Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

Adding levofloxacin to antimyeloma therapy improved survival and reduced infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, findings from a phase 3 trial suggest.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The advantages of levofloxacin prophylaxis appear to offset the potential risks in patients with newly diagnosed disease, explained Mark T. Drayson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TEAMM study enrolled 977 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The effects of antimicrobial prophylaxis on infection risk and infection-related mortality were evaluated across 93 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

Study patients were randomly assigned to receive 500 mg of oral levofloxacin once daily or placebo for a total of 12 weeks. If applicable, dose adjustments were made based on estimated glomerular filtration rate.

At baseline, the team collected stool samples and nasal swabs, and follow-up assessment occurred every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was time to death (all causes) or first febrile event from the start of prophylactic therapy to 12 weeks.

After a median follow-up of 12 months, first febrile episodes or deaths were significantly lower for patients in the levofloxacin arm (19%), compared with the placebo arm (27%) for a hazard ratio for time to first event of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86; P = .0018).

With respect to safety, the rates of serious adverse events were similar between the study arms, with the exception of tendinitis in the levofloxacin group (1%). Among all patients, a total of 597 serious toxicities were observed from baseline to 16 weeks (52% in the levofloxacin arm vs. 48% in the placebo arm).

“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the use of prophylactic antibiotics has shown a survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma,” the researchers reported.

One key limitation of the study was the younger patient population relative to the general population. As a result, differences in survival estimates could exist between the trial and real-world populations, they noted.

“Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma could benefit from levofloxacin prophylaxis, although local antibiotic resistance proportions must be considered,” the researchers cautioned.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. The authors reported financial affiliations with Actelion, Astellas, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and other companies.

SOURCE: Drayson MT et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6.

EDINBURGH – Impaired renal function may indicate excess risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in venetoclax-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients and should be considered when assessing TLS risk, according to findings from a retrospective cohort study.

Complex karyotype may also affect TLS risk, Anthony Mato, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Of 339 CLL patients who were treated with venetoclax, 38%, 34%, and 28% were considered to have low, medium, or high risk for TLS, respectively, according to the standard definition based on absolute lymphocyte count as a measure of tumor burden and/or lymph node size.

TLS occurred in 35 patients (10%), including 26 cases of laboratory-confirmed TLS and 9 clinical TLS cases; 1 patient required dialysis and 1 death occurred, which was attributable to the TLS, Dr. Mato of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues reported in a poster at the workshop.

Univariate analysis was performed to “understand baseline factors associated with TLS development during dose escalation,” and it examined sex, creatinine clearance (CrCl), complex karyotype, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable mutation status, prior ibrutinib exposure, venetoclax monotherapy vs. combination therapy, and TLS risk group. The investigators observed no significant difference between the low- and medium-risk patients, therefore those two groups were combined and compared with the high-risk patients.

The univariate analysis showed significant associations between TLS and CrCl (odds ratio, 2.9 for 80 mL/min or less vs. greater than 80 mL/min), complex karyotype (OR, 2.2), and low/medium vs. high TLS risk based on the standard definition (OR, 2.56).

A multivariable analysis of the predictors identified as significant in the univariate analyses showed that standard TLS risk group and CrCl remained independent predictors of TLS.

“Although the odds ratio for complex karyotype suggested potential clinical significance, this did not meet the threshold for statistical significance and was not included in the final model,” they wrote.

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a model including TLS risk group and CrCl was 74.6%, compared with 65% for the area under the ROC curve using the standard tumor burden/lymph node size approach for defining TLS risk, which is described in the venetoclax package insert.

Patients included in the study had a median age of 67 years at venetoclax initiation, 69% were men, 85% were white, and 13% were treated on a clinical trial. Complex karyotype was present in 39%, del(17p) in 43%, and 84% had immunoglobulin heavy chain variable–unmutated disease.

Most patients received venetoclax monotherapy (79%), had relapsed/refractory disease (94%), and had previously received ibrutinib (78%). The median number of prior therapies was 3, but the number ranged from 0-15, the investigators noted.

The findings of this study suggest that, in addition to defining risk based on absolute lymphocyte count and lymph node size, patients with CrCl less than 80 mL/min – indicating impaired renal function – have excess risk of TLS.

Although complex karyotype did not reach statistical significance as an independent predictor of TLS, the findings in this study suggest it “may impact TLS risk and is worthy of further study in larger samples,” they said, concluding that consideration of baseline renal function, and possibly karyotype, could “further guide practitioners in their approach to prophylaxis and patient counseling, allowing for improved safety in the use of this effective agent in CLL.”

Additional planned analyses will focus on TLS risk score development and further refinement of TLS risk stratification, they noted.

Dr. Mato has received grant support, consulting fees, and/or fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board or advisory board from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Janssen, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Loxo, Sunesis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Impaired renal function may indicate excess risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in venetoclax-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients and should be considered when assessing TLS risk, according to findings from a retrospective cohort study.

