went on to receive maintenance treatment with one of those two anti-CD20 antibodies.

The proportion of patients not experiencing disease progression at 24 months from the initiation of treatment was significantly different between arms, at 72% for those receiving anthracyclines, 79% for bendamustine, and 50% for CVP (P = .01).

Patients who received CVP had a significantly poorer time-to-progression outcomes versus anthracycline-based chemotherapy, an adjusted analysis showed (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-8.25; P = .01), while by contrast, there was no significant difference between bendamustine and anthracyclines on this endpoint.

Progression-free survival was likewise worse for CVP compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, but there was no significant difference in overall survival for either CVP or bendamustine compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the investigators said.

The 5-year overall survival was estimated to be 82% for anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 74% for bendamustine, and 58% for CVP (P = .23).

Optimal treatment of grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains controversial despite these findings, the investigators noted.

“Unfortunately, this specific histology was excluded from pivotal trials comparing anthracycline-based chemotherapy to bendamustine, leaving the question of optimal frontline treatment unanswered in this subset,” they wrote.

The situation could change with a subgroup analysis of GALLIUM, which might provide some prospective data for this histology. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have prospective, randomized studies specifically enrolling grade 3A disease, Dr. Shah and his coauthors wrote.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Exelixis, Oncosec, Geron, Jazz, Kite, Juno, and Lentigen Technology. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Sanofi-Genzyme, Celgene, Takeda, Otsuka, Spectrum, Merck, and Astellas, among others.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Feb;19(2):95-102.

While optimal treatment for grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains in question, either anthracycline-based chemotherapy or bendamustine appear to be preferable to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP), results of a recent analysis suggest.

Time to progression with anthracycline-based chemotherapy was superior to that of CVP in the retrospective, multicenter study.

At the same time, clinical outcomes were comparable between anthracycline-based chemotherapy and bendamustine, according to Nirav N. Shah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and his coinvestigators.

“Both remain appropriate frontline options for this patient population,” Dr. Shah and his colleagues wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Frontline therapy for follicular lymphoma has evolved, and recently shifted toward bendamustine-based chemotherapy regimens in light of two large randomized trials, according to the investigators. However, optimal therapy – specifically for grade 3A follicular lymphoma – has been debated for more than 20 years, they added.

“While some approach it as an aggressive malignancy, others treat it as an indolent lymphoma,” they wrote.

Accordingly, Dr. Shah and his colleagues sought to evaluate treatment outcomes with these regimens in 103 advanced stage 3/4 follicular lymphoma patients from six centers seen over a 10-year period.

Of those patients, 65 had received anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 30 received bendamustine, and 8 received CVP. All received either rituximab or ofatumumab in combination with the chemotherapy, and about one-third went on to receive maintenance treatment with one of those two anti-CD20 antibodies.

The proportion of patients not experiencing disease progression at 24 months from the initiation of treatment was significantly different between arms, at 72% for those receiving anthracyclines, 79% for bendamustine, and 50% for CVP (P = .01).

Patients who received CVP had a significantly poorer time-to-progression outcomes versus anthracycline-based chemotherapy, an adjusted analysis showed (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-8.25; P = .01), while by contrast, there was no significant difference between bendamustine and anthracyclines on this endpoint.

Progression-free survival was likewise worse for CVP compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, but there was no significant difference in overall survival for either CVP or bendamustine compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the investigators said.

The 5-year overall survival was estimated to be 82% for anthracycline-based chemotherapy, 74% for bendamustine, and 58% for CVP (P = .23).

Optimal treatment of grade 3A follicular lymphoma remains controversial despite these findings, the investigators noted.

“Unfortunately, this specific histology was excluded from pivotal trials comparing anthracycline-based chemotherapy to bendamustine, leaving the question of optimal frontline treatment unanswered in this subset,” they wrote.

The situation could change with a subgroup analysis of GALLIUM, which might provide some prospective data for this histology. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have prospective, randomized studies specifically enrolling grade 3A disease, Dr. Shah and his coauthors wrote.

Dr. Shah reported disclosures related to Exelixis, Oncosec, Geron, Jazz, Kite, Juno, and Lentigen Technology. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Sanofi-Genzyme, Celgene, Takeda, Otsuka, Spectrum, Merck, and Astellas, among others.

SOURCE: Shah NN et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Feb;19(2):95-102.

Daratumumab is safe but ineffective for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and CD38 expression of at least 50%, according to findings from a recent phase 2 trial.

Unfortunately, the study met headwinds early on, when initial screening of 112 patients with available tumor samples showed that only about half (56%) had CD38 expression of at least 50%, reported lead author Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France, and his colleagues. The cutoff was based on preclinical models, suggesting that daratumumab-induced cytotoxicity depends on a high level of CD38 expression.

“Only 36 [patients] were eligible for study enrollment, questioning the generalizability of the study population,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Of these 36 patients, 15 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 16 had follicular lymphoma (FL), and 5 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Median CD38 expression was 70%. Patients were given 16 mg/kg of IV daratumumab once a week for two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles, and finally on a monthly basis. Cycles were 28 days long. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated.

Results were generally disappointing, with ORR occurring in two patients (12.5%) with FL and one patient (6.7%) with DLBCL. No patients with MCL responded before the study was terminated. On a more encouraging note, 10 of 16 patients with FL maintained stable disease.

“All 16 patients in the FL cohort had progressed/relapsed on their prior treatment regimen; therefore, the maintenance of stable disease in the FL cohort may suggest some clinical benefit of daratumumab in this subset of NHL,” the investigators wrote.

Pharmacokinetics and safety data were similar to those from multiple myeloma studies of daratumumab; no new safety signals or instances of immunogenicity were encountered. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 11.1% of patients. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 72.2% of patients, but none were grade 4 and only three reactions were grade 3.

The investigators suggested that daratumumab may still play a role in NHL treatment, but not as a single agent.

“It is possible that daratumumab-based combination therapy would have allowed for more responses to be achieved within the current study,” the investigators wrote. “NHL is an extremely heterogeneous disease and the identification of predictive biomarkers and molecular genetics may provide new personalized therapies.”

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development; two study authors reported employment by Janssen. Others reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Roche, Gilead, Novartis, Amgen, and others.

SOURCE: Salles G et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Jan 2. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.12.013.

Daratumumab is safe but ineffective for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and CD38 expression of at least 50%, according to findings from a recent phase 2 trial.

Unfortunately, the study met headwinds early on, when initial screening of 112 patients with available tumor samples showed that only about half (56%) had CD38 expression of at least 50%, reported lead author Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France, and his colleagues. The cutoff was based on preclinical models, suggesting that daratumumab-induced cytotoxicity depends on a high level of CD38 expression.

“Only 36 [patients] were eligible for study enrollment, questioning the generalizability of the study population,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Of these 36 patients, 15 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 16 had follicular lymphoma (FL), and 5 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Median CD38 expression was 70%. Patients were given 16 mg/kg of IV daratumumab once a week for two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles, and finally on a monthly basis. Cycles were 28 days long. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated.

Results were generally disappointing, with ORR occurring in two patients (12.5%) with FL and one patient (6.7%) with DLBCL. No patients with MCL responded before the study was terminated. On a more encouraging note, 10 of 16 patients with FL maintained stable disease.

“All 16 patients in the FL cohort had progressed/relapsed on their prior treatment regimen; therefore, the maintenance of stable disease in the FL cohort may suggest some clinical benefit of daratumumab in this subset of NHL,” the investigators wrote.

Pharmacokinetics and safety data were similar to those from multiple myeloma studies of daratumumab; no new safety signals or instances of immunogenicity were encountered. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 11.1% of patients. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 72.2% of patients, but none were grade 4 and only three reactions were grade 3.

The investigators suggested that daratumumab may still play a role in NHL treatment, but not as a single agent.

“It is possible that daratumumab-based combination therapy would have allowed for more responses to be achieved within the current study,” the investigators wrote. “NHL is an extremely heterogeneous disease and the identification of predictive biomarkers and molecular genetics may provide new personalized therapies.”

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development; two study authors reported employment by Janssen. Others reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Roche, Gilead, Novartis, Amgen, and others.

SOURCE: Salles G et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Jan 2. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.12.013.

Daratumumab is safe but ineffective for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and CD38 expression of at least 50%, according to findings from a recent phase 2 trial.

Unfortunately, the study met headwinds early on, when initial screening of 112 patients with available tumor samples showed that only about half (56%) had CD38 expression of at least 50%, reported lead author Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France, and his colleagues. The cutoff was based on preclinical models, suggesting that daratumumab-induced cytotoxicity depends on a high level of CD38 expression.

“Only 36 [patients] were eligible for study enrollment, questioning the generalizability of the study population,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Of these 36 patients, 15 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 16 had follicular lymphoma (FL), and 5 had mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Median CD38 expression was 70%. Patients were given 16 mg/kg of IV daratumumab once a week for two cycles, then every 2 weeks for four cycles, and finally on a monthly basis. Cycles were 28 days long. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated.

