Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Acalabrutinib monotherapy can produce durable responses in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to updated results from a phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The drug produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 81%, and the median duration of response was 26 months.

These are the highest such figures reported “among all approved single-agent therapies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL,” Michael Wang, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in Houston and colleagues wrote in a letter in Leukemia.

Dr. Wang and colleagues reported updated results in 124 patients treated on the ACE-LY-004 trial. At baseline, the patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 42-90 years), and 80% were men. Three-quarters of patients had stage IV disease, 72% had extranodal disease, 21% had blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, and 26% had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater.

At a median follow-up of 26 months, 40% (n = 49) of patients were still on acalabrutinib, and 61% (n = 76) were still in follow-up for survival. Six patients went on to allogeneic transplant at a median of 19 days after stopping acalabrutinib.

The ORR was 81% (100/124), and the complete response (CR) rate was 43% (n = 53). Four patients who initially had a partial response converted to a CR with longer follow-up. The estimated 24-month duration of response was 52.4%.

“ORR was consistent across patients with refractory disease and those with blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, despite those patients having a higher mean Ki-67 index [of 50% or greater], suggesting that some patients with poorer prognosis may also benefit from acalabrutinib,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote.

There were 29 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment. Seven patients (24%) had MRD-negative disease in the peripheral blood after they achieved a CR. An additional patient with a CR became MRD negative when a second blood sample was taken about 6 months after the first.

“Despite limited samples, these results demonstrate that continued use of acalabrutinib can lead to undetectable MRD in patients with CR,” Dr. Wang and his colleagues wrote. “Since most patients with MRD data are still on treatment (27/29), relationships between MRD negativity and durability of response cannot be made at this time.”

The median progression-free survival was 20 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. The estimated 24-month progression-free survival rate was 49.0%, and the estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 72.4%. Patients with low/intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores, classical MCL, and a Ki-67 index less than 50% had a longer duration of response and survival.

The adverse event profile was “largely consistent with earlier reporting,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote. The most frequent adverse events were headache (38%), diarrhea (36%), fatigue (28%), cough (22%), and myalgia (21%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (10%), neutropenia (10%), and pneumonia (6%).

Ten patients developed second primary cancers. There were no new atrial fibrillation events and no new hypertension events. The frequency of infections decreased over time, as did the number of bleeding events. However, two of three major hemorrhage events occurred after the previous report was published.

There were 43 deaths (35%), 29 of them because of disease progression. Six patients died of adverse events, two died of unknown causes, and two died of secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Other causes of death included multiorgan failure, intestinal obstruction, lung cancer, and graft-versus-host disease.

This study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. The researchers reported relationships with AstraZeneca/Acerta Pharma and many other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. Leukemia. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0575-9.

Acalabrutinib monotherapy can produce durable responses in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to updated results from a phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The drug produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 81%, and the median duration of response was 26 months.

These are the highest such figures reported “among all approved single-agent therapies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL,” Michael Wang, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in Houston and colleagues wrote in a letter in Leukemia.

Dr. Wang and colleagues reported updated results in 124 patients treated on the ACE-LY-004 trial. At baseline, the patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 42-90 years), and 80% were men. Three-quarters of patients had stage IV disease, 72% had extranodal disease, 21% had blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, and 26% had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater.

At a median follow-up of 26 months, 40% (n = 49) of patients were still on acalabrutinib, and 61% (n = 76) were still in follow-up for survival. Six patients went on to allogeneic transplant at a median of 19 days after stopping acalabrutinib.

The ORR was 81% (100/124), and the complete response (CR) rate was 43% (n = 53). Four patients who initially had a partial response converted to a CR with longer follow-up. The estimated 24-month duration of response was 52.4%.

“ORR was consistent across patients with refractory disease and those with blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, despite those patients having a higher mean Ki-67 index [of 50% or greater], suggesting that some patients with poorer prognosis may also benefit from acalabrutinib,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote.

There were 29 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment. Seven patients (24%) had MRD-negative disease in the peripheral blood after they achieved a CR. An additional patient with a CR became MRD negative when a second blood sample was taken about 6 months after the first.

“Despite limited samples, these results demonstrate that continued use of acalabrutinib can lead to undetectable MRD in patients with CR,” Dr. Wang and his colleagues wrote. “Since most patients with MRD data are still on treatment (27/29), relationships between MRD negativity and durability of response cannot be made at this time.”

The median progression-free survival was 20 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. The estimated 24-month progression-free survival rate was 49.0%, and the estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 72.4%. Patients with low/intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores, classical MCL, and a Ki-67 index less than 50% had a longer duration of response and survival.

The adverse event profile was “largely consistent with earlier reporting,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote. The most frequent adverse events were headache (38%), diarrhea (36%), fatigue (28%), cough (22%), and myalgia (21%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (10%), neutropenia (10%), and pneumonia (6%).

Ten patients developed second primary cancers. There were no new atrial fibrillation events and no new hypertension events. The frequency of infections decreased over time, as did the number of bleeding events. However, two of three major hemorrhage events occurred after the previous report was published.

There were 43 deaths (35%), 29 of them because of disease progression. Six patients died of adverse events, two died of unknown causes, and two died of secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Other causes of death included multiorgan failure, intestinal obstruction, lung cancer, and graft-versus-host disease.

This study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. The researchers reported relationships with AstraZeneca/Acerta Pharma and many other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. Leukemia. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0575-9.

Acalabrutinib monotherapy can produce durable responses in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to updated results from a phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The drug produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 81%, and the median duration of response was 26 months.