Complex karyotype may also affect TLS risk, Anthony Mato, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Of 339 CLL patients who were treated with venetoclax, 38%, 34%, and 28% were considered to have low, medium, or high risk for TLS, respectively, according to the standard definition based on absolute lymphocyte count as a measure of tumor burden and/or lymph node size.

TLS occurred in 35 patients (10%), including 26 cases of laboratory-confirmed TLS and 9 clinical TLS cases; 1 patient required dialysis and 1 death occurred, which was attributable to the TLS, Dr. Mato of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues reported in a poster at the workshop.

Univariate analysis was performed to “understand baseline factors associated with TLS development during dose escalation,” and it examined sex, creatinine clearance (CrCl), complex karyotype, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable mutation status, prior ibrutinib exposure, venetoclax monotherapy vs. combination therapy, and TLS risk group. The investigators observed no significant difference between the low- and medium-risk patients, therefore those two groups were combined and compared with the high-risk patients.

The univariate analysis showed significant associations between TLS and CrCl (odds ratio, 2.9 for 80 mL/min or less vs. greater than 80 mL/min), complex karyotype (OR, 2.2), and low/medium vs. high TLS risk based on the standard definition (OR, 2.56).

A multivariable analysis of the predictors identified as significant in the univariate analyses showed that standard TLS risk group and CrCl remained independent predictors of TLS.

“Although the odds ratio for complex karyotype suggested potential clinical significance, this did not meet the threshold for statistical significance and was not included in the final model,” they wrote.

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a model including TLS risk group and CrCl was 74.6%, compared with 65% for the area under the ROC curve using the standard tumor burden/lymph node size approach for defining TLS risk, which is described in the venetoclax package insert.

Patients included in the study had a median age of 67 years at venetoclax initiation, 69% were men, 85% were white, and 13% were treated on a clinical trial. Complex karyotype was present in 39%, del(17p) in 43%, and 84% had immunoglobulin heavy chain variable–unmutated disease.

Most patients received venetoclax monotherapy (79%), had relapsed/refractory disease (94%), and had previously received ibrutinib (78%). The median number of prior therapies was 3, but the number ranged from 0-15, the investigators noted.

The findings of this study suggest that, in addition to defining risk based on absolute lymphocyte count and lymph node size, patients with CrCl less than 80 mL/min – indicating impaired renal function – have excess risk of TLS.

Although complex karyotype did not reach statistical significance as an independent predictor of TLS, the findings in this study suggest it “may impact TLS risk and is worthy of further study in larger samples,” they said, concluding that consideration of baseline renal function, and possibly karyotype, could “further guide practitioners in their approach to prophylaxis and patient counseling, allowing for improved safety in the use of this effective agent in CLL.”

Additional planned analyses will focus on TLS risk score development and further refinement of TLS risk stratification, they noted.

Dr. Mato has received grant support, consulting fees, and/or fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board or advisory board from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Janssen, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Loxo, Sunesis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Impaired renal function may indicate excess risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in venetoclax-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients and should be considered when assessing TLS risk, according to findings from a retrospective cohort study.

Complex karyotype may also affect TLS risk, Anthony Mato, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Of 339 CLL patients who were treated with venetoclax, 38%, 34%, and 28% were considered to have low, medium, or high risk for TLS, respectively, according to the standard definition based on absolute lymphocyte count as a measure of tumor burden and/or lymph node size.

TLS occurred in 35 patients (10%), including 26 cases of laboratory-confirmed TLS and 9 clinical TLS cases; 1 patient required dialysis and 1 death occurred, which was attributable to the TLS, Dr. Mato of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues reported in a poster at the workshop.

Univariate analysis was performed to “understand baseline factors associated with TLS development during dose escalation,” and it examined sex, creatinine clearance (CrCl), complex karyotype, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable mutation status, prior ibrutinib exposure, venetoclax monotherapy vs. combination therapy, and TLS risk group. The investigators observed no significant difference between the low- and medium-risk patients, therefore those two groups were combined and compared with the high-risk patients.

The univariate analysis showed significant associations between TLS and CrCl (odds ratio, 2.9 for 80 mL/min or less vs. greater than 80 mL/min), complex karyotype (OR, 2.2), and low/medium vs. high TLS risk based on the standard definition (OR, 2.56).

A multivariable analysis of the predictors identified as significant in the univariate analyses showed that standard TLS risk group and CrCl remained independent predictors of TLS.

“Although the odds ratio for complex karyotype suggested potential clinical significance, this did not meet the threshold for statistical significance and was not included in the final model,” they wrote.

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a model including TLS risk group and CrCl was 74.6%, compared with 65% for the area under the ROC curve using the standard tumor burden/lymph node size approach for defining TLS risk, which is described in the venetoclax package insert.

Patients included in the study had a median age of 67 years at venetoclax initiation, 69% were men, 85% were white, and 13% were treated on a clinical trial. Complex karyotype was present in 39%, del(17p) in 43%, and 84% had immunoglobulin heavy chain variable–unmutated disease.

