User login
Pembrolizumab shows promise for relapsed/refractory PMBCL
The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.
The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.
Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.
“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.
Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.
The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.
After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.
With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.
Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.
“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.
SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.
The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.
The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.
Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.
“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.
Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.
The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.
After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.
With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.
Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.
“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.
SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.
The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor pembrolizumab showed manageable safety and promising clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), according to results from two early-phase studies.
The phase 1b KEYNOTE-013 study included an expansion cohort that evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL. Based on preliminary findings from KEYNOTE-013, the phase 2 KEYNOTE-170 study was initiated to validate these results.
Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues reported results from 53 patients in KEYNOTE-170 and extended follow-up of 21 patients in KEYNOTE-013. Data from these two trials formed the basis of an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration of pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory PMBCL in June 2018.
“Frequent amplification and translocation events occur at 9p24.1 in PMBCL, resulting in tumor expression of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests susceptibility of PMBCL to PD-1 blockade,” the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
KEYNOTE-170 included patients with relapsed or refractory disease who were transplant-ineligible and had failed a minimum of two prior lines of treatment. KEYNOTE-013 enrolled patients who relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation or were ineligible for transplant.
Among patients in KEYNOTE-013 and KEYNOTE-170, the objective response rates were 48% and 45%, respectively. In total, 33% of patients in KEYNOTE-013 and 13% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 achieved a complete response. Among these patients, no disease progression was observed.
The median progression-free survival in KEYNOTE-170 was 5.5 months and 10.4 months in KEYNOTE-013. In KEYNOTE-170, median overall survival was not reached, while in KEYNOTE-013, the median overall survival was 31.4 months.
After a median follow-up time of 29.1 months in KEYNOTE-013 and 12.5 months in KEYNOTE-170, the median duration of response was not reached in either trial, the researchers reported.
With respect to safety, pembrolizumab-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 23% and 24% of patients in KEYNOTE-170 and KEYNOTE-013, respectively. The most common adverse event in both trials was neutropenia. No deaths related to pembrolizumab were observed.
Response rates were lower in KEYNOTE-170, compared with KEYNOTE-013, but the researchers noted that longer follow-up could change these results.
“Although the small numbers allow only a tentative hypothesis, they raise the question of whether PD-1 blockade in this setting might resensitize tumors to chemotherapy, as recently suggested. If this can be further validated, it could have profound implication for the management of patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBCL,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme, the Harold and Virginia Lash Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Center for Immuno-Oncology of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial affiliations with Merck Sharp & Dohme and several other companies.
SOURCE: Armand P et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01389.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
ASCO to award $50,000 young investigator grant to study MCL
Early-career researchers who are interested in studying
The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.
The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.
Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.
The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.
The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.
Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.
Early-career researchers who are interested in studying
The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.
The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.
Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.
The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.
The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.
Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.
Early-career researchers who are interested in studying
The young investigator grant is for a 1-year period and the award is used to fund a project focused on clinical or translational research on the clinical biology, natural history, prevention, screening, diagnosis, therapy, or epidemiology of MCL.
The purpose of this annual award, according to ASCO, is to fund physicians during the transition from a fellowship program to a faculty appointment.
Eligible applicants must be physicians currently in the last 2 years of final subspecialty training and within 10 years of having obtained his or her medical degree. Additionally, applicants must be planning a research career in clinical oncology, with a focus on MCL.
The grant selection committee’s primary criteria include the significance and originality of the proposed study and hypothesis, the feasibility of the experiment and methodology, whether it has an appropriate and detailed statistical analysis plan, and if the research is patient oriented.
The application deadline is Jan. 7, 2020, and the award term is July 1, 2020–June 30, 2021.
Application instructions are available on the ASCO website.
Vitamin D deficiency appears to worsen survival in Hodgkin lymphoma
Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.
Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.
Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).
The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.
They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.
Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.
“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”
No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.
Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.
Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.
Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).
The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.
They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.
Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.
“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”
No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.
Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse progression-free and overall survival among patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, according to new study findings.
Sven Borchmann, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany) and German Hodgkin Study Group and coauthors conducted a case-control study of 351 patients enrolled in the German Hodgkin Study Group trials who had available baseline serum samples. Pretreatment vitamin D levels were assessed and categorized as deficient (less than 30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-49 nmol/L), or sufficient (50 nmol/L or greater). The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers found that before starting treatment, 50% of patients were vitamin D deficient.
Patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency had significantly lower progression-free survival – 10.2% lower at 5 years and 17.6% lower at 10 years – compared with patients with either sufficient or insufficient vitamin D levels (P less than .001). They also had 2% lower overall survival at 5 years and 11.1% lower overall survival at 10 years (P less than .001).
The researchers also conducted preclinical studies in effort to understand the effect of vitamin D on Hodgkin lymphoma cells and in Hodgkin lymphoma tumor models.
They explored the effect of vitamin D on cultured Hodgkin lymphoma cell lines and saw a dose-response effect of calcitriol in reducing cell proliferation rates. They then looked at the effect of calcitriol on cell lines that were also exposed to doxorubicin or etoposide, and found calcitriol improved the cytotoxicity of these chemotherapy agents, especially at lower doses.
Finally, they conducted an in-vivo mouse study using Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts, and looked at whether vitamin D supplementation increased the effect of doxorubicin or etoposide. This revealed that chemotherapy and vitamin D supplementation together were significantly better at controlling tumor growth, compared with monotherapy with either vitamin D or doxorubicin and compared with placebo.
“On the basis of our study results and the limited toxicity of vitamin D replacement therapy, we would advocate for vitamin D deficiency screening and replacement to be incorporated into future randomized clinical trials to properly clarify the role of vitamin D replacement in HL [Hodgkin lymphoma],” the researchers wrote. “The goal of these trials should be to determine whether vitamin D replacement in HL improves outcome.”
No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
SOURCE: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00985.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and vitamin D deficiency had a 17.6% lower progression-free survival at 10 years, compared with patients who were not vitamin D deficient (P less than .001).
Study details: A case-control study in 351 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
Disclosures: No study funding information was reported. Dr. Borchmann reported honoraria and research funding from Takeda. Other authors reported financial disclosures related to Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and other companies.
Source: Borchmann S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00985.
Ibrutinib linked to hypertension in B-cell malignancies
The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.
Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).
“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.
The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.
The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m2. Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.
The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.
After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.
Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.
“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.
Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.
“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.
The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.
Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).
“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.
The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.
The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m2. Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.
The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.
After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.
Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.
“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.
Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.
“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.
The incidence and severity of hypertension was considerably higher in patients with B-cell malignancies treated with ibrutinib, according to a retrospective analysis.
Additionally, new or worsening hypertension was associated with a greater risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular-related death (hazard ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.38; P = .03).
“Despite ibrutinib’s benefits, cardiotoxicity has emerged as an increasingly important complication of this life-saving therapy,” Tyler Dickerson, PhD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in Blood.
The researchers retrospectively studied 562 consecutive patients with a lymphoid malignancy who received ibrutinib. Data was collected from patients treated at The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center during 2009-2016.
The mean age of study participants was 63.8 years, with a mean body mass index of 28.0 kg/m2. Most of the patients included in the analysis were men.
The team assessed rates of new or worsening hypertension, as well as rates of other MACE. The observed rates were compared with Framingham Heart Study–predicted incident-hypertension rates. The effects of various antihypertensive drugs on ibrutinib-linked hypertension were also evaluated.
After a median follow-up of 30 months, 78.3% of patients who received ibrutinib had new or worsening hypertension using a systolic blood pressure cutoff of 130 mm Hg. Of these, 84.8% of cases had an “at least probable association with ibrutinib,” they reported.
Among the 215 patients with no baseline hypertension, 71.6% developed hypertension while on ibrutinib, with a mean increase in systolic blood pressure of 13.4 mm Hg. Among the 347 patients with baseline hypertension, 82.4% experienced a worsening of their hypertension.
“This relationship remained even after accounting for ibrutinib dose, and was not attenuated by the use of any specific anti-hypertensive class,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers observed MACE among 93 patients. This included 84 patients with new or worsening hypertension and 9 patients with stable or no hypertension. Most MACE events were of at least probable ibrutinib association, the researchers reported.
Overall, the cumulative incidence of new hypertension at 1 year was 442 per 1,000 person-years in the current study. This value is 12.9-fold higher than the Framingham Heart Study risk–predicted rate of 34 per 1,000 person-years.
“Given the expected continued increase in ibrutinib use, further studies characterizing the mechanisms, treatment, and implications of [hypertension] during ibrutinib use are needed,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the D. Warren Brown Family Foundation, the Four Winds Foundation, and the Connie Brown CLL Research Fund. The authors reported financial affiliations with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Dickerson T et al. Blood. 2019 Oct 3. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000840.