These are the highest such figures reported “among all approved single-agent therapies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL,” Michael Wang, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in Houston and colleagues wrote in a letter in Leukemia.

Dr. Wang and colleagues reported updated results in 124 patients treated on the ACE-LY-004 trial. At baseline, the patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 42-90 years), and 80% were men. Three-quarters of patients had stage IV disease, 72% had extranodal disease, 21% had blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, and 26% had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater.

At a median follow-up of 26 months, 40% (n = 49) of patients were still on acalabrutinib, and 61% (n = 76) were still in follow-up for survival. Six patients went on to allogeneic transplant at a median of 19 days after stopping acalabrutinib.

The ORR was 81% (100/124), and the complete response (CR) rate was 43% (n = 53). Four patients who initially had a partial response converted to a CR with longer follow-up. The estimated 24-month duration of response was 52.4%.

“ORR was consistent across patients with refractory disease and those with blastoid/pleomorphic MCL, despite those patients having a higher mean Ki-67 index [of 50% or greater], suggesting that some patients with poorer prognosis may also benefit from acalabrutinib,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote.

There were 29 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment. Seven patients (24%) had MRD-negative disease in the peripheral blood after they achieved a CR. An additional patient with a CR became MRD negative when a second blood sample was taken about 6 months after the first.

“Despite limited samples, these results demonstrate that continued use of acalabrutinib can lead to undetectable MRD in patients with CR,” Dr. Wang and his colleagues wrote. “Since most patients with MRD data are still on treatment (27/29), relationships between MRD negativity and durability of response cannot be made at this time.”

The median progression-free survival was 20 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. The estimated 24-month progression-free survival rate was 49.0%, and the estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 72.4%. Patients with low/intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores, classical MCL, and a Ki-67 index less than 50% had a longer duration of response and survival.

The adverse event profile was “largely consistent with earlier reporting,” Dr. Wang and colleagues wrote. The most frequent adverse events were headache (38%), diarrhea (36%), fatigue (28%), cough (22%), and myalgia (21%). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (10%), neutropenia (10%), and pneumonia (6%).

Ten patients developed second primary cancers. There were no new atrial fibrillation events and no new hypertension events. The frequency of infections decreased over time, as did the number of bleeding events. However, two of three major hemorrhage events occurred after the previous report was published.

There were 43 deaths (35%), 29 of them because of disease progression. Six patients died of adverse events, two died of unknown causes, and two died of secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Other causes of death included multiorgan failure, intestinal obstruction, lung cancer, and graft-versus-host disease.

This study was sponsored by Acerta Pharma, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. The researchers reported relationships with AstraZeneca/Acerta Pharma and many other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. Leukemia. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0575-9.

SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Treat until progression

Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.

A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).

In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).

These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”

One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).

Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).

These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
 

Don’t treat until progression

Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.

Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.

As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.

Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.

She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).

The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.

In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).

Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Treat until progression

Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.

A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).

In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).

These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”

One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).

Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).

These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
 

Don’t treat until progression

Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.

Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.

As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.

Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.

She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).

The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.

In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).

Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Treat until progression

Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.

A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).

In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).

These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”

One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).

Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).

These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
 

Don’t treat until progression

Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.

Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.

As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.

Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.

She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).

The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.

In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).

Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.

Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
 

No role for CIT as first-line treatment

“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”

Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.

In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).

In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).

Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.

“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”

Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.

In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”

Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:

• Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
• All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.

Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
 

CIT still has a role as first-line treatment

Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.

In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”

As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”

Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).

Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).

“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”

Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.

Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.

Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
 

No role for CIT as first-line treatment

“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”

Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.

In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).

In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).

Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.

“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”

Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.

In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”

Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:

• Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
• All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.

Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
 

CIT still has a role as first-line treatment

Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.

In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”

As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”

Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).

Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).

“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”

Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.

Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.

Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
 

No role for CIT as first-line treatment

“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”

Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.

In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).

In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).

Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.

“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”

Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.

In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”

Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:

• Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
• All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.

Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
 

CIT still has a role as first-line treatment

Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).

In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.

In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).

However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”

As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”

Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).

Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).

“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”

Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.

Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.

To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.

To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.

The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).

The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.

In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.

Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.

Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.

The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.

This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).

Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.

“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.

To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.

To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.

The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).

The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.

In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.

Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.

Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.

The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.

This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).

Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.

“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.

To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.

To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.

The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).

The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.

In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.

Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.

Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.

The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.

This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).

Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.

“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”

Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.

[email protected]

BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.

Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).

Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.

First-line therapy

“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”

First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:

• Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
• Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
• Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
• Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
• Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
• Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
• Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.

Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).

Second- and third-line therapies

“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”

In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.

There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:

• Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
• Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
• KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
• VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
• Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
• VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
• Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
• IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
• VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
• VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.

Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.

None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.

Time to next treatment

“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”

For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.

“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”

The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:

• Relapse for VCd.
• Planned end of therapy for VRd.
• Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
• AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:

• Planned end of therapy for VCd.
• AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
• Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
• AEs for Rd and IRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Kd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:

• AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
• Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
• Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Rd.

The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.

INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.

BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.

Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).

Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.

First-line therapy

“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”

First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:

• Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
• Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
• Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
• Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
• Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
• Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
• Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.

Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).

Second- and third-line therapies

“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”

In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.

There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:

• Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
• Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
• KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
• VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
• Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
• VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
• Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
• IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
• VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
• VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.

Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.

None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.

Time to next treatment

“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”

For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.

“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”

The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:

• Relapse for VCd.
• Planned end of therapy for VRd.
• Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
• AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:

• Planned end of therapy for VCd.
• AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
• Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
• AEs for Rd and IRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Kd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:

• AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
• Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
• Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Rd.

The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.

INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.