Results were generally disappointing, with ORR occurring in two patients (12.5%) with FL and one patient (6.7%) with DLBCL. No patients with MCL responded before the study was terminated. On a more encouraging note, 10 of 16 patients with FL maintained stable disease.

“All 16 patients in the FL cohort had progressed/relapsed on their prior treatment regimen; therefore, the maintenance of stable disease in the FL cohort may suggest some clinical benefit of daratumumab in this subset of NHL,” the investigators wrote.

Pharmacokinetics and safety data were similar to those from multiple myeloma studies of daratumumab; no new safety signals or instances of immunogenicity were encountered. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 11.1% of patients. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 72.2% of patients, but none were grade 4 and only three reactions were grade 3.

The investigators suggested that daratumumab may still play a role in NHL treatment, but not as a single agent.

“It is possible that daratumumab-based combination therapy would have allowed for more responses to be achieved within the current study,” the investigators wrote. “NHL is an extremely heterogeneous disease and the identification of predictive biomarkers and molecular genetics may provide new personalized therapies.”

The study was funded by Janssen Research & Development; two study authors reported employment by Janssen. Others reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Roche, Gilead, Novartis, Amgen, and others.

SOURCE: Salles G et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Jan 2. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2018.12.013.

Intensity of BCL2 expression, and to a lesser extent expression of t(14;18), may help distinguish common and indolent cutaneous lymphomas from poorer-prognosis cutaneous lesions secondary to systemic follicular lymphomas, results of a recent investigation show.

Strong expression of BCL2 was almost always associated with secondary cutaneous follicular lymphoma (SCFL), and infrequently associated with primary cutaneous follicular center-cell lymphoma (PCFCL), according to the study results.

The translocation t(14;18) was likewise linked to secondary lesions, occurring less frequently in PCFCL in the study, reported recently in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology.

“BCL2 expression intensity is the single most valuable clue in differentiating PCFCL from SCFL cases on histopathological grounds,” said Ramon M. Pujol, MD, PhD, of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues.

One of the main cutaneous B-cell lymphoma subtypes, PCFCL is marked by frequent relapses, but little incidence of systemic spread, meaning that conservative, skin-based therapies are usually warranted. By contrast, patients with SCFLs have a poor prognosis and may require systemic therapy, the investigators noted in their report.

Previous investigations have yielded conflicting results on the role of BCL2 expression, CD10 expression, and presence of t(14;18) translocation in distinguishing PCFCL from SCFL.

While early studies suggested most PCFCLs were negative for these markers, some recent reports suggested BCL positivity in PCFCLs is as high as 86%, the investigators said.

Accordingly, Dr. Pujol and colleagues evaluated clinicopathologic and genetic features in a large series of patients, including 59 with PCFCL and 22 with SCFL.

Significant BCL2 expression was seen in 69% of PCFCLs and in 100% of SCFLs (P = .003) in this patient series; however, when looking at BCL2 intensity, investigators found strong expression almost exclusively in SCFL. Strong expression was seen in 46% of those patients with secondary lymphomas, versus just 4%, or two cases, in the PCFCL group (P = .001).

The t(14;18) translocation was seen in 64% of SCFLs and only 9.1% of PCFCLs (P = .001).

Similar to what was seen for BCL2, expression of CD10 was observed in 66% of PCFCLs and 91% of SCFLs, and again, intensity differences mattered. Strong CD10 expression was seen in 62% of secondary lymphomas and 16% of PCFCLs (P = .01). But the high number of positive PCFCLs made this marker less useful than BCL2, the investigators said.

“We believe that differences in BCL2 and CD10 expression between our results and older previous studies could reflect the improvement of antigen retrieval laboratory techniques,” they said.

The investigators did not report disclosures related to the research.

SOURCE: Servitje O et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2019;46:182-9.

Intensity of BCL2 expression, and to a lesser extent expression of t(14;18), may help distinguish common and indolent cutaneous lymphomas from poorer-prognosis cutaneous lesions secondary to systemic follicular lymphomas, results of a recent investigation show.

Strong expression of BCL2 was almost always associated with secondary cutaneous follicular lymphoma (SCFL), and infrequently associated with primary cutaneous follicular center-cell lymphoma (PCFCL), according to the study results.

The translocation t(14;18) was likewise linked to secondary lesions, occurring less frequently in PCFCL in the study, reported recently in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology.

“BCL2 expression intensity is the single most valuable clue in differentiating PCFCL from SCFL cases on histopathological grounds,” said Ramon M. Pujol, MD, PhD, of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues.

One of the main cutaneous B-cell lymphoma subtypes, PCFCL is marked by frequent relapses, but little incidence of systemic spread, meaning that conservative, skin-based therapies are usually warranted. By contrast, patients with SCFLs have a poor prognosis and may require systemic therapy, the investigators noted in their report.

Previous investigations have yielded conflicting results on the role of BCL2 expression, CD10 expression, and presence of t(14;18) translocation in distinguishing PCFCL from SCFL.

While early studies suggested most PCFCLs were negative for these markers, some recent reports suggested BCL positivity in PCFCLs is as high as 86%, the investigators said.

Accordingly, Dr. Pujol and colleagues evaluated clinicopathologic and genetic features in a large series of patients, including 59 with PCFCL and 22 with SCFL.

Significant BCL2 expression was seen in 69% of PCFCLs and in 100% of SCFLs (P = .003) in this patient series; however, when looking at BCL2 intensity, investigators found strong expression almost exclusively in SCFL. Strong expression was seen in 46% of those patients with secondary lymphomas, versus just 4%, or two cases, in the PCFCL group (P = .001).

The t(14;18) translocation was seen in 64% of SCFLs and only 9.1% of PCFCLs (P = .001).

Similar to what was seen for BCL2, expression of CD10 was observed in 66% of PCFCLs and 91% of SCFLs, and again, intensity differences mattered. Strong CD10 expression was seen in 62% of secondary lymphomas and 16% of PCFCLs (P = .01). But the high number of positive PCFCLs made this marker less useful than BCL2, the investigators said.

“We believe that differences in BCL2 and CD10 expression between our results and older previous studies could reflect the improvement of antigen retrieval laboratory techniques,” they said.

The investigators did not report disclosures related to the research.

SOURCE: Servitje O et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2019;46:182-9.

Intensity of BCL2 expression, and to a lesser extent expression of t(14;18), may help distinguish common and indolent cutaneous lymphomas from poorer-prognosis cutaneous lesions secondary to systemic follicular lymphomas, results of a recent investigation show.

Strong expression of BCL2 was almost always associated with secondary cutaneous follicular lymphoma (SCFL), and infrequently associated with primary cutaneous follicular center-cell lymphoma (PCFCL), according to the study results.

The translocation t(14;18) was likewise linked to secondary lesions, occurring less frequently in PCFCL in the study, reported recently in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology.

“BCL2 expression intensity is the single most valuable clue in differentiating PCFCL from SCFL cases on histopathological grounds,” said Ramon M. Pujol, MD, PhD, of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues.

One of the main cutaneous B-cell lymphoma subtypes, PCFCL is marked by frequent relapses, but little incidence of systemic spread, meaning that conservative, skin-based therapies are usually warranted. By contrast, patients with SCFLs have a poor prognosis and may require systemic therapy, the investigators noted in their report.

Previous investigations have yielded conflicting results on the role of BCL2 expression, CD10 expression, and presence of t(14;18) translocation in distinguishing PCFCL from SCFL.

While early studies suggested most PCFCLs were negative for these markers, some recent reports suggested BCL positivity in PCFCLs is as high as 86%, the investigators said.

Accordingly, Dr. Pujol and colleagues evaluated clinicopathologic and genetic features in a large series of patients, including 59 with PCFCL and 22 with SCFL.

Significant BCL2 expression was seen in 69% of PCFCLs and in 100% of SCFLs (P = .003) in this patient series; however, when looking at BCL2 intensity, investigators found strong expression almost exclusively in SCFL. Strong expression was seen in 46% of those patients with secondary lymphomas, versus just 4%, or two cases, in the PCFCL group (P = .001).

The t(14;18) translocation was seen in 64% of SCFLs and only 9.1% of PCFCLs (P = .001).

Similar to what was seen for BCL2, expression of CD10 was observed in 66% of PCFCLs and 91% of SCFLs, and again, intensity differences mattered. Strong CD10 expression was seen in 62% of secondary lymphomas and 16% of PCFCLs (P = .01). But the high number of positive PCFCLs made this marker less useful than BCL2, the investigators said.

“We believe that differences in BCL2 and CD10 expression between our results and older previous studies could reflect the improvement of antigen retrieval laboratory techniques,” they said.

The investigators did not report disclosures related to the research.

SOURCE: Servitje O et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2019;46:182-9.

