User login
Lymphoma risk prompts FDA recall of Allergan’s textured breast implants
The Food and Drug Administration requested on July 24 that Allergan pull six brands of textured breast implants and breast expanders from the U.S. market, an action the agency took because of new data that substantially increased the number of women who developed a rare cancer – anaplastic large-cell lymphoma – in association with receiving these textured breast devices.
This is the first product recall the FDA has made to address the issue of breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a complication that first came to national attention with a 2011 FDA report that had tallied 60 identified BIA-ALCL cases worldwide. By the end of September 2018, the number of reported worldwide BIA-ALCL cases had jumped to 457 cases reported to the agency via medical device reporting. In July 2019, the FDA cited a total of 573 unique, global case reports for BIA-ALCL sent to the agency through July 6, including 33 episodes that led to death.
It was inclusion of these additional 116 cases since September 2018 and 24 additional deaths that led FDA researchers to conclude that “the risk of BIA-ALCL with Allergan BIOCELL textured implants is approximately six-times the risk of BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers marketing in the U.S.,” according to a statement from the agency.
The FDA is not recommending that patients who received one of the six products covered by the recall have the material removed if symptoms have not appeared because of the potential risk from explantation.
The agency also stressed that its investigation of the risk posed by placement of other brands of textured breast implants is ongoing and that overall less than 5% of all breast implants performed in current U.S. practice involve the macrotextured implants of the type specified in the Allergan recall.
This U.S. recall follows similar actions taken in France (and the rest of the European Union), Canada, and Australia, and it contrasts with the agency’s prior decision in May 2019 not to start a recall or ban of textured implants following a advisory committee meeting that discussed BIA-ALCL.
The six products that Allergan agreed to recall from marketing at the FDA’s request are four textured breast implants (Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Inspira Silicone-Filled breast Implants, and Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants) and two tissue expanders used prior to a breast implant (Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander and the Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs).
FDA officials said they are considering recommendations for changes to the labeling of breast implant products, including a possible boxed warning and beefed up patient information.
“The recall of these textured implants is a big deal in protecting women from the potential risks of developing, and dying from, this rare type of aggressive lymphoma,” Joshua Brody, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the lymphoma immunotherapy program at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York said in a statement. “While case reports have suggested a potential link between some types of breast implants and this disease – anaplastic lymphoma – for over 20 years, it has taken time to gain sufficient evidence to suggest, and understand, the causality. Some types of implants induce inflammation, which can both increase the chance of developing cancer, and also help to ‘hide’ developing cancers from the immune system. By preventing further use of these implants, the FDA is helping women to protect themselves from the medically serious and emotionally exhausting effects of these risks.”
Dr. Brody reported having no relevant disclosures.
The Food and Drug Administration requested on July 24 that Allergan pull six brands of textured breast implants and breast expanders from the U.S. market, an action the agency took because of new data that substantially increased the number of women who developed a rare cancer – anaplastic large-cell lymphoma – in association with receiving these textured breast devices.
This is the first product recall the FDA has made to address the issue of breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a complication that first came to national attention with a 2011 FDA report that had tallied 60 identified BIA-ALCL cases worldwide. By the end of September 2018, the number of reported worldwide BIA-ALCL cases had jumped to 457 cases reported to the agency via medical device reporting. In July 2019, the FDA cited a total of 573 unique, global case reports for BIA-ALCL sent to the agency through July 6, including 33 episodes that led to death.
It was inclusion of these additional 116 cases since September 2018 and 24 additional deaths that led FDA researchers to conclude that “the risk of BIA-ALCL with Allergan BIOCELL textured implants is approximately six-times the risk of BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers marketing in the U.S.,” according to a statement from the agency.
The FDA is not recommending that patients who received one of the six products covered by the recall have the material removed if symptoms have not appeared because of the potential risk from explantation.
The agency also stressed that its investigation of the risk posed by placement of other brands of textured breast implants is ongoing and that overall less than 5% of all breast implants performed in current U.S. practice involve the macrotextured implants of the type specified in the Allergan recall.