BOSTON — There is “no standard of care and no clear pattern” for discontinuing treatment in multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Data from a large, observational study revealed that a wide range of treatment regimens are used for first-, second-, and third-line therapy in multiple myeloma. The duration of therapy and time to next treatment were shorter in this real-world study than in prior clinical trials, and reasons for treatment discontinuation varied by regimen and line of therapy.

Katja Weisel, MD, of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany, presented these findings at the workshop, held by the International Myeloma Society.

The study, INSIGHT MM, is the largest global, prospective, observational study of multiple myeloma to date, according to Dr. Weisel. The study, which began July 1, 2016, has enrolled patients in the United States (n = 1,004), Europe (n = 1,612), Latin America (n = 367), and Asia (n = 218).

Dr. Weisel and her colleagues evaluated duration of therapy, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and subsequent therapies in a subset of patients on INSIGHT MM. The researchers’ analysis revealed “broad heterogeneity” across lines of therapy, Dr. Weisel said, adding that patients are receiving multiple regimens in addition to the most commonly prescribed regimens in myeloma.

First-line therapy

“In first-line treatment, we see predominantly bortezomib-based triplets ... regardless of transplant-eligible or transplant-ineligible patients,” Dr. Weisel said. “This is followed by doublets and other more rarely [applied] regimens.”

First-line therapies in 1,175 patients included:

• Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) – 323 patients.
• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) – 321 patients.
• Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) – 200 patients.
• Bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) – 102 patients.
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) – 90 patients.
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) – 53 patients.
• Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) – 47 patients.
• Daratumumab-based regimens (Dara) – 32 patients.
• Carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) – 5 patients.
• Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) – 2 patients.

Of the 1,175 newly diagnosed patients, 894 did not proceed to transplant after first-line therapy, but 281 did. Most of the patients who went on to transplant had received VRd (n = 82), VTd (n = 76), or VCd (n = 75).

Second- and third-line therapies

“In second-line treatment, we have still a dominance of the len-dex regimen all over the world,” Dr. Weisel said. “There is an emerging use of daratumumab in various combinations, and then you see the whole spectrum of approved triplet and doublet regimens.”

In the third line, the most commonly used regimens are daratumumab-based combinations and Rd.

There were 548 patients who received second-line treatment and 332 who received third-line therapy. The regimens used were:

• Rd – 130 patients second line, 71 third line.
• Dara – 121 patients second line, 105 third line.
• KRd – 61 patients second line, 17 third line.
• VCd – 57 patients second line, 19 third line.
• Vd – 48 patients second line, 29 third line.
• VRd – 36 patients second line, 8 third line.
• Kd – 33 patients for both second and third line.
• IRd – 29 patients second line, 43 third line.
• VTd – 25 patients second line, 4 third line.
• VMP – 8 patients second line, 3 third line.

Most transplant-eligible patients received any first-line therapy (VRd, VTd, or VCd) for longer than 12 months. Among transplant-ineligible patients, Rd was the first-line therapy most likely to be given for 12 months or more.

None of the second-line regimens lasted longer than 12 months in a majority of patients, but daratumumab-based regimens and IRd were the therapies most likely to exceed 12 months’ duration in both second- and third-line treatment.

Time to next treatment

“The vast majority of [transplant-eligible] patients, close to 90% ... do not need a second-line treatment during the first year of treatment,” Dr. Weisel said. “However, for transplant-ineligible patients, this accounts only for the most effective regimens, VMP and Rd.”

For second- and third-line therapies, a 12-month or longer time to next treatment was most likely among patients who received IRd or daratumumab-based regimens.

“Planned end of therapy only accounts for a small proportion of treatment discontinuations, especially in the relapsed setting,” Dr. Weisel said. “Patients are discontinuing treatment due to reasons other than relapse, ultimately receiving fixed-duration therapy.”

The most common reasons for discontinuation of first-line therapy were:

• Relapse for VCd.
• Planned end of therapy for VRd.
• Adverse events (AEs) for VD and VTd.
• AEs and “other reasons” for Rd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of second-line therapy were:

• Planned end of therapy for VCd.
• AEs, relapse, and other reasons for VRd.
• Relapse for VD, KRd, and Dara.
• AEs for Rd and IRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Kd.

The most common reasons for discontinuation of third-line therapy were:

• AEs for VCd, Vd, and KRd.
• Relapse for Kd, IRd, and Dara.
• Relapse and other reasons for VRd.
• AEs and other reasons for Rd.

The most common AE leading to discontinuation, across all treatment regimens, was peripheral neuropathy. This suggests peripheral neuropathy is still the “biggest impediment for continuous treatment,” Dr. Weisel said.

INSIGHT MM is sponsored by Takeda. Dr. Weisel reported relationships with Takeda and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.

BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).

Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.

Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.

In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.

Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.

In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 10⁸ cells, but three received 0.5 x 10⁸, 1 x 10⁸, and 1.8 x 10⁸ cells, respectively.

The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).

A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.

Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 10⁸ cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.

Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).

All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.

This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.

BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).

Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.

Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.

In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.

Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.

In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 10⁸ cells, but three received 0.5 x 10⁸, 1 x 10⁸, and 1.8 x 10⁸ cells, respectively.

The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).

A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.

Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 10⁸ cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.

Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).

All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.

This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.

BOSTON – CT053, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

CT053 produced an objective response rate of 87.5% and a complete response rate of 79.2%. All patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), but none developed grade 3 or higher cytokine-release syndrome (CRS).

Siguo Hao, MD, of Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University, presented these results at the International Myeloma Workshop held by the International Myeloma Society.