Despite improvements in the treatment for follicular lymphoma, including the introduction of anti-CD20 therapies like rituximab, the leading cause of death remains lymphoma, according to a recent analysis.

Researchers led by Clementine Sarkozy, MD, of the University of Lyon (France), analyzed the cause of death for 1,654 follicular lymphoma patients across one French and one U.S. cohort. The French cohort enrolled patients between 2001 and 2013 and the U.S. cohort enrolled patients between 2002 and 2012.

Among the 734 patients in the French cohort, there were 113 deaths after a median 89 months follow-up. Similarly, following a median follow-up of 84 months, there were 170 deaths among the 920 U.S. patients. The 10-year overall survival was similar in the two cohorts at 79.8% among the French patients and 76.6% among the U.S. patients, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Cause of death information was available for 283 patients across the two cohorts. In 140 patients (56.5%), the cause of death was lymphoma; more than half of those cases occurred in patients whose disease had transformed at some point. That puts the cumulative risk of mortality from lymphoma at 10.3% at 10 years, according to the researchers.

The researchers also noted that the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score was strongly linked to lymphoma-related mortality but not to nonlymphoma causes of death.

Another 42 patients (17%) died from treatment-related causes, mainly infection. About 13% of the cohort died from other cancers and another 13% died from other causes.

“Deaths related to treatment seem to also be a significant burden and new, less-toxic treatment options need to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sarkozy reported financial relationships with Genentech, Celgene, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sarkozy C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 10;37(2):144-52.

Despite improvements in the treatment for follicular lymphoma, including the introduction of anti-CD20 therapies like rituximab, the leading cause of death remains lymphoma, according to a recent analysis.

Researchers led by Clementine Sarkozy, MD, of the University of Lyon (France), analyzed the cause of death for 1,654 follicular lymphoma patients across one French and one U.S. cohort. The French cohort enrolled patients between 2001 and 2013 and the U.S. cohort enrolled patients between 2002 and 2012.

Among the 734 patients in the French cohort, there were 113 deaths after a median 89 months follow-up. Similarly, following a median follow-up of 84 months, there were 170 deaths among the 920 U.S. patients. The 10-year overall survival was similar in the two cohorts at 79.8% among the French patients and 76.6% among the U.S. patients, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Cause of death information was available for 283 patients across the two cohorts. In 140 patients (56.5%), the cause of death was lymphoma; more than half of those cases occurred in patients whose disease had transformed at some point. That puts the cumulative risk of mortality from lymphoma at 10.3% at 10 years, according to the researchers.

The researchers also noted that the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score was strongly linked to lymphoma-related mortality but not to nonlymphoma causes of death.

Another 42 patients (17%) died from treatment-related causes, mainly infection. About 13% of the cohort died from other cancers and another 13% died from other causes.

“Deaths related to treatment seem to also be a significant burden and new, less-toxic treatment options need to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sarkozy reported financial relationships with Genentech, Celgene, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sarkozy C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 10;37(2):144-52.

Despite improvements in the treatment for follicular lymphoma, including the introduction of anti-CD20 therapies like rituximab, the leading cause of death remains lymphoma, according to a recent analysis.

Researchers led by Clementine Sarkozy, MD, of the University of Lyon (France), analyzed the cause of death for 1,654 follicular lymphoma patients across one French and one U.S. cohort. The French cohort enrolled patients between 2001 and 2013 and the U.S. cohort enrolled patients between 2002 and 2012.

Among the 734 patients in the French cohort, there were 113 deaths after a median 89 months follow-up. Similarly, following a median follow-up of 84 months, there were 170 deaths among the 920 U.S. patients. The 10-year overall survival was similar in the two cohorts at 79.8% among the French patients and 76.6% among the U.S. patients, the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Cause of death information was available for 283 patients across the two cohorts. In 140 patients (56.5%), the cause of death was lymphoma; more than half of those cases occurred in patients whose disease had transformed at some point. That puts the cumulative risk of mortality from lymphoma at 10.3% at 10 years, according to the researchers.

The researchers also noted that the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score was strongly linked to lymphoma-related mortality but not to nonlymphoma causes of death.

Another 42 patients (17%) died from treatment-related causes, mainly infection. About 13% of the cohort died from other cancers and another 13% died from other causes.

“Deaths related to treatment seem to also be a significant burden and new, less-toxic treatment options need to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sarkozy reported financial relationships with Genentech, Celgene, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sarkozy C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 10;37(2):144-52.

The development of biologic therapies has led to some of the most significant advances in the treatment of cancer, but these drugs are also very expensive. As patents for the biologics begin to expire, the development of biosimilars has the potential to dramatically cut therapy costs thereby making the therapies more readily accessible to patients. Here, we discuss biosimilar development and the challenges that need to be overcome to create a robust market.

Biosimilar, not generic

Biologic therapies are derived from living organisms and include the targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and cell-based therapies that have revolutionized the treatment of certain cancer types. Yet, their greater complexity makes them more difficult to manufacture, store, and administer, making them a costly therapeutic option that ultimately drives up health care costs. According to a 2011 drug expenditure analysis, biologic therapies accounted for more than half of the total expenditure on anticancer drugs in the US health care system.^1,2

Generally, when drug patents expire, other companies can develop their own identical generic versions to increase competition in the marketplace and drive down costs. However, the paradigm for generic development cannot be applied to biologic therapies because the way in which they are manufactured makes it impossible to generate an identical copy.

Instead, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has allowed for submission of an application for “licensure of a biologic product based on its similarity to a licensed biologic product”.³

These “biosimilars” have been positioned as game-changers in oncology, with the potential to reduce costs and improve access to biologic therapies. With the patents on several blockbuster cancer biologics already expired or due to expire by 2020, an increasing number of biosimilars are being developed.⁴

Totality of evidence

Biosimilars require more rigorous testing than generics, but they don’t require the same type of scientific data that the original biologic products, termed “reference products,” did. Therefore, they are governed by legislation unique to them and approved by different regulatory pathways. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a unique shortened regulatory pathway for their approval, known as the 351(k) pathway. So whereas the pathway for reference products is geared toward demonstrating patient benefit, biosimilars are required instead to show equivalence to the reference product.⁵

Biosimilars are produced through reverse engineering the reference product. Then, through a stepwise process, to generate what the FDA calls a “totality of evidence,” biosimilar manufacturers must demonstrate structural and functional similarities (through comparative quality studies) and comparable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (through comparative nonclinical and clinical studies) to the reference product. Final approval is based on 1 or more comparative clinical studies performed in the most sensitive patient population(s) (Figure 1).⁶

A flurry of approvals

The first biosimilar approvals in oncology in the United States came in the supportive care niche (Table 1). Filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), approved in March 2015, is a biosimilar of the granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) analog filgrastim (Neupogen). Owing to its mechanism of action in stimulating the production of neutrophils in the bone marrow, filgrastim is used to help reduce the risk or severity of neutropenia in patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens.

Filgrastim-sndz was approved for use across all 5 indications for which the reference product is approved, based on the totality of evidence, which included results from the key phase 3 PIONEER study.⁹ Market entry was initially delayed by lawsuits filed by Amgen, the maker of the reference product, but the biosimilar was subsequently cleared by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 300µg syringe is $324.30 for filgrastim and $275.66 figrastim-sndz, representing a 15% reduction on the reference product.¹⁰

9,19-22

Biosimilars in development

While numerous other biosimilars of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are in development, the major focus has been on the development of more biosimilars to treat cancer (Table 3). BLAs have been submitted for 4 biosimilars of trastuzumab and 1 bevacizumab biosimilar. Approval for several of the trastuzumab biosimilars has been delayed by CRLs from the FDA, mostly regarding issues with the manufacturing process or facility. Several other trastuzumab and bevacizumab biosimilars are in late-stage clinical trials.

The results of several phase 3 comparative clinical trials were recently published or reported at annual conferences. Pfizer’s PF-05280014 was compared with the European Union (EU)–approved trastuzumab, both in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Data reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology congress in 2017 demonstrated equivalence between the reference product and biosimilar in overall response rate (ORR).²³

Another recently published trial compared this biosimilar to EU-trastuzumab, both in combination with carboplatin and docetaxel, as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with resectable HER2-positive breast cancer. Among 226 patients randomized to receive 8 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 6 mg/kg thereafter of the biosimilar or reference product, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, the pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were 47% and 50%, respectively.²⁴

The results of a phase 3 study comparing Samsung Bioepis/Merck’s joint offering SB3 were recently published. A total of 875 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive SB3 or reference trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy (4 cycles docetaxel followed by 4 cycles 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide) prior to surgery, followed by 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or trastuzumab reference. Rates of event-free survival (EFS) were comparable between the 2 groups at 12 months (93.7% vs 96.1%, respectively).²⁵

Amgen’s ABP980 was evaluated in the phase 3 LILAC trial, which measured the effect of the biosimilar on pCR in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer compared with reference trastuzumab. After 4 cycles of run-in anthracycline-based chemotherapy, ABP980 or reference trastuzumab were administered in combination with paclitaxel. This was followed by surgery and then ABP980 or reference trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for up to 1 year, with the option to continue on the same drug as the neoadjuvant setting or to switch to the other. Among 696 assessable patients, the pCR rates were 48% and 42%, respectively.²⁶

Most advanced in clinical testing among the upcoming bevacizumab biosimilars is Pfizer’s PF-06439535, for which the results of a phase 3 comparative trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. PF-06439535 was compared with the EU-approved bevacizumab, both in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Among 719 patients, the primary endpoint of ORR was 45.3% and 44.6%, respectively.²⁷

Biosimilars of a third blockbuster cancer drug, the CD20-targeting mAb rituximab (Rituxan) are also in development and FDA approval is pending for 2. The patent for Rituxan expired in 2016, so these drugs could hit the market as soon as they are approved.