Most patients received venetoclax monotherapy (79%), had relapsed/refractory disease (94%), and had previously received ibrutinib (78%). The median number of prior therapies was 3, but the number ranged from 0-15, the investigators noted.

The findings of this study suggest that, in addition to defining risk based on absolute lymphocyte count and lymph node size, patients with CrCl less than 80 mL/min – indicating impaired renal function – have excess risk of TLS.

Although complex karyotype did not reach statistical significance as an independent predictor of TLS, the findings in this study suggest it “may impact TLS risk and is worthy of further study in larger samples,” they said, concluding that consideration of baseline renal function, and possibly karyotype, could “further guide practitioners in their approach to prophylaxis and patient counseling, allowing for improved safety in the use of this effective agent in CLL.”

Additional planned analyses will focus on TLS risk score development and further refinement of TLS risk stratification, they noted.

Dr. Mato has received grant support, consulting fees, and/or fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board or advisory board from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Janssen, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Loxo, Sunesis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron.

[email protected]

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.

©bbbrrn/Thinkstockphotos.com

The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.

Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.

The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.

The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.

After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.

The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”

There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).

“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.

Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.

©bbbrrn/Thinkstockphotos.com

The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.

Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.

The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.

The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.

After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.

The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”

There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).

“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.

Black race, polypharmacy, and increasing age were associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide in older patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to an analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data.

©bbbrrn/Thinkstockphotos.com

The objective of the study was to examine factors affecting adherence in older adults who received lenalidomide.

Of 793 patients diagnosed and treated between 2007 and 2014, 302 (38%) had poor adherence to lenalidomide, reported Hira Mian, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. The findings were published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers studied patients 65 years and older who had received at least two lenalidomide prescriptions in the first year following diagnosis. Only patients who filled a prescription for lenalidomide within 60 days of a myeloma diagnosis were included.

The median age of the patients was 73 years; 43% were aged 75 years or older. Most of the patients included in the analysis were white.

The medication possession ratio, defined as the “ratio of the number of days the patient had pills in their possession to the number of days in the observation period,” was used to evaluate adherence to therapy. A ratio of less than 90% was deemed poor adherence by the researchers.

After analysis, the researchers found that black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; P = .022), polypharmacy (aOR, 1.04 per drug; P = .008), and increasing age (aOR, 1.03 per year; P = .024) were all significantly associated with poor adherence to lenalidomide.

The mean medication possession ratio among study patients was 89.5%. Overall, 38% of patients in the study had poor adherence to lenalidomide, while just 7% of patients in the study had a medication possession ratio of 100%, indicating “perfect adherence.”

There was a trend toward inferior overall survival among patients with poor adherence to lenalidomide, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.38).

“Our study emphasizes the need for both better clinical monitoring of adherence and for future prospective studies in accurately understanding the rates and predictors of adherence while simultaneously developing strategies for improving adherence for patients that are at high risk of nonadherence,” the researchers wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Mian H et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.618.

The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.

Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.

“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.

Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.

The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.

After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.

With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.

Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.

“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.

SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.

The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.

Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.

“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.

Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.

The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.

After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.

With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.

Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.

“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.

SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.

The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.

Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.

“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.

Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.

The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.

After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.

With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.

Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.

“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.

The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.

SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.

Early-career researchers who are interested in studying mantle cell lymphoma can now apply for a $50,000 grant from the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Conquer Cancer foundation.

The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.

The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.

Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.

The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.

The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.

Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.

[email protected]

Early-career researchers who are interested in studying mantle cell lymphoma can now apply for a $50,000 grant from the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Conquer Cancer foundation.

The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.

The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.

Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.

The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.

The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.

Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.

[email protected]

Early-career researchers who are interested in studying mantle cell lymphoma can now apply for a $50,000 grant from the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Conquer Cancer foundation.

The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.

The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.

Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.

The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.

The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.

Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.

[email protected]

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.

Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.

Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).

The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.

They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.

Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.

“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”

No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.

Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.

Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).

The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.

They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.

Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.

“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”

No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.

Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.

Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).

The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.

They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.

Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.

“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”

No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.

SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.

The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.

Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).

“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.

The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.

The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m². Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.

The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.

After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.

Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.

“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.

“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.

The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.

Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).

“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.

The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.

The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m². Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.

The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.

After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.

Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.

“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.

“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.

The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.

Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).

“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.

The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.

The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m². Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.

The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.

After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.

Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.

“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.

“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.

SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.

Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

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

A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).

There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.

Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.

The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.

Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.

Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.

The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).

Results

Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).

There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).

There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.

Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).

Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).

Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).

“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”

The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.

Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

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

A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).

There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.

Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.

The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.

Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.

Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.

The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).

Results

Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).

There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).

There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.

Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).

Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).

Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).

“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”

The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.

Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

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

A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).

There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.

Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.

The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.

Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.

Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.

The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).

Results

Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).

There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).

There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.

Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).

Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).

Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).

“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”

The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.