Dr. Hao explained that CT053 consists of autologous T cells modified with a second-generation CAR that incorporates a fully human anti–B-cell maturation antigen single-chain fragment variant, a 4-1BB costimulatory domain, and a CD3-zeta–signaling domain.

In preclinical studies, CT053 induced dose-dependent cytotoxic effects on multiple myeloma cell lines and completely eradicated myeloma in mice.

Dr. Hao and his colleagues conducted the phase 1 study of CT053 at three sites (NCT03716856, NCT03302403, and NCT03380039). The study enrolled 30 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and 24 ultimately received CT053.

In the 24 patients, the median age was 60.2 years (range, 38.5-70.0 years), and the median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years (range, 0.3-10.8 years). Nine patients had progressive disease at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-12). All patients had received a proteasome inhibitor, 22 had received an immunomodulatory agent, 10 had undergone a transplant, and 5 had received an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

For this study, patients received conditioning with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by a single infusion of CT053. Most patients (n = 21) received 1.5 x 10⁸ cells, but three received 0.5 x 10⁸, 1 x 10⁸, and 1.8 x 10⁸ cells, respectively.

The median follow-up was 333 days. CAR T cells were detectable 1-7 days after infusion and peaked at 7-21 days. The cells persisted for a median of 172 days (range, 21-341 days).

A total of 21 patients responded to treatment (87.5%). There were 19 patients with a complete response or stringent complete response, 1 patient with a very good partial response, and 1 with a partial response.

Dr. Hao noted that CT053 was effective even at the lowest dose. The patient who received 0.5 x 10⁸ cells initially achieved a very good partial response that deepened to a stringent complete response on day 502 after infusion.

Ten patients still had a stringent complete response at last follow-up, and two had a complete response. Nine patients progressed, and one patient relapsed after achieving a complete response. Three patients died, two from disease progression and one from a serious AE (neutropenic infection).

All 24 patients experienced a treatment-related AE, and all had grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs. Six patients had grade 3 or higher fever, six had grade 3 or higher infections and infestations, and one had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity.

Three patients had grade 1 CRS, and 12 had grade 2 CRS. None of the patients had grade 3 or higher CRS.

This trial was sponsored by Xinhua Hospital/Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University in collaboration with Carsgen Therapeutics. Dr. Hao did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hao S et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-082.

EDINBURGH – Lenalidomide maintenance therapy after chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved progression- and event-free survival, but not overall survival, and was associated with three unexpected cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), according to 4-year follow-up in the German, phase 3 CLLM1 study.

Given these findings, and in particular the B-ALL cases, lenalidomide cannot be generally recommended as maintenance therapy in high-risk CLL, Moritz Fürstenau, MD, of the University of Cologne, reported in a poster at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

At a median follow-up of 47.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 54.7 months in 60 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide maintenance therapy, compared with 23.2 months for 29 who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.22), and median event-free survival (EFS) was 46.2 months vs. 14.6 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.24), Dr. Fürstenau said during an oral poster presentation at the conference.

“So ... after 4 years of observation, we still see improvement in PFS, EFS, and time to next treatment,” he said, also noting that minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was achieved by eight patients in the lenalidomide group, and in none of the patients in the placebo group.

However, overall survival was 79% and 87% in the lenalidomide and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.53). In total, 12 patients died, including 9 in the lenalidomide group from fatal infections, concomitant disease, CLL progression, or unknown causes. Three patients in the placebo group died from CLL progression or fatal infection.

In the lenalidomide group, hematological and solid tumor second primary malignancies were reported in three and four patients, respectively (5% and 7%), compared with zero and two patients, respectively (0% and 7%), in the placebo group.

The CLLM1 study of the German CLL Study Group evaluated maintenance with lenalidomide vs. placebo in patients with high risk of progression after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Previously reported results also favored lenalidomide maintenance for PFS, but not OS, Dr. Fürstenau said, adding that the study was unblinded at a median follow-up of 17.9 months, and in November 2017 treatment was stopped when two cases of B-ALL were observed. A third case was reported in 2018.

The current analysis includes data available through December 2018, and the findings warrant further investigation to analyze the unexpectedly high incidence of B-ALL, he said.

The CLLM1 study was funded by Celgene.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Lenalidomide maintenance therapy after chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved progression- and event-free survival, but not overall survival, and was associated with three unexpected cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), according to 4-year follow-up in the German, phase 3 CLLM1 study.

Given these findings, and in particular the B-ALL cases, lenalidomide cannot be generally recommended as maintenance therapy in high-risk CLL, Moritz Fürstenau, MD, of the University of Cologne, reported in a poster at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

At a median follow-up of 47.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 54.7 months in 60 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide maintenance therapy, compared with 23.2 months for 29 who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.22), and median event-free survival (EFS) was 46.2 months vs. 14.6 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.24), Dr. Fürstenau said during an oral poster presentation at the conference.

“So ... after 4 years of observation, we still see improvement in PFS, EFS, and time to next treatment,” he said, also noting that minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was achieved by eight patients in the lenalidomide group, and in none of the patients in the placebo group.

However, overall survival was 79% and 87% in the lenalidomide and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.53). In total, 12 patients died, including 9 in the lenalidomide group from fatal infections, concomitant disease, CLL progression, or unknown causes. Three patients in the placebo group died from CLL progression or fatal infection.

In the lenalidomide group, hematological and solid tumor second primary malignancies were reported in three and four patients, respectively (5% and 7%), compared with zero and two patients, respectively (0% and 7%), in the placebo group.