In a race to the finish for the first US-approved rituximab biosimilar, Celltrion-Teva’s CT-P10 (Truxima) seems most likely to come first; the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously in October 2018 to recommend its approval. Phase 3 comparative data were recently published; patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage follicular lymphoma were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of 375 mg/m² CT-P10 or reference rituximab, both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone, on day 1 of 8 21-day cycles. The ORRs were identical (92.6%) for both drugs, pharmacokinetics data also suggested bioequivalence, and the incidence of AEs was also comparable (83% vs 80%).²⁸

Biosimilars of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting mAb cetuximab are also listed in the pipeline for several biosimilar developers, but there is no indication of their developmental status as yet and no clinical trials are ongoing in the US.

Sorrento is developing STI-001, a cetuximab biosimilar, and reported that a phase 3 trial had been completed. Instead of a comparison with the reference product, however, the trial compared STI-001 in combination with irinotecan with irinotecan alone. They reported significantly higher ORR, PFS, and OS with the biosimilar compared with irinotecan alone, and a significant increase over historical data with the reference product, as well as fewer side effects and immunogenicity, which they attribute to its manufacture in a different cell line. However, no data has been published and no trials are ongoing in the United States, so the status of its development remains unclear.²⁹
 

Challenges to a robust market

It is an exciting time for biosimilars, with many approvals and drugs being brought to market in the US in the past several years and more poised to follow suit as patents expire. Yet many challenges remain around the growth of a robust biosimilars market.

Several surveys conducted in recent years have demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of all aspects of biosimilars and highlighted the need for evidence-based education across specialties.^30,31 In response, the FDA recently announced that it was launching an educational campaign to further understanding of biosimilars, including naming conventions (Figure 2).^32,33 Numerous other medical professional societies have produced or are in the process of producing biosimilar guidelines.

The development of biologic therapies has led to some of the most significant advances in the treatment of cancer, but these drugs are also very expensive. As patents for the biologics begin to expire, the development of biosimilars has the potential to dramatically cut therapy costs thereby making the therapies more readily accessible to patients. Here, we discuss biosimilar development and the challenges that need to be overcome to create a robust market.

Biosimilar, not generic

Biologic therapies are derived from living organisms and include the targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and cell-based therapies that have revolutionized the treatment of certain cancer types. Yet, their greater complexity makes them more difficult to manufacture, store, and administer, making them a costly therapeutic option that ultimately drives up health care costs. According to a 2011 drug expenditure analysis, biologic therapies accounted for more than half of the total expenditure on anticancer drugs in the US health care system.^1,2

Generally, when drug patents expire, other companies can develop their own identical generic versions to increase competition in the marketplace and drive down costs. However, the paradigm for generic development cannot be applied to biologic therapies because the way in which they are manufactured makes it impossible to generate an identical copy.

Instead, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has allowed for submission of an application for “licensure of a biologic product based on its similarity to a licensed biologic product”.³

These “biosimilars” have been positioned as game-changers in oncology, with the potential to reduce costs and improve access to biologic therapies. With the patents on several blockbuster cancer biologics already expired or due to expire by 2020, an increasing number of biosimilars are being developed.⁴

Totality of evidence

Biosimilars require more rigorous testing than generics, but they don’t require the same type of scientific data that the original biologic products, termed “reference products,” did. Therefore, they are governed by legislation unique to them and approved by different regulatory pathways. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a unique shortened regulatory pathway for their approval, known as the 351(k) pathway. So whereas the pathway for reference products is geared toward demonstrating patient benefit, biosimilars are required instead to show equivalence to the reference product.⁵

Biosimilars are produced through reverse engineering the reference product. Then, through a stepwise process, to generate what the FDA calls a “totality of evidence,” biosimilar manufacturers must demonstrate structural and functional similarities (through comparative quality studies) and comparable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (through comparative nonclinical and clinical studies) to the reference product. Final approval is based on 1 or more comparative clinical studies performed in the most sensitive patient population(s) (Figure 1).⁶

A flurry of approvals

The first biosimilar approvals in oncology in the United States came in the supportive care niche (Table 1). Filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), approved in March 2015, is a biosimilar of the granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) analog filgrastim (Neupogen). Owing to its mechanism of action in stimulating the production of neutrophils in the bone marrow, filgrastim is used to help reduce the risk or severity of neutropenia in patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens.

Filgrastim-sndz was approved for use across all 5 indications for which the reference product is approved, based on the totality of evidence, which included results from the key phase 3 PIONEER study.⁹ Market entry was initially delayed by lawsuits filed by Amgen, the maker of the reference product, but the biosimilar was subsequently cleared by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 300µg syringe is $324.30 for filgrastim and $275.66 figrastim-sndz, representing a 15% reduction on the reference product.¹⁰

9,19-22

Biosimilars in development

While numerous other biosimilars of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are in development, the major focus has been on the development of more biosimilars to treat cancer (Table 3). BLAs have been submitted for 4 biosimilars of trastuzumab and 1 bevacizumab biosimilar. Approval for several of the trastuzumab biosimilars has been delayed by CRLs from the FDA, mostly regarding issues with the manufacturing process or facility. Several other trastuzumab and bevacizumab biosimilars are in late-stage clinical trials.

The results of several phase 3 comparative clinical trials were recently published or reported at annual conferences. Pfizer’s PF-05280014 was compared with the European Union (EU)–approved trastuzumab, both in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Data reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology congress in 2017 demonstrated equivalence between the reference product and biosimilar in overall response rate (ORR).²³

Another recently published trial compared this biosimilar to EU-trastuzumab, both in combination with carboplatin and docetaxel, as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with resectable HER2-positive breast cancer. Among 226 patients randomized to receive 8 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 6 mg/kg thereafter of the biosimilar or reference product, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, the pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were 47% and 50%, respectively.²⁴

The results of a phase 3 study comparing Samsung Bioepis/Merck’s joint offering SB3 were recently published. A total of 875 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive SB3 or reference trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy (4 cycles docetaxel followed by 4 cycles 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide) prior to surgery, followed by 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or trastuzumab reference. Rates of event-free survival (EFS) were comparable between the 2 groups at 12 months (93.7% vs 96.1%, respectively).²⁵

Amgen’s ABP980 was evaluated in the phase 3 LILAC trial, which measured the effect of the biosimilar on pCR in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer compared with reference trastuzumab. After 4 cycles of run-in anthracycline-based chemotherapy, ABP980 or reference trastuzumab were administered in combination with paclitaxel. This was followed by surgery and then ABP980 or reference trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for up to 1 year, with the option to continue on the same drug as the neoadjuvant setting or to switch to the other. Among 696 assessable patients, the pCR rates were 48% and 42%, respectively.²⁶

Most advanced in clinical testing among the upcoming bevacizumab biosimilars is Pfizer’s PF-06439535, for which the results of a phase 3 comparative trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. PF-06439535 was compared with the EU-approved bevacizumab, both in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Among 719 patients, the primary endpoint of ORR was 45.3% and 44.6%, respectively.²⁷

Biosimilars of a third blockbuster cancer drug, the CD20-targeting mAb rituximab (Rituxan) are also in development and FDA approval is pending for 2. The patent for Rituxan expired in 2016, so these drugs could hit the market as soon as they are approved.

In a race to the finish for the first US-approved rituximab biosimilar, Celltrion-Teva’s CT-P10 (Truxima) seems most likely to come first; the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously in October 2018 to recommend its approval. Phase 3 comparative data were recently published; patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage follicular lymphoma were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of 375 mg/m² CT-P10 or reference rituximab, both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone, on day 1 of 8 21-day cycles. The ORRs were identical (92.6%) for both drugs, pharmacokinetics data also suggested bioequivalence, and the incidence of AEs was also comparable (83% vs 80%).²⁸

Biosimilars of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting mAb cetuximab are also listed in the pipeline for several biosimilar developers, but there is no indication of their developmental status as yet and no clinical trials are ongoing in the US.