FROM BLOOD
Best treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma is unclear
Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.
A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).
There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.
Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.
The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.
Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.
Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.
The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).
Results
Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).
There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).
There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.
Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).
Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).
Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).
“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”
The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.
Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.
A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).
There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.
Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.
The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.
Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.
Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.
The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).
Results
Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).
There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).
There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.
Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).
Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).
Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).
“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”
The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.
Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach for early stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.
A retrospective study showed similar outcomes among patients who received radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, combined modality treatment (CMT), and watchful waiting (WW).
There were some differences in progression-free survival (PFS) according to treatment approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) between any of the active treatments or between patients who received active treatment and those managed with WW.
Joshua W. D. Tobin, MD, of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues conducted this research and reported the results in Blood Advances.
The researchers analyzed 365 patients with newly diagnosed, stage I/II FL. The patients had a median age of 63 years and more than half were men. They were diagnosed between 2005 and 2017, and the median follow-up was 45 months.
Most patients (n = 280) received active treatment, but 85 were managed with WW. The WW patients were older and had more extranodal involvement.
Types of active treatment included radiotherapy alone (n = 171), immunochemotherapy alone (n = 63), and CMT (n = 46). Compared with the other groups, patients who received radiotherapy alone had less bulk, fewer nodal sites, and fewer B symptoms, and were more likely to have stage I disease. Patients who received CMT had fewer B symptoms and lower FLIPI scores compared with patients who received immunochemotherapy.
The immunochemotherapy regimens used were largely rituximab based. In all, 106 patients received rituximab (alone or in combination) for induction, and 49 received maintenance rituximab (37 in the immunochemotherapy group and 12 in the CMT group).
Results
Response rates were similar among the active treatment groups. The overall response rate was 95% in the radiotherapy group, 96% in the immunochemotherapy group, and 95% in the CMT group (P = .87).
There was a significant difference in PFS between the radiotherapy, immunochemotherapy, and CMT groups (P = .023), but there was no difference in OS between these groups (P = .38).
There was no significant difference in PFS between the immunochemotherapy and CMT groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P = .24), so the researchers combined these groups into a single group called “systemic therapy.” The patients treated with systemic therapy had PFS (HR, 1.32; P = .96) and OS (HR, 0.46; P = .21) similar to that of patients treated with radiotherapy alone.
Maintenance rituximab was associated with prolonged PFS among patients treated with systemic therapy (HR, 0.24; P = .017). However, there was no significant difference in OS between patients who received maintenance and those who did not (HR, 0.89; P = .90).
Relapse was less common among patients who received maintenance, and there were no cases of transformation in that group. Relapse occurred in 24.6% of the radiotherapy group, 18.3% of the systemic therapy group, and 4.1% of the group that received systemic therapy plus maintenance (P = .006). Transformation was less likely in the systemic therapy group (1.8%) than in the radiotherapy (6.4%) and WW (9.4%) groups (HR, 0.20; P = .034).
Overall, the active treatment group had better PFS than the WW group (HR, 0.52; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR, 0.94; P = .90).
“Based on our comparable OS between WW and actively treated patients, WW could be considered as an initial management strategy in early stage FL,” Dr. Tobin and colleagues wrote. “However, long-term follow-up is required to determine if a survival benefit exists favoring active treatment.”
The researchers reported relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Tobin JWD et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 8;3(19):2804-11.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Follow-up shows favorable results with acalabrutinib in MCL
Acalabrutinib monotherapy can produce durable responses in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to updated results from a phase 2 trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SOURCE: Wang M et al. Leukemia. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0575-9.
FROM LEUKEMIA
What is the optimal duration of maintenance in myeloma?
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
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.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
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.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
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.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
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.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
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.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
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.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Targeted agents vs. chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment of CLL
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
REPORTING FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Decoding biosimilar approvals
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
REPORTING FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Study finds no standard for treatment discontinuation in myeloma
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.
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.
Duration of therapy
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.
Reasons for discontinuation
“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.
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.
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.
Duration of therapy
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.
Reasons for discontinuation
“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.
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.
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.
Duration of therapy
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.
Reasons for discontinuation
“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.
SOURCE: Weisel K et al. IMW 2019, Abstract OAB-005.
REPORTING FROM IMW 2019