The CLLM1 study of the German CLL Study Group evaluated maintenance with lenalidomide vs. placebo in patients with high risk of progression after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Previously reported results also favored lenalidomide maintenance for PFS, but not OS, Dr. Fürstenau said, adding that the study was unblinded at a median follow-up of 17.9 months, and in November 2017 treatment was stopped when two cases of B-ALL were observed. A third case was reported in 2018.

The current analysis includes data available through December 2018, and the findings warrant further investigation to analyze the unexpectedly high incidence of B-ALL, he said.

The CLLM1 study was funded by Celgene.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Lenalidomide maintenance therapy after chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) improved progression- and event-free survival, but not overall survival, and was associated with three unexpected cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), according to 4-year follow-up in the German, phase 3 CLLM1 study.

Given these findings, and in particular the B-ALL cases, lenalidomide cannot be generally recommended as maintenance therapy in high-risk CLL, Moritz Fürstenau, MD, of the University of Cologne, reported in a poster at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

At a median follow-up of 47.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment was 54.7 months in 60 patients randomized to receive lenalidomide maintenance therapy, compared with 23.2 months for 29 who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.22), and median event-free survival (EFS) was 46.2 months vs. 14.6 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.24), Dr. Fürstenau said during an oral poster presentation at the conference.

“So ... after 4 years of observation, we still see improvement in PFS, EFS, and time to next treatment,” he said, also noting that minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was achieved by eight patients in the lenalidomide group, and in none of the patients in the placebo group.

However, overall survival was 79% and 87% in the lenalidomide and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.53). In total, 12 patients died, including 9 in the lenalidomide group from fatal infections, concomitant disease, CLL progression, or unknown causes. Three patients in the placebo group died from CLL progression or fatal infection.

In the lenalidomide group, hematological and solid tumor second primary malignancies were reported in three and four patients, respectively (5% and 7%), compared with zero and two patients, respectively (0% and 7%), in the placebo group.

The CLLM1 study of the German CLL Study Group evaluated maintenance with lenalidomide vs. placebo in patients with high risk of progression after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Previously reported results also favored lenalidomide maintenance for PFS, but not OS, Dr. Fürstenau said, adding that the study was unblinded at a median follow-up of 17.9 months, and in November 2017 treatment was stopped when two cases of B-ALL were observed. A third case was reported in 2018.

The current analysis includes data available through December 2018, and the findings warrant further investigation to analyze the unexpectedly high incidence of B-ALL, he said.

The CLLM1 study was funded by Celgene.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Treatment induction with obinutuzumab and ibrutinib followed by a minimal residual disease (MRD)–driven treatment strategy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) yields a high long-term complete response rate and prolonged progression-free and overall survival, according to findings from the phase 2 ICLL-07 trial.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) complete response rate at 16 months in 135 patients who were treated with this strategy was 62%, Anne-Sophie Michallet, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Patients in the multicenter, open-label trial conducted by the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) were previously untreated, medically fit patients with CLL and no 17p deletion. They were enrolled between November 2015 and May 2017 to receive eight 1,000 mg IV doses of obinutuzumab over six 4-week cycles along with oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib at a dose of 420 mg daily for 9 months.

Ten patients (7.7%) achieved complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% (undetectable) at 9 months and, by study protocol, continued on only the ibrutinib for 6 additional months. The remaining 120 evaluable patients received four 4-week cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide along with the obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for 6 additional months, explained Dr. Michallet of Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

The ITT rate at 16 months – the primary endpoint of the study – was achieved with no more than four cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide and obinutuzumab, and exceeded the primary objective of demonstrating a 30% or higher rate of complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% at the month 16 ITT analysis, she said.

“The ... strategy yielded an overall response rate of 100%, a complete response rate, according to iwCLL [criteria], of 73%, a bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 79% [in the ITT population],” she said, adding that the primary objective was achieved with a complete response with a peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 62%.

Response assessments at months 9 and 16 involved whole-body computed tomography scans with tumor measurements and bone marrow trephine biopsy for patients in clinical complete response. MRD testing was performed by eight-color flow cytometry in both peripheral blood and bone marrow.

After month 16, response was clinically assessed every 3 months, and peripheral blood MRD was assessed every 6 months until month 40.

“With a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 97% and 97.5%,” Dr. Michallet said, noting that the longitudinal follow-up of peripheral blood MRD in the entire cohort showed durability of a deep response. The rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at 22 months was 77% in the 10 patients who received only ibrutinib after the 9-month assessment, and 93% in those who received fludarabine/cyclophosphamide after the 9-month assessment.

In patients with immunoglobulin heavy gene variable (IGHV) mutations, the rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at month 22 was 96%, and in those without IGHV mutations, the rate was 77%, she noted.

The findings demonstrate that the approach has merit in medically fit, treatment-naive patients with CLL and no 17p deletion, she said, explaining that the fixed-duration, MRD-driven strategy used in this study was developed to “avoid or at least reduce chemotherapy exposure” in the first-line treatment of such patients.

Indeed, the approach was associated with “a high [complete response] rate, a high level of undetectable bone marrow MRD, an acceptable safety profile, and a sustained MRD negativity rate at 12 months after the end of the treatment,” she said.

“This highly effective strategy combining a BTK inhibitor and abbreviated immunochemotherapy deserves further investigation with randomized trials,” she concluded.