Sorrento is developing STI-001, a cetuximab biosimilar, and reported that a phase 3 trial had been completed. Instead of a comparison with the reference product, however, the trial compared STI-001 in combination with irinotecan with irinotecan alone. They reported significantly higher ORR, PFS, and OS with the biosimilar compared with irinotecan alone, and a significant increase over historical data with the reference product, as well as fewer side effects and immunogenicity, which they attribute to its manufacture in a different cell line. However, no data has been published and no trials are ongoing in the United States, so the status of its development remains unclear.²⁹
 

Challenges to a robust market

It is an exciting time for biosimilars, with many approvals and drugs being brought to market in the US in the past several years and more poised to follow suit as patents expire. Yet many challenges remain around the growth of a robust biosimilars market.

Several surveys conducted in recent years have demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of all aspects of biosimilars and highlighted the need for evidence-based education across specialties.^30,31 In response, the FDA recently announced that it was launching an educational campaign to further understanding of biosimilars, including naming conventions (Figure 2).^32,33 Numerous other medical professional societies have produced or are in the process of producing biosimilar guidelines.

The development of biologic therapies has led to some of the most significant advances in the treatment of cancer, but these drugs are also very expensive. As patents for the biologics begin to expire, the development of biosimilars has the potential to dramatically cut therapy costs thereby making the therapies more readily accessible to patients. Here, we discuss biosimilar development and the challenges that need to be overcome to create a robust market.

Biosimilar, not generic

Biologic therapies are derived from living organisms and include the targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and cell-based therapies that have revolutionized the treatment of certain cancer types. Yet, their greater complexity makes them more difficult to manufacture, store, and administer, making them a costly therapeutic option that ultimately drives up health care costs. According to a 2011 drug expenditure analysis, biologic therapies accounted for more than half of the total expenditure on anticancer drugs in the US health care system.^1,2

Generally, when drug patents expire, other companies can develop their own identical generic versions to increase competition in the marketplace and drive down costs. However, the paradigm for generic development cannot be applied to biologic therapies because the way in which they are manufactured makes it impossible to generate an identical copy.

Instead, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has allowed for submission of an application for “licensure of a biologic product based on its similarity to a licensed biologic product”.³

These “biosimilars” have been positioned as game-changers in oncology, with the potential to reduce costs and improve access to biologic therapies. With the patents on several blockbuster cancer biologics already expired or due to expire by 2020, an increasing number of biosimilars are being developed.⁴

Totality of evidence

Biosimilars require more rigorous testing than generics, but they don’t require the same type of scientific data that the original biologic products, termed “reference products,” did. Therefore, they are governed by legislation unique to them and approved by different regulatory pathways. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a unique shortened regulatory pathway for their approval, known as the 351(k) pathway. So whereas the pathway for reference products is geared toward demonstrating patient benefit, biosimilars are required instead to show equivalence to the reference product.⁵

Biosimilars are produced through reverse engineering the reference product. Then, through a stepwise process, to generate what the FDA calls a “totality of evidence,” biosimilar manufacturers must demonstrate structural and functional similarities (through comparative quality studies) and comparable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (through comparative nonclinical and clinical studies) to the reference product. Final approval is based on 1 or more comparative clinical studies performed in the most sensitive patient population(s) (Figure 1).⁶

A flurry of approvals

The first biosimilar approvals in oncology in the United States came in the supportive care niche (Table 1). Filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), approved in March 2015, is a biosimilar of the granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) analog filgrastim (Neupogen). Owing to its mechanism of action in stimulating the production of neutrophils in the bone marrow, filgrastim is used to help reduce the risk or severity of neutropenia in patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens.

Filgrastim-sndz was approved for use across all 5 indications for which the reference product is approved, based on the totality of evidence, which included results from the key phase 3 PIONEER study.⁹ Market entry was initially delayed by lawsuits filed by Amgen, the maker of the reference product, but the biosimilar was subsequently cleared by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 300µg syringe is $324.30 for filgrastim and $275.66 figrastim-sndz, representing a 15% reduction on the reference product.¹⁰

9,19-22

Biosimilars in development

While numerous other biosimilars of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are in development, the major focus has been on the development of more biosimilars to treat cancer (Table 3). BLAs have been submitted for 4 biosimilars of trastuzumab and 1 bevacizumab biosimilar. Approval for several of the trastuzumab biosimilars has been delayed by CRLs from the FDA, mostly regarding issues with the manufacturing process or facility. Several other trastuzumab and bevacizumab biosimilars are in late-stage clinical trials.

The results of several phase 3 comparative clinical trials were recently published or reported at annual conferences. Pfizer’s PF-05280014 was compared with the European Union (EU)–approved trastuzumab, both in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Data reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology congress in 2017 demonstrated equivalence between the reference product and biosimilar in overall response rate (ORR).²³

Another recently published trial compared this biosimilar to EU-trastuzumab, both in combination with carboplatin and docetaxel, as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with resectable HER2-positive breast cancer. Among 226 patients randomized to receive 8 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 6 mg/kg thereafter of the biosimilar or reference product, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, the pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were 47% and 50%, respectively.²⁴

The results of a phase 3 study comparing Samsung Bioepis/Merck’s joint offering SB3 were recently published. A total of 875 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive SB3 or reference trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy (4 cycles docetaxel followed by 4 cycles 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide) prior to surgery, followed by 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or trastuzumab reference. Rates of event-free survival (EFS) were comparable between the 2 groups at 12 months (93.7% vs 96.1%, respectively).²⁵

Amgen’s ABP980 was evaluated in the phase 3 LILAC trial, which measured the effect of the biosimilar on pCR in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer compared with reference trastuzumab. After 4 cycles of run-in anthracycline-based chemotherapy, ABP980 or reference trastuzumab were administered in combination with paclitaxel. This was followed by surgery and then ABP980 or reference trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for up to 1 year, with the option to continue on the same drug as the neoadjuvant setting or to switch to the other. Among 696 assessable patients, the pCR rates were 48% and 42%, respectively.²⁶

Most advanced in clinical testing among the upcoming bevacizumab biosimilars is Pfizer’s PF-06439535, for which the results of a phase 3 comparative trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. PF-06439535 was compared with the EU-approved bevacizumab, both in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Among 719 patients, the primary endpoint of ORR was 45.3% and 44.6%, respectively.²⁷

Biosimilars of a third blockbuster cancer drug, the CD20-targeting mAb rituximab (Rituxan) are also in development and FDA approval is pending for 2. The patent for Rituxan expired in 2016, so these drugs could hit the market as soon as they are approved.

In a race to the finish for the first US-approved rituximab biosimilar, Celltrion-Teva’s CT-P10 (Truxima) seems most likely to come first; the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously in October 2018 to recommend its approval. Phase 3 comparative data were recently published; patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage follicular lymphoma were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of 375 mg/m² CT-P10 or reference rituximab, both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone, on day 1 of 8 21-day cycles. The ORRs were identical (92.6%) for both drugs, pharmacokinetics data also suggested bioequivalence, and the incidence of AEs was also comparable (83% vs 80%).²⁸

Biosimilars of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting mAb cetuximab are also listed in the pipeline for several biosimilar developers, but there is no indication of their developmental status as yet and no clinical trials are ongoing in the US.

Sorrento is developing STI-001, a cetuximab biosimilar, and reported that a phase 3 trial had been completed. Instead of a comparison with the reference product, however, the trial compared STI-001 in combination with irinotecan with irinotecan alone. They reported significantly higher ORR, PFS, and OS with the biosimilar compared with irinotecan alone, and a significant increase over historical data with the reference product, as well as fewer side effects and immunogenicity, which they attribute to its manufacture in a different cell line. However, no data has been published and no trials are ongoing in the United States, so the status of its development remains unclear.²⁹
 

Challenges to a robust market

It is an exciting time for biosimilars, with many approvals and drugs being brought to market in the US in the past several years and more poised to follow suit as patents expire. Yet many challenges remain around the growth of a robust biosimilars market.

Several surveys conducted in recent years have demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of all aspects of biosimilars and highlighted the need for evidence-based education across specialties.^30,31 In response, the FDA recently announced that it was launching an educational campaign to further understanding of biosimilars, including naming conventions (Figure 2).^32,33 Numerous other medical professional societies have produced or are in the process of producing biosimilar guidelines.

SAN DIEGO – The potential rituximab biosimilar drug PF-05280586 showed efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics similar to those of rituximab at up to 26 weeks in a randomized phase 3 study of treatment-naive patients with CD20-positive low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of overall response rate at 26 weeks was 75.5% in 196 patients randomized to receive PF-05280586, and 70.7% in 198 patients who received a rituximab reference product sourced from the European Union (MabThera; rituximab‑EU), Jeff Sharman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This resulted in a difference between the two arms of 4.66%,” said Dr. Sharman of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center, Springfield, Ore.