This U.S. recall follows similar actions taken in France (and the rest of the European Union), Canada, and Australia, and it contrasts with the agency’s prior decision in May 2019 not to start a recall or ban of textured implants following a advisory committee meeting that discussed BIA-ALCL.
The six products that Allergan agreed to recall from marketing at the FDA’s request are four textured breast implants (Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Inspira Silicone-Filled breast Implants, and Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants) and two tissue expanders used prior to a breast implant (Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander and the Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs).
FDA officials said they are considering recommendations for changes to the labeling of breast implant products, including a possible boxed warning and beefed up patient information.
“The recall of these textured implants is a big deal in protecting women from the potential risks of developing, and dying from, this rare type of aggressive lymphoma,” Joshua Brody, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the lymphoma immunotherapy program at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York said in a statement. “While case reports have suggested a potential link between some types of breast implants and this disease – anaplastic lymphoma – for over 20 years, it has taken time to gain sufficient evidence to suggest, and understand, the causality. Some types of implants induce inflammation, which can both increase the chance of developing cancer, and also help to ‘hide’ developing cancers from the immune system. By preventing further use of these implants, the FDA is helping women to protect themselves from the medically serious and emotionally exhausting effects of these risks.”
Dr. Brody reported having no relevant disclosures.
The Food and Drug Administration requested on July 24 that Allergan pull six brands of textured breast implants and breast expanders from the U.S. market, an action the agency took because of new data that substantially increased the number of women who developed a rare cancer – anaplastic large-cell lymphoma – in association with receiving these textured breast devices.
This is the first product recall the FDA has made to address the issue of breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a complication that first came to national attention with a 2011 FDA report that had tallied 60 identified BIA-ALCL cases worldwide. By the end of September 2018, the number of reported worldwide BIA-ALCL cases had jumped to 457 cases reported to the agency via medical device reporting. In July 2019, the FDA cited a total of 573 unique, global case reports for BIA-ALCL sent to the agency through July 6, including 33 episodes that led to death.
It was inclusion of these additional 116 cases since September 2018 and 24 additional deaths that led FDA researchers to conclude that “the risk of BIA-ALCL with Allergan BIOCELL textured implants is approximately six-times the risk of BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers marketing in the U.S.,” according to a statement from the agency.
The FDA is not recommending that patients who received one of the six products covered by the recall have the material removed if symptoms have not appeared because of the potential risk from explantation.
The agency also stressed that its investigation of the risk posed by placement of other brands of textured breast implants is ongoing and that overall less than 5% of all breast implants performed in current U.S. practice involve the macrotextured implants of the type specified in the Allergan recall.
This U.S. recall follows similar actions taken in France (and the rest of the European Union), Canada, and Australia, and it contrasts with the agency’s prior decision in May 2019 not to start a recall or ban of textured implants following a advisory committee meeting that discussed BIA-ALCL.
The six products that Allergan agreed to recall from marketing at the FDA’s request are four textured breast implants (Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, Natrelle Inspira Silicone-Filled breast Implants, and Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants) and two tissue expanders used prior to a breast implant (Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander and the Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs).
FDA officials said they are considering recommendations for changes to the labeling of breast implant products, including a possible boxed warning and beefed up patient information.
“The recall of these textured implants is a big deal in protecting women from the potential risks of developing, and dying from, this rare type of aggressive lymphoma,” Joshua Brody, MD, a medical oncologist and director of the lymphoma immunotherapy program at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York said in a statement. “While case reports have suggested a potential link between some types of breast implants and this disease – anaplastic lymphoma – for over 20 years, it has taken time to gain sufficient evidence to suggest, and understand, the causality. Some types of implants induce inflammation, which can both increase the chance of developing cancer, and also help to ‘hide’ developing cancers from the immune system. By preventing further use of these implants, the FDA is helping women to protect themselves from the medically serious and emotionally exhausting effects of these risks.”
Dr. Brody reported having no relevant disclosures.
BTK mutations linked to CLL progression on ibrutinib
Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).
“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.
The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.