ICLL-07 FILO was funded by Roche and Janssen. Dr. Michallet reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Treatment induction with obinutuzumab and ibrutinib followed by a minimal residual disease (MRD)–driven treatment strategy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) yields a high long-term complete response rate and prolonged progression-free and overall survival, according to findings from the phase 2 ICLL-07 trial.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) complete response rate at 16 months in 135 patients who were treated with this strategy was 62%, Anne-Sophie Michallet, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Patients in the multicenter, open-label trial conducted by the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) were previously untreated, medically fit patients with CLL and no 17p deletion. They were enrolled between November 2015 and May 2017 to receive eight 1,000 mg IV doses of obinutuzumab over six 4-week cycles along with oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib at a dose of 420 mg daily for 9 months.

Ten patients (7.7%) achieved complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% (undetectable) at 9 months and, by study protocol, continued on only the ibrutinib for 6 additional months. The remaining 120 evaluable patients received four 4-week cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide along with the obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for 6 additional months, explained Dr. Michallet of Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

The ITT rate at 16 months – the primary endpoint of the study – was achieved with no more than four cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide and obinutuzumab, and exceeded the primary objective of demonstrating a 30% or higher rate of complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% at the month 16 ITT analysis, she said.

“The ... strategy yielded an overall response rate of 100%, a complete response rate, according to iwCLL [criteria], of 73%, a bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 79% [in the ITT population],” she said, adding that the primary objective was achieved with a complete response with a peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 62%.

Response assessments at months 9 and 16 involved whole-body computed tomography scans with tumor measurements and bone marrow trephine biopsy for patients in clinical complete response. MRD testing was performed by eight-color flow cytometry in both peripheral blood and bone marrow.

After month 16, response was clinically assessed every 3 months, and peripheral blood MRD was assessed every 6 months until month 40.

“With a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 97% and 97.5%,” Dr. Michallet said, noting that the longitudinal follow-up of peripheral blood MRD in the entire cohort showed durability of a deep response. The rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at 22 months was 77% in the 10 patients who received only ibrutinib after the 9-month assessment, and 93% in those who received fludarabine/cyclophosphamide after the 9-month assessment.

In patients with immunoglobulin heavy gene variable (IGHV) mutations, the rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at month 22 was 96%, and in those without IGHV mutations, the rate was 77%, she noted.

The findings demonstrate that the approach has merit in medically fit, treatment-naive patients with CLL and no 17p deletion, she said, explaining that the fixed-duration, MRD-driven strategy used in this study was developed to “avoid or at least reduce chemotherapy exposure” in the first-line treatment of such patients.

Indeed, the approach was associated with “a high [complete response] rate, a high level of undetectable bone marrow MRD, an acceptable safety profile, and a sustained MRD negativity rate at 12 months after the end of the treatment,” she said.

“This highly effective strategy combining a BTK inhibitor and abbreviated immunochemotherapy deserves further investigation with randomized trials,” she concluded.

ICLL-07 FILO was funded by Roche and Janssen. Dr. Michallet reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

EDINBURGH – Treatment induction with obinutuzumab and ibrutinib followed by a minimal residual disease (MRD)–driven treatment strategy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) yields a high long-term complete response rate and prolonged progression-free and overall survival, according to findings from the phase 2 ICLL-07 trial.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) complete response rate at 16 months in 135 patients who were treated with this strategy was 62%, Anne-Sophie Michallet, MD, reported at the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Patients in the multicenter, open-label trial conducted by the French Innovative Leukemia Organization (FILO) were previously untreated, medically fit patients with CLL and no 17p deletion. They were enrolled between November 2015 and May 2017 to receive eight 1,000 mg IV doses of obinutuzumab over six 4-week cycles along with oral Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib at a dose of 420 mg daily for 9 months.

Ten patients (7.7%) achieved complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% (undetectable) at 9 months and, by study protocol, continued on only the ibrutinib for 6 additional months. The remaining 120 evaluable patients received four 4-week cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide along with the obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for 6 additional months, explained Dr. Michallet of Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

The ITT rate at 16 months – the primary endpoint of the study – was achieved with no more than four cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide and obinutuzumab, and exceeded the primary objective of demonstrating a 30% or higher rate of complete response with bone marrow MRD less than 0.01% at the month 16 ITT analysis, she said.

“The ... strategy yielded an overall response rate of 100%, a complete response rate, according to iwCLL [criteria], of 73%, a bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 79% [in the ITT population],” she said, adding that the primary objective was achieved with a complete response with a peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD–undetectable rate of 62%.

Response assessments at months 9 and 16 involved whole-body computed tomography scans with tumor measurements and bone marrow trephine biopsy for patients in clinical complete response. MRD testing was performed by eight-color flow cytometry in both peripheral blood and bone marrow.

After month 16, response was clinically assessed every 3 months, and peripheral blood MRD was assessed every 6 months until month 40.

“With a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 97% and 97.5%,” Dr. Michallet said, noting that the longitudinal follow-up of peripheral blood MRD in the entire cohort showed durability of a deep response. The rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at 22 months was 77% in the 10 patients who received only ibrutinib after the 9-month assessment, and 93% in those who received fludarabine/cyclophosphamide after the 9-month assessment.

In patients with immunoglobulin heavy gene variable (IGHV) mutations, the rate of peripheral blood MRD less than 0.01% at month 22 was 96%, and in those without IGHV mutations, the rate was 77%, she noted.

The findings demonstrate that the approach has merit in medically fit, treatment-naive patients with CLL and no 17p deletion, she said, explaining that the fixed-duration, MRD-driven strategy used in this study was developed to “avoid or at least reduce chemotherapy exposure” in the first-line treatment of such patients.

Indeed, the approach was associated with “a high [complete response] rate, a high level of undetectable bone marrow MRD, an acceptable safety profile, and a sustained MRD negativity rate at 12 months after the end of the treatment,” she said.