The 95% confidence interval for this difference ... was entirely contained within the prespecified equivalence margin, he said.

“Depth of response was a key secondary endpoint, and rates of complete response were 29.3% and 30.4%, respectively,” he said, noting that rates of partial response, stable response, and progressive disease were also similar between the two study arms.

Estimated 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were also highly similar at 76.4% and 81.2% in the PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU arms.


Rapid depletion in CD19-positive B-cell counts was observed in both groups after initial dosing, with recovery by week 39 and a sustained increase until the end of week 52.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 78.6% vs. 72.1% of patients in the PF‑05280586 vs. rituximab‑EU arms, respectively, and the rates of serious adverse events and grade 3 events were similar in the groups, as were rates of infusion interruptions or infusion-related reactions (IRRs), Dr. Sharman said.

IRRs occurred in about 25% of patients in each arm, and most were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 IRRs occurred in 2.6% vs. 0.5% of patients in the groups, respectively, and no grade 4 IRRs occurred.

Rates of anti-drug antibodies were also similar in the two groups, as were serum drug concentrations – regardless of anti-drug antibody status, he noted.

Study subjects were adults with a mean age of 60 years and histologically confirmed CD20-positive grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma with no prior rituximab or system therapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). They had Ann Arbor disease stages II (26.9%), III (44.2%) or IV (28.9%), ECOG performance status of 0-1, and at least 1 measurable disease lesion identifiable on imaging.

Risk level as assessed by the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index–2 was low in 28.4%, medium in 66%, and high in 5.6% of patients.

Treatment with each agent was given at intravenous doses of 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks at days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

PF-05280586 is being developed by Pfizer, and in this 52-week double-blind study – the largest study to date of the early use of the potential rituximab biosimilar in patients with previously untreated CD20-positive LTB-FL – the primary endpoint was met, demonstrating its therapeutic equivalence with rituximab-EU for overall response rate at week 26, Dr. Sharman said.

“These results therefore confirm the biosimilarity of PF-05280586 with rituximab-EU,” he concluded.

Of note, the reporting of these findings comes on the heels of the first Food and Drug Administration approval of a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of NHL; Celltrion’s product Truxima (formerly CT-P10), a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab), was approved Nov. 28 to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

The PF-0528056 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Sharman has been a consultant for, and/or received research funding and honoraria from Acerta, Pharmacyclics (an AbbVie Company), Pfizer, TG Therapeutics, Abbvie, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Sharman J et al. ASH 2018: Abstract 394.

SAN DIEGO – The potential rituximab biosimilar drug PF-05280586 showed efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics similar to those of rituximab at up to 26 weeks in a randomized phase 3 study of treatment-naive patients with CD20-positive low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of overall response rate at 26 weeks was 75.5% in 196 patients randomized to receive PF-05280586, and 70.7% in 198 patients who received a rituximab reference product sourced from the European Union (MabThera; rituximab‑EU), Jeff Sharman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This resulted in a difference between the two arms of 4.66%,” said Dr. Sharman of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center, Springfield, Ore.

The 95% confidence interval for this difference ... was entirely contained within the prespecified equivalence margin, he said.

“Depth of response was a key secondary endpoint, and rates of complete response were 29.3% and 30.4%, respectively,” he said, noting that rates of partial response, stable response, and progressive disease were also similar between the two study arms.

Estimated 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were also highly similar at 76.4% and 81.2% in the PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU arms.


Rapid depletion in CD19-positive B-cell counts was observed in both groups after initial dosing, with recovery by week 39 and a sustained increase until the end of week 52.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 78.6% vs. 72.1% of patients in the PF‑05280586 vs. rituximab‑EU arms, respectively, and the rates of serious adverse events and grade 3 events were similar in the groups, as were rates of infusion interruptions or infusion-related reactions (IRRs), Dr. Sharman said.

IRRs occurred in about 25% of patients in each arm, and most were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 IRRs occurred in 2.6% vs. 0.5% of patients in the groups, respectively, and no grade 4 IRRs occurred.

Rates of anti-drug antibodies were also similar in the two groups, as were serum drug concentrations – regardless of anti-drug antibody status, he noted.

Study subjects were adults with a mean age of 60 years and histologically confirmed CD20-positive grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma with no prior rituximab or system therapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). They had Ann Arbor disease stages II (26.9%), III (44.2%) or IV (28.9%), ECOG performance status of 0-1, and at least 1 measurable disease lesion identifiable on imaging.

Risk level as assessed by the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index–2 was low in 28.4%, medium in 66%, and high in 5.6% of patients.

Treatment with each agent was given at intravenous doses of 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks at days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

PF-05280586 is being developed by Pfizer, and in this 52-week double-blind study – the largest study to date of the early use of the potential rituximab biosimilar in patients with previously untreated CD20-positive LTB-FL – the primary endpoint was met, demonstrating its therapeutic equivalence with rituximab-EU for overall response rate at week 26, Dr. Sharman said.

“These results therefore confirm the biosimilarity of PF-05280586 with rituximab-EU,” he concluded.

Of note, the reporting of these findings comes on the heels of the first Food and Drug Administration approval of a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of NHL; Celltrion’s product Truxima (formerly CT-P10), a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab), was approved Nov. 28 to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

The PF-0528056 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Sharman has been a consultant for, and/or received research funding and honoraria from Acerta, Pharmacyclics (an AbbVie Company), Pfizer, TG Therapeutics, Abbvie, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Sharman J et al. ASH 2018: Abstract 394.

SAN DIEGO – The potential rituximab biosimilar drug PF-05280586 showed efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics similar to those of rituximab at up to 26 weeks in a randomized phase 3 study of treatment-naive patients with CD20-positive low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The primary endpoint of overall response rate at 26 weeks was 75.5% in 196 patients randomized to receive PF-05280586, and 70.7% in 198 patients who received a rituximab reference product sourced from the European Union (MabThera; rituximab‑EU), Jeff Sharman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This resulted in a difference between the two arms of 4.66%,” said Dr. Sharman of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute and Research Center, Springfield, Ore.

The 95% confidence interval for this difference ... was entirely contained within the prespecified equivalence margin, he said.

“Depth of response was a key secondary endpoint, and rates of complete response were 29.3% and 30.4%, respectively,” he said, noting that rates of partial response, stable response, and progressive disease were also similar between the two study arms.

Estimated 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were also highly similar at 76.4% and 81.2% in the PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU arms.


Rapid depletion in CD19-positive B-cell counts was observed in both groups after initial dosing, with recovery by week 39 and a sustained increase until the end of week 52.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 78.6% vs. 72.1% of patients in the PF‑05280586 vs. rituximab‑EU arms, respectively, and the rates of serious adverse events and grade 3 events were similar in the groups, as were rates of infusion interruptions or infusion-related reactions (IRRs), Dr. Sharman said.

IRRs occurred in about 25% of patients in each arm, and most were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 IRRs occurred in 2.6% vs. 0.5% of patients in the groups, respectively, and no grade 4 IRRs occurred.

Rates of anti-drug antibodies were also similar in the two groups, as were serum drug concentrations – regardless of anti-drug antibody status, he noted.

Study subjects were adults with a mean age of 60 years and histologically confirmed CD20-positive grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma with no prior rituximab or system therapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). They had Ann Arbor disease stages II (26.9%), III (44.2%) or IV (28.9%), ECOG performance status of 0-1, and at least 1 measurable disease lesion identifiable on imaging.

Risk level as assessed by the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index–2 was low in 28.4%, medium in 66%, and high in 5.6% of patients.

Treatment with each agent was given at intravenous doses of 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks at days 1, 8, 15, and 22.

PF-05280586 is being developed by Pfizer, and in this 52-week double-blind study – the largest study to date of the early use of the potential rituximab biosimilar in patients with previously untreated CD20-positive LTB-FL – the primary endpoint was met, demonstrating its therapeutic equivalence with rituximab-EU for overall response rate at week 26, Dr. Sharman said.

“These results therefore confirm the biosimilarity of PF-05280586 with rituximab-EU,” he concluded.

Of note, the reporting of these findings comes on the heels of the first Food and Drug Administration approval of a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of NHL; Celltrion’s product Truxima (formerly CT-P10), a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab), was approved Nov. 28 to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

The PF-0528056 study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Sharman has been a consultant for, and/or received research funding and honoraria from Acerta, Pharmacyclics (an AbbVie Company), Pfizer, TG Therapeutics, Abbvie, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Sharman J et al. ASH 2018: Abstract 394.

Photo by Bill Branson

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

Specifically, Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy.

And Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat non-progressing, low-grade, CD20­-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.

The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

A phase 3 trial recently published in The Lancet Haematology suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma.

For more details on Truxima, see the prescribing information.

Photo by Bill Branson

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

Specifically, Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy.

And Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat non-progressing, low-grade, CD20­-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.