All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.
Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.
BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.
The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.
However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.
The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).
Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.
Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.
The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.
This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.
Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).
“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.
The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.
All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.
Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.
BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.
The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.
However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.
The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).
Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.
Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.
The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.
This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.
Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).
“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.
The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.
All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.
Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.
BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.
The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.
However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.
The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).
Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.
Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.
The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.
This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.
FROM BLOOD
FDA approves rituximab biosimilar for cancer, autoimmune disorders
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.
Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.
The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.
Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.
The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.
Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.
The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.
Chemo-free combo gets high response rate in relapsed or refractory DLBCL
LUGANO, Switzerland – A chemotherapy-free combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid) and the novel anti-CD19 antibody tafasitamab (MOR208) continues to show encouraging clinical activity against relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma, with durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival, investigators in the phase 2 L-MIND study reported.
After a median follow-up of 17.3 months, the overall response rate (ORR) – the primary endpoint in the single arm trial – was 60%, consisting of 42.5% complete responses (CR) and 17.5% partial responses (PR), reported Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France.
“We see consistently high activity in transplant-ineligible subgroups, patients who have limited treatment options and who have really poor prognosis,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (15-ICML).
In a preclinical study, a combination of MOR208 and lenalidomide showed synergistic antileukemic and antilymphoma activity both in vivo and in vitro. In addition, both lenalidomide and MOR208 have shown significant activity against relapsed, refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
At the previous ICML meeting in 2017, Dr. Salles reported early interim results from the study, which showed that among 34 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 56%, including complete responses in 32% of patients.
The L-MIND investigators enrolled transplant-ineligible patients 18 years and older with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function who had disease progression after 1-3 prior lines of therapy.
Patients with primary refractory DLBCL, double-hit or triple-hit DLBCL (i.e., mutations in Myc, BCL2, and/or BCL6), other non-Hodgkin lymphoma histological subtypes, or central nervous system lymphoma involvement were excluded.
Patients received tafasitamab 12 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for cycles 1-3 and on days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12. Lenalidomide 25 mg orally was delivered on days 1-21 of each cycle. Patients with stable disease or better at the end of 12 cycles could be maintained on tafasitamab at the same dose on days 1 and 15.
As noted, the combination was associated with an ORR among 80 patients of 60%, consisting of 34 CR (42.5%) complete responses and 14 (17.5%) PR. An additional 11 patients (13.75%) had stable disease, 13 (16.25%) had disease progression, and eight (10%) were not evaluable because of missing post-baseline tumor assessments.
The median duration of response in the entire cohort was 21.7 months. For patients with a CR, the median duration of response had not been reached at the time of data cutoff. For patients with a PR, the median duration of response was 4.4 months.
Hematologic treatment-emergent toxicities occurring in 10% or more of patients included (in descending order of frequency) neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and febrile neutropenia.
Nonhematologic treatment-emergent events occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, asthenia, peripheral edema, pyrexia, rash, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, fatigue, and similar events, the majority of which were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
“The durable responses and favorable overall survival I would say represent a remarkable outcome, and this combination of lenalidomide with tafasitamab results in a new chemo-free immunotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL,” Dr. Salles said.
The L-MIND study is funded by MorphoSys Ag. Dr. Salles reported receiving fees for advisory board/consulting activities and educational activities from MorphoSys and other companies.
SOURCE: Salles G et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 124.
LUGANO, Switzerland – A chemotherapy-free combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid) and the novel anti-CD19 antibody tafasitamab (MOR208) continues to show encouraging clinical activity against relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma, with durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival, investigators in the phase 2 L-MIND study reported.
After a median follow-up of 17.3 months, the overall response rate (ORR) – the primary endpoint in the single arm trial – was 60%, consisting of 42.5% complete responses (CR) and 17.5% partial responses (PR), reported Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France.
“We see consistently high activity in transplant-ineligible subgroups, patients who have limited treatment options and who have really poor prognosis,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (15-ICML).