“This highly effective strategy combining a BTK inhibitor and abbreviated immunochemotherapy deserves further investigation with randomized trials,” she concluded.

ICLL-07 FILO was funded by Roche and Janssen. Dr. Michallet reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.

The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).

The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.

Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.

The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).

The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.

Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved daratumumab in combination with certain therapies for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval specifies combination of this CD38-directed antibody with bortezomib (Velcade), thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), according to an announcement from Janssen.

The approval is based on results from the CASSIOPEIA study. The first part of the study randomized 1,085 patients (median age, 58 years) and showed that, compared with VTd alone, the daratumumab-VTd combination had significantly better postconsolidation stringent complete response (29% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = .001) and a 53% reduction in risk of disease progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67; P = .0001).

The most frequent adverse reactions with 5% greater frequency in the daratumumab-VTd group were infusion reactions (including anaphylaxis), nausea, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, and bronchitis. Full prescribing information, including contraindications and warnings, can be found on the Janssen website.

Daratumumab was initially approved in 2015, and in June 2019, it received approval, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with standard care is comparable to intravenous daratumumab plus standard care in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Overall response rates (ORRs) observed with subcutaneous daratumumab–based combinations in the phase 2 PLEIADES trial were similar to ORRs observed with intravenous daratumumab–based combinations in three other trials – GRIFFIN, ALCYONE, and POLLUX.

Ajai Chari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented these findings at the workshop, which is held by the International Myeloma Society.

In the PLEIADES trial, researchers tested subcutaneous daratumumab (D) in combination with:

• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior line of therapy.

There were 67 patients in the D-VRd arm, and they had a median age of 59 years (range, 33-76 years). There were 67 patients in the D-VMP arm, and they had a median age of 75 years (range, 66-86 years). There were 65 patients in the D-Rd arm, they had a median age of 69 years (range, 33-82 years), and they had received a median of one (range, one to five) prior therapies.

Dr. Chari noted that baseline characteristics in this study were “pretty comparable” to characteristics in the studies of intravenous daratumumab. He also pointed out that the median administration time for subcutaneous daratumumab was 5 minutes in this study, which is “substantially” shorter than the typical administration time for intravenous daratumumab.

The median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range, 1-4) in the D-VRd arm, 8 (range, 1-10) in the D-VMP arm, and 12 (range, 1-15) in the D-Rd arm. The median duration of treatment was 2.6 months, 10.6 months, and 11.1 months, respectively.

The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was 3% in the D-VRd arm, 10.4% in the D-VMP arm, and 20% in the D-Rd arm.

Response

Dr. Chari said response rates in the three arms of PLEAIDES were similar to response rates in corresponding groups from the studies of intravenous daratumumab–based combinations.

After four induction cycles, subcutaneous D-VRd produced an ORR of 97% in PLEAIDES, and intravenous D-VRd produced an ORR of 98% in the GRIFFIN trial (IMW 2019. Abstract OAB-087).

Subcutaneous D-VMP produced an ORR of 89.6% at a median follow-up of 11 months. In the ALCYONE trial, intravenous D-VMP produced an ORR of 90.9% at a median follow-up of 16.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:518-28).

Subcutaneous D-Rd produced an ORR of 93.8% at a median follow-up of 11.2 months. In the POLLUX trial, intravenous D-Rd produced an ORR of 92.9% at a median follow-up of 13.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1319-31).

Safety

All patients in PLEIADES had treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs). The rate of serious TEAEs was 28.4% in the D-VRd arm, 38.8% in the D-VMP arm, and 47.7% in the D-Rd arm. The rate of grade 3/4 TEAEs was 56.7%, 68.7%, and 83.1%, respectively. There was one fatal TEAE in the D-VRd arm, two fatal TEAEs in the D-VMP arm, and two in the D-Rd arm.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 7.5% of all patients (15/199). Most infusion-related reactions were grade 1/2. One patient had a grade 3 reaction, and there were no grade 4 reactions. The median time to onset was 3.3 hours.

“Daratumumab in combination with standard of care, when given subcutaneously, demonstrated comparable clinical activity and safety and corresponded to daratumumab intravenous–containing regimens,” Dr. Chari said. “These results support the use of flat-dose 1,800 mg [subcutaneous daratumumab] in combination with standard treatment regimens.”

The PLEIADES trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chari reported relationships with Janssen and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chari A et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-022.

BOSTON – Subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with standard care is comparable to intravenous daratumumab plus standard care in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Overall response rates (ORRs) observed with subcutaneous daratumumab–based combinations in the phase 2 PLEIADES trial were similar to ORRs observed with intravenous daratumumab–based combinations in three other trials – GRIFFIN, ALCYONE, and POLLUX.

Ajai Chari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented these findings at the workshop, which is held by the International Myeloma Society.

In the PLEIADES trial, researchers tested subcutaneous daratumumab (D) in combination with:

• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior line of therapy.

There were 67 patients in the D-VRd arm, and they had a median age of 59 years (range, 33-76 years). There were 67 patients in the D-VMP arm, and they had a median age of 75 years (range, 66-86 years). There were 65 patients in the D-Rd arm, they had a median age of 69 years (range, 33-82 years), and they had received a median of one (range, one to five) prior therapies.

Dr. Chari noted that baseline characteristics in this study were “pretty comparable” to characteristics in the studies of intravenous daratumumab. He also pointed out that the median administration time for subcutaneous daratumumab was 5 minutes in this study, which is “substantially” shorter than the typical administration time for intravenous daratumumab.