The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

A phase 3 trial recently published in The Lancet Haematology suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma.

For more details on Truxima, see the prescribing information.

Photo by Bill Branson

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy.

Specifically, Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy.

And Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat non-progressing, low-grade, CD20­-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.

The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

A phase 3 trial recently published in The Lancet Haematology suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma.

For more details on Truxima, see the prescribing information.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab) and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL. Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima also is approved as a single agent to treat nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

Findings from a phase 3 trial suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (Lancet Haematol. 2018 Nov;5[11]:e543-53).

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab) and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL. Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima also is approved as a single agent to treat nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

Findings from a phase 3 trial suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (Lancet Haematol. 2018 Nov;5[11]:e543-53).

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar rituximab product for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Celltrion’s Truxima (rituximab-abbs) is a biosimilar of Genentech’s Rituxan (rituximab) and the first biosimilar approved in the United States to treat NHL.

Truxima (formerly CT-P10) is approved to treat adults with CD20-positive, B-cell NHL, either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima is approved as a single agent to treat relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL. Truxima is approved in combination with first-line chemotherapy to treat previously untreated follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL.

Truxima is approved as single-agent maintenance therapy in patients with follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL who achieve a complete or partial response to a rituximab product in combination with chemotherapy. Truxima also is approved as a single agent to treat nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive, B-cell NHL after first-line treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone.The label for Truxima contains a boxed warning detailing the risk of fatal infusion reactions, severe skin and mouth reactions (some with fatal outcomes), hepatitis B virus reactivation that may cause serious liver problems (including liver failure and death), and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The FDA said its approval of Truxima is “based on a review of evidence that included extensive structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical data that demonstrates Truxima is biosimilar to Rituxan.”

Findings from a phase 3 trial suggested that Truxima is equivalent to the reference product in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (Lancet Haematol. 2018 Nov;5[11]:e543-53).

[email protected]

The presence or absence in tumor cells of cortactin, a cytoskeleton-remodeling adapter protein, may be a marker to help pathologists distinguish between chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), investigators suggest.

A study of cortactin expression in tumor samples from patients with B-cell CLL, MCL, and other hematologic malignancies showed that while cortactin was present in 14 of 17 CLL samples, it was not expressed on any of 16 MCL samples, reported Marco Pizzi, MD, PhD, from the University of Padova (Italy) and his colleagues.

“In particular, cortactin may contribute to the differential diagnosis between CLL and MCL, two neoplasms with similar histological features but very different clinical outcome. Further studies are needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of deranged cortactin expression in MCL and CLL and to investigate any possible relationship between cortactin status and the biological features of these lymphomas,” they wrote in Human Pathology.

Overexpression of cortactin has been reported in several solid tumors, and increased expression of CTTN, the gene encoding for cortactin, has been associated with aggressive, poor prognosis disease, the investigators noted.

To characterize cortactin expression in lymphoid and hematopoietic cells and detect potential associations between cortactin and virulence of hematologic malignancies, the investigators performed immunohistochemical analysis on samples from 131 patients treated at their center. The samples included 17 cases of CLL, 16 of MCL, 25 of follicular lymphoma (FL), 30 of marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), 10 of hairy cell leukemia, three of splenic diffuse red pulp small B-cell lymphomas (SDRPBL), and 30 of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

They found that cortactin was expressed in 14 of the 17 CLL samples, all 10 of the HCL samples, and 22 of the 30 DLBCL samples. In contrast, there was no cortactin expression detected in any of either 16 MCL or three SDRPBL samples. The researchers found that 13 of 30 MZL samples had low-level staining. In FL, cortactin was expressed in 2 of the samples but in the remaining 23 cases the researchers found only scattered cortactin-positive lymphoid elements of non–B-cell lineage.

The investigators also found that cortactin expression in CLL correlated with other CLL-specific markers, and found that expression of two or more of the markers had 89.1% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a 100% positive predictive value, and 90.5% negative predictive value for a diagnosis of CLL.

In addition, they saw that the immunohistochemical results were similar to those for CTTN gene expression assessed by in silico analysis.

The investigators noted that CLL and MCL are challenging to differentiate from one another because of morphologic similarities and partially overlapping immunophenotypes.

“In this context, cortactin expression would strongly sustain a diagnosis of CLL over MCL, particularly in association with other CLL markers (i.e., LEF1 and CD200),” they wrote.

The study was internally supported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pizzi M et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.038.
 

The presence or absence in tumor cells of cortactin, a cytoskeleton-remodeling adapter protein, may be a marker to help pathologists distinguish between chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), investigators suggest.

A study of cortactin expression in tumor samples from patients with B-cell CLL, MCL, and other hematologic malignancies showed that while cortactin was present in 14 of 17 CLL samples, it was not expressed on any of 16 MCL samples, reported Marco Pizzi, MD, PhD, from the University of Padova (Italy) and his colleagues.

“In particular, cortactin may contribute to the differential diagnosis between CLL and MCL, two neoplasms with similar histological features but very different clinical outcome. Further studies are needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of deranged cortactin expression in MCL and CLL and to investigate any possible relationship between cortactin status and the biological features of these lymphomas,” they wrote in Human Pathology.

Overexpression of cortactin has been reported in several solid tumors, and increased expression of CTTN, the gene encoding for cortactin, has been associated with aggressive, poor prognosis disease, the investigators noted.

To characterize cortactin expression in lymphoid and hematopoietic cells and detect potential associations between cortactin and virulence of hematologic malignancies, the investigators performed immunohistochemical analysis on samples from 131 patients treated at their center. The samples included 17 cases of CLL, 16 of MCL, 25 of follicular lymphoma (FL), 30 of marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), 10 of hairy cell leukemia, three of splenic diffuse red pulp small B-cell lymphomas (SDRPBL), and 30 of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

They found that cortactin was expressed in 14 of the 17 CLL samples, all 10 of the HCL samples, and 22 of the 30 DLBCL samples. In contrast, there was no cortactin expression detected in any of either 16 MCL or three SDRPBL samples. The researchers found that 13 of 30 MZL samples had low-level staining. In FL, cortactin was expressed in 2 of the samples but in the remaining 23 cases the researchers found only scattered cortactin-positive lymphoid elements of non–B-cell lineage.

The investigators also found that cortactin expression in CLL correlated with other CLL-specific markers, and found that expression of two or more of the markers had 89.1% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a 100% positive predictive value, and 90.5% negative predictive value for a diagnosis of CLL.

In addition, they saw that the immunohistochemical results were similar to those for CTTN gene expression assessed by in silico analysis.

The investigators noted that CLL and MCL are challenging to differentiate from one another because of morphologic similarities and partially overlapping immunophenotypes.

“In this context, cortactin expression would strongly sustain a diagnosis of CLL over MCL, particularly in association with other CLL markers (i.e., LEF1 and CD200),” they wrote.

The study was internally supported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pizzi M et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.038.
 

The presence or absence in tumor cells of cortactin, a cytoskeleton-remodeling adapter protein, may be a marker to help pathologists distinguish between chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), investigators suggest.

A study of cortactin expression in tumor samples from patients with B-cell CLL, MCL, and other hematologic malignancies showed that while cortactin was present in 14 of 17 CLL samples, it was not expressed on any of 16 MCL samples, reported Marco Pizzi, MD, PhD, from the University of Padova (Italy) and his colleagues.

“In particular, cortactin may contribute to the differential diagnosis between CLL and MCL, two neoplasms with similar histological features but very different clinical outcome. Further studies are needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of deranged cortactin expression in MCL and CLL and to investigate any possible relationship between cortactin status and the biological features of these lymphomas,” they wrote in Human Pathology.

Overexpression of cortactin has been reported in several solid tumors, and increased expression of CTTN, the gene encoding for cortactin, has been associated with aggressive, poor prognosis disease, the investigators noted.

To characterize cortactin expression in lymphoid and hematopoietic cells and detect potential associations between cortactin and virulence of hematologic malignancies, the investigators performed immunohistochemical analysis on samples from 131 patients treated at their center. The samples included 17 cases of CLL, 16 of MCL, 25 of follicular lymphoma (FL), 30 of marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), 10 of hairy cell leukemia, three of splenic diffuse red pulp small B-cell lymphomas (SDRPBL), and 30 of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

They found that cortactin was expressed in 14 of the 17 CLL samples, all 10 of the HCL samples, and 22 of the 30 DLBCL samples. In contrast, there was no cortactin expression detected in any of either 16 MCL or three SDRPBL samples. The researchers found that 13 of 30 MZL samples had low-level staining. In FL, cortactin was expressed in 2 of the samples but in the remaining 23 cases the researchers found only scattered cortactin-positive lymphoid elements of non–B-cell lineage.

The investigators also found that cortactin expression in CLL correlated with other CLL-specific markers, and found that expression of two or more of the markers had 89.1% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a 100% positive predictive value, and 90.5% negative predictive value for a diagnosis of CLL.