In a preclinical study, a combination of MOR208 and lenalidomide showed synergistic antileukemic and antilymphoma activity both in vivo and in vitro. In addition, both lenalidomide and MOR208 have shown significant activity against relapsed, refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
At the previous ICML meeting in 2017, Dr. Salles reported early interim results from the study, which showed that among 34 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 56%, including complete responses in 32% of patients.
The L-MIND investigators enrolled transplant-ineligible patients 18 years and older with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function who had disease progression after 1-3 prior lines of therapy.
Patients with primary refractory DLBCL, double-hit or triple-hit DLBCL (i.e., mutations in Myc, BCL2, and/or BCL6), other non-Hodgkin lymphoma histological subtypes, or central nervous system lymphoma involvement were excluded.
Patients received tafasitamab 12 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for cycles 1-3 and on days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12. Lenalidomide 25 mg orally was delivered on days 1-21 of each cycle. Patients with stable disease or better at the end of 12 cycles could be maintained on tafasitamab at the same dose on days 1 and 15.
As noted, the combination was associated with an ORR among 80 patients of 60%, consisting of 34 CR (42.5%) complete responses and 14 (17.5%) PR. An additional 11 patients (13.75%) had stable disease, 13 (16.25%) had disease progression, and eight (10%) were not evaluable because of missing post-baseline tumor assessments.
The median duration of response in the entire cohort was 21.7 months. For patients with a CR, the median duration of response had not been reached at the time of data cutoff. For patients with a PR, the median duration of response was 4.4 months.
Hematologic treatment-emergent toxicities occurring in 10% or more of patients included (in descending order of frequency) neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and febrile neutropenia.
Nonhematologic treatment-emergent events occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, asthenia, peripheral edema, pyrexia, rash, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, fatigue, and similar events, the majority of which were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
“The durable responses and favorable overall survival I would say represent a remarkable outcome, and this combination of lenalidomide with tafasitamab results in a new chemo-free immunotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL,” Dr. Salles said.
The L-MIND study is funded by MorphoSys Ag. Dr. Salles reported receiving fees for advisory board/consulting activities and educational activities from MorphoSys and other companies.
SOURCE: Salles G et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 124.
LUGANO, Switzerland – A chemotherapy-free combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid) and the novel anti-CD19 antibody tafasitamab (MOR208) continues to show encouraging clinical activity against relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma, with durable responses and promising progression-free and overall survival, investigators in the phase 2 L-MIND study reported.
After a median follow-up of 17.3 months, the overall response rate (ORR) – the primary endpoint in the single arm trial – was 60%, consisting of 42.5% complete responses (CR) and 17.5% partial responses (PR), reported Giles Salles, MD, PhD, of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France.
“We see consistently high activity in transplant-ineligible subgroups, patients who have limited treatment options and who have really poor prognosis,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (15-ICML).
In a preclinical study, a combination of MOR208 and lenalidomide showed synergistic antileukemic and antilymphoma activity both in vivo and in vitro. In addition, both lenalidomide and MOR208 have shown significant activity against relapsed, refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.
At the previous ICML meeting in 2017, Dr. Salles reported early interim results from the study, which showed that among 34 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 56%, including complete responses in 32% of patients.
The L-MIND investigators enrolled transplant-ineligible patients 18 years and older with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function who had disease progression after 1-3 prior lines of therapy.
Patients with primary refractory DLBCL, double-hit or triple-hit DLBCL (i.e., mutations in Myc, BCL2, and/or BCL6), other non-Hodgkin lymphoma histological subtypes, or central nervous system lymphoma involvement were excluded.
Patients received tafasitamab 12 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for cycles 1-3 and on days 1 and 15 of cycles 4-12. Lenalidomide 25 mg orally was delivered on days 1-21 of each cycle. Patients with stable disease or better at the end of 12 cycles could be maintained on tafasitamab at the same dose on days 1 and 15.
As noted, the combination was associated with an ORR among 80 patients of 60%, consisting of 34 CR (42.5%) complete responses and 14 (17.5%) PR. An additional 11 patients (13.75%) had stable disease, 13 (16.25%) had disease progression, and eight (10%) were not evaluable because of missing post-baseline tumor assessments.
The median duration of response in the entire cohort was 21.7 months. For patients with a CR, the median duration of response had not been reached at the time of data cutoff. For patients with a PR, the median duration of response was 4.4 months.
Hematologic treatment-emergent toxicities occurring in 10% or more of patients included (in descending order of frequency) neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and febrile neutropenia.
Nonhematologic treatment-emergent events occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, asthenia, peripheral edema, pyrexia, rash, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, fatigue, and similar events, the majority of which were grade 1 or 2 in severity.
“The durable responses and favorable overall survival I would say represent a remarkable outcome, and this combination of lenalidomide with tafasitamab results in a new chemo-free immunotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL,” Dr. Salles said.
The L-MIND study is funded by MorphoSys Ag. Dr. Salles reported receiving fees for advisory board/consulting activities and educational activities from MorphoSys and other companies.
SOURCE: Salles G et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 124.
REPORTING FROM 15-ICML
CAR T-cell therapy less effective in transformed follicular lymphoma
All complete responders with FL were still in remission at a median follow-up of 24 months, but the median duration of response was 10.2 months for patients with tFL.
Alexandre V. Hirayama, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and colleagues reported these results in Blood.
The trial enrolled 21 adults with relapsed/refractory CD19+ B-cell malignancies, including 8 patients with FL and 13 with tFL. At baseline, the FL/tFL patients had a median age of 56 years (range, 51-62), and 67% were male. Most patients (n = 19) had stage III/IV disease, 17 had extranodal disease, 8 had bulky disease, and 6 had bone marrow involvement. The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-8), and 13 had received a transplant.
In this study, patients received a lymphodepleting regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by 2 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells/kg. Five patients (one with FL and four with tFL) also received bridging chemotherapy between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion.
Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 50% of FL patients and 39% of tFL patients (P = .35). Grade 1-2 neurotoxicity occurred in 50% and 23%, respectively (P = .67). There were no cases of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.
Most FL patients (7 of 8; 88%) achieved a complete response (CR) to treatment, and all of these patients were still in CR at a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 5-37 months). One FL patient received a transplant while in CR.
Six of 13 tFL patients (46%) achieved a CR. At a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 3-39 months), the median duration of response was 10.2 months. The median progression-free survival was 11.2 months in patients who achieved a CR and 1.4 months in all tFL patients.
The researchers noted that peak CAR T-cell counts and the duration of CAR T-cell detection were similar between FL and tFL patients. However, tFL patients had higher serum interleukin-8 concentrations and higher lactate dehydrogenase levels before treatment.
Past research suggested that IL-8 mediates the recruitment of tumor-associated neutrophils, promotes diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression, and can contribute to local immune suppression. Other studies have linked elevated lactate dehydrogenase to aggressive disease and a more immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.
“Although these data raise the possibility that differences in the tumor microenvironment may, in part, contribute to differences in outcomes after CAR T-cell immunotherapy in FL and tFL patients, additional studies are required,” the researchers wrote.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinician Investigator Program, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Immunotherapy Integrated Research Center, and Juno Therapeutics/Celgene.
The researchers disclosed relationships with Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Nohla, Kite Pharma, Gilead, Genentech, Novartis, Eureka Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Precision Biosciences, Aptevo, Humanigen, and Allogene.
SOURCE: Hirayama AV et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000905
All complete responders with FL were still in remission at a median follow-up of 24 months, but the median duration of response was 10.2 months for patients with tFL.
Alexandre V. Hirayama, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and colleagues reported these results in Blood.
The trial enrolled 21 adults with relapsed/refractory CD19+ B-cell malignancies, including 8 patients with FL and 13 with tFL. At baseline, the FL/tFL patients had a median age of 56 years (range, 51-62), and 67% were male. Most patients (n = 19) had stage III/IV disease, 17 had extranodal disease, 8 had bulky disease, and 6 had bone marrow involvement. The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-8), and 13 had received a transplant.
In