The median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range, 1-4) in the D-VRd arm, 8 (range, 1-10) in the D-VMP arm, and 12 (range, 1-15) in the D-Rd arm. The median duration of treatment was 2.6 months, 10.6 months, and 11.1 months, respectively.

The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was 3% in the D-VRd arm, 10.4% in the D-VMP arm, and 20% in the D-Rd arm.

Response

Dr. Chari said response rates in the three arms of PLEAIDES were similar to response rates in corresponding groups from the studies of intravenous daratumumab–based combinations.

After four induction cycles, subcutaneous D-VRd produced an ORR of 97% in PLEAIDES, and intravenous D-VRd produced an ORR of 98% in the GRIFFIN trial (IMW 2019. Abstract OAB-087).

Subcutaneous D-VMP produced an ORR of 89.6% at a median follow-up of 11 months. In the ALCYONE trial, intravenous D-VMP produced an ORR of 90.9% at a median follow-up of 16.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:518-28).

Subcutaneous D-Rd produced an ORR of 93.8% at a median follow-up of 11.2 months. In the POLLUX trial, intravenous D-Rd produced an ORR of 92.9% at a median follow-up of 13.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1319-31).

Safety

All patients in PLEIADES had treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs). The rate of serious TEAEs was 28.4% in the D-VRd arm, 38.8% in the D-VMP arm, and 47.7% in the D-Rd arm. The rate of grade 3/4 TEAEs was 56.7%, 68.7%, and 83.1%, respectively. There was one fatal TEAE in the D-VRd arm, two fatal TEAEs in the D-VMP arm, and two in the D-Rd arm.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 7.5% of all patients (15/199). Most infusion-related reactions were grade 1/2. One patient had a grade 3 reaction, and there were no grade 4 reactions. The median time to onset was 3.3 hours.

“Daratumumab in combination with standard of care, when given subcutaneously, demonstrated comparable clinical activity and safety and corresponded to daratumumab intravenous–containing regimens,” Dr. Chari said. “These results support the use of flat-dose 1,800 mg [subcutaneous daratumumab] in combination with standard treatment regimens.”

The PLEIADES trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chari reported relationships with Janssen and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chari A et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-022.

BOSTON – Subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with standard care is comparable to intravenous daratumumab plus standard care in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to a speaker at the International Myeloma Workshop.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Overall response rates (ORRs) observed with subcutaneous daratumumab–based combinations in the phase 2 PLEIADES trial were similar to ORRs observed with intravenous daratumumab–based combinations in three other trials – GRIFFIN, ALCYONE, and POLLUX.

Ajai Chari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, presented these findings at the workshop, which is held by the International Myeloma Society.

In the PLEIADES trial, researchers tested subcutaneous daratumumab (D) in combination with:

• Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
• Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior line of therapy.

There were 67 patients in the D-VRd arm, and they had a median age of 59 years (range, 33-76 years). There were 67 patients in the D-VMP arm, and they had a median age of 75 years (range, 66-86 years). There were 65 patients in the D-Rd arm, they had a median age of 69 years (range, 33-82 years), and they had received a median of one (range, one to five) prior therapies.

Dr. Chari noted that baseline characteristics in this study were “pretty comparable” to characteristics in the studies of intravenous daratumumab. He also pointed out that the median administration time for subcutaneous daratumumab was 5 minutes in this study, which is “substantially” shorter than the typical administration time for intravenous daratumumab.

The median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range, 1-4) in the D-VRd arm, 8 (range, 1-10) in the D-VMP arm, and 12 (range, 1-15) in the D-Rd arm. The median duration of treatment was 2.6 months, 10.6 months, and 11.1 months, respectively.

The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was 3% in the D-VRd arm, 10.4% in the D-VMP arm, and 20% in the D-Rd arm.

Response

Dr. Chari said response rates in the three arms of PLEAIDES were similar to response rates in corresponding groups from the studies of intravenous daratumumab–based combinations.

After four induction cycles, subcutaneous D-VRd produced an ORR of 97% in PLEAIDES, and intravenous D-VRd produced an ORR of 98% in the GRIFFIN trial (IMW 2019. Abstract OAB-087).

Subcutaneous D-VMP produced an ORR of 89.6% at a median follow-up of 11 months. In the ALCYONE trial, intravenous D-VMP produced an ORR of 90.9% at a median follow-up of 16.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:518-28).

Subcutaneous D-Rd produced an ORR of 93.8% at a median follow-up of 11.2 months. In the POLLUX trial, intravenous D-Rd produced an ORR of 92.9% at a median follow-up of 13.5 months (N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1319-31).

Safety

All patients in PLEIADES had treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs). The rate of serious TEAEs was 28.4% in the D-VRd arm, 38.8% in the D-VMP arm, and 47.7% in the D-Rd arm. The rate of grade 3/4 TEAEs was 56.7%, 68.7%, and 83.1%, respectively. There was one fatal TEAE in the D-VRd arm, two fatal TEAEs in the D-VMP arm, and two in the D-Rd arm.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 7.5% of all patients (15/199). Most infusion-related reactions were grade 1/2. One patient had a grade 3 reaction, and there were no grade 4 reactions. The median time to onset was 3.3 hours.

“Daratumumab in combination with standard of care, when given subcutaneously, demonstrated comparable clinical activity and safety and corresponded to daratumumab intravenous–containing regimens,” Dr. Chari said. “These results support the use of flat-dose 1,800 mg [subcutaneous daratumumab] in combination with standard treatment regimens.”

The PLEIADES trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chari reported relationships with Janssen and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chari A et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-022.