In addition, they saw that the immunohistochemical results were similar to those for CTTN gene expression assessed by in silico analysis.

The investigators noted that CLL and MCL are challenging to differentiate from one another because of morphologic similarities and partially overlapping immunophenotypes.

“In this context, cortactin expression would strongly sustain a diagnosis of CLL over MCL, particularly in association with other CLL markers (i.e., LEF1 and CD200),” they wrote.

The study was internally supported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pizzi M et al. Hum Pathol. 2018 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.038.
 

follicular lymphoma

Phase 3 results suggest the biosimilar product CT-P10 is equivalent to rituximab in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (FL).

Overall response rates were similar—both exceeding 80%—in patients who received CT-P10 and those who received rituximab.

In addition, adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable between the treatment arms.

Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.

CT-P10 was approved by the European Commission in 2017 and was recommended for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee last month.

The phase 3 trial of CT-P10 included 258 patients with stage II-IV low-tumor-burden FL. They were randomized to receive CT-P10 (n=130) or rituximab (n=128).

Patients received intravenous CT-P10 or rituximab weekly for 4 weeks as induction therapy. Patients experiencing disease control went on to a maintenance phase with their assigned treatment, given every 8 weeks for six cycles, followed by another year of maintenance therapy with CT-P10 for those still on study.

Efficacy

The overall response rate at 7 months was 83% in patients randomized to CT-P10 and 81% in those randomized to rituximab.

The complete response rates were 28% and 34%, respectively. The unconfirmed complete response rates were 5% and 2%, respectively. And the partial response rates were 51% and 46%, respectively.

The two treatments were deemed therapeutically equivalent, as the two-sided 90% confidence intervals for the difference in proportion of responders between CT-P10 and rituximab were within the prespecified equivalence margin of 17%.

Safety

Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 71% of patients in the CT-P10 arm and 67% of those in the rituximab arm.

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (in the CT-P10 and rituximab arms, respectively) were:

• Infusion-related reactions (31% and 29%)
• Infections (27% and 21%)
• Worsening neutropenia (22% for both)
• Upper respiratory tract infection (12% and 11%)
• Worsening anemia (10% and 14%)
• Worsening thrombocytopenia (8% and 7%)
• Fatigue (7% and 9%)
• Diarrhea (5% for both)
• Nausea (5% for both)
• Urinary tract infection (4% and 5%)
• Headache (3% and 5%).

Serious AEs were reported in six patients in the CT-P10 arm and three patients in the rituximab arm.

Two serious AEs—myocardial infarction and constipation—in the CT-P10 arm were considered related to treatment. None of the serious AEs in the rituximab arm were considered treatment-related.

Two patients in the CT-P10 arm discontinued treatment due to AEs—one due to myocardial infarction and one due to dermatitis. There were no AE-related discontinuations in the rituximab arm.

There were two deaths in the CT-P10 arm as of the cutoff date (January 4, 2018). One was due to myocardial infarction, and one was due to respiratory failure. The myocardial infarction was considered possibly related to treatment.

This trial was sponsored by Celltrion, the company developing CT-P10. Three study authors are employees of the company.

Dr. Kwak and several other authors not employed by Celltrion reported disclosures related to the company. Authors also reported relationships with Novartis, Roche, AbbVie, Celgene, and Takeda, among other entities.

follicular lymphoma

Phase 3 results suggest the biosimilar product CT-P10 is equivalent to rituximab in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (FL).

Overall response rates were similar—both exceeding 80%—in patients who received CT-P10 and those who received rituximab.

In addition, adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable between the treatment arms.

Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.

CT-P10 was approved by the European Commission in 2017 and was recommended for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee last month.

The phase 3 trial of CT-P10 included 258 patients with stage II-IV low-tumor-burden FL. They were randomized to receive CT-P10 (n=130) or rituximab (n=128).

Patients received intravenous CT-P10 or rituximab weekly for 4 weeks as induction therapy. Patients experiencing disease control went on to a maintenance phase with their assigned treatment, given every 8 weeks for six cycles, followed by another year of maintenance therapy with CT-P10 for those still on study.

Efficacy

The overall response rate at 7 months was 83% in patients randomized to CT-P10 and 81% in those randomized to rituximab.

The complete response rates were 28% and 34%, respectively. The unconfirmed complete response rates were 5% and 2%, respectively. And the partial response rates were 51% and 46%, respectively.

The two treatments were deemed therapeutically equivalent, as the two-sided 90% confidence intervals for the difference in proportion of responders between CT-P10 and rituximab were within the prespecified equivalence margin of 17%.

Safety

Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 71% of patients in the CT-P10 arm and 67% of those in the rituximab arm.

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (in the CT-P10 and rituximab arms, respectively) were:

• Infusion-related reactions (31% and 29%)
• Infections (27% and 21%)
• Worsening neutropenia (22% for both)
• Upper respiratory tract infection (12% and 11%)
• Worsening anemia (10% and 14%)
• Worsening thrombocytopenia (8% and 7%)
• Fatigue (7% and 9%)
• Diarrhea (5% for both)
• Nausea (5% for both)
• Urinary tract infection (4% and 5%)
• Headache (3% and 5%).

Serious AEs were reported in six patients in the CT-P10 arm and three patients in the rituximab arm.

Two serious AEs—myocardial infarction and constipation—in the CT-P10 arm were considered related to treatment. None of the serious AEs in the rituximab arm were considered treatment-related.

Two patients in the CT-P10 arm discontinued treatment due to AEs—one due to myocardial infarction and one due to dermatitis. There were no AE-related discontinuations in the rituximab arm.

There were two deaths in the CT-P10 arm as of the cutoff date (January 4, 2018). One was due to myocardial infarction, and one was due to respiratory failure. The myocardial infarction was considered possibly related to treatment.

This trial was sponsored by Celltrion, the company developing CT-P10. Three study authors are employees of the company.

Dr. Kwak and several other authors not employed by Celltrion reported disclosures related to the company. Authors also reported relationships with Novartis, Roche, AbbVie, Celgene, and Takeda, among other entities.

follicular lymphoma

Phase 3 results suggest the biosimilar product CT-P10 is equivalent to rituximab in patients with low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (FL).

Overall response rates were similar—both exceeding 80%—in patients who received CT-P10 and those who received rituximab.

In addition, adverse event (AE) profiles were comparable between the treatment arms.

Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.

CT-P10 was approved by the European Commission in 2017 and was recommended for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee last month.

The phase 3 trial of CT-P10 included 258 patients with stage II-IV low-tumor-burden FL. They were randomized to receive CT-P10 (n=130) or rituximab (n=128).

Patients received intravenous CT-P10 or rituximab weekly for 4 weeks as induction therapy. Patients experiencing disease control went on to a maintenance phase with their assigned treatment, given every 8 weeks for six cycles, followed by another year of maintenance therapy with CT-P10 for those still on study.

Efficacy

The overall response rate at 7 months was 83% in patients randomized to CT-P10 and 81% in those randomized to rituximab.

The complete response rates were 28% and 34%, respectively. The unconfirmed complete response rates were 5% and 2%, respectively. And the partial response rates were 51% and 46%, respectively.

The two treatments were deemed therapeutically equivalent, as the two-sided 90% confidence intervals for the difference in proportion of responders between CT-P10 and rituximab were within the prespecified equivalence margin of 17%.

Safety

Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 71% of patients in the CT-P10 arm and 67% of those in the rituximab arm.

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (in the CT-P10 and rituximab arms, respectively) were:

• Infusion-related reactions (31% and 29%)
• Infections (27% and 21%)
• Worsening neutropenia (22% for both)
• Upper respiratory tract infection (12% and 11%)
• Worsening anemia (10% and 14%)
• Worsening thrombocytopenia (8% and 7%)
• Fatigue (7% and 9%)
• Diarrhea (5% for both)
• Nausea (5% for both)
• Urinary tract infection (4% and 5%)
• Headache (3% and 5%).

Serious AEs were reported in six patients in the CT-P10 arm and three patients in the rituximab arm.

Two serious AEs—myocardial infarction and constipation—in the CT-P10 arm were considered related to treatment. None of the serious AEs in the rituximab arm were considered treatment-related.

Two patients in the CT-P10 arm discontinued treatment due to AEs—one due to myocardial infarction and one due to dermatitis. There were no AE-related discontinuations in the rituximab arm.

There were two deaths in the CT-P10 arm as of the cutoff date (January 4, 2018). One was due to myocardial infarction, and one was due to respiratory failure. The myocardial infarction was considered possibly related to treatment.

This trial was sponsored by Celltrion, the company developing CT-P10. Three study authors are employees of the company.

Dr. Kwak and several other authors not employed by Celltrion reported disclosures related to the company. Authors also reported relationships with Novartis, Roche, AbbVie, Celgene, and Takeda, among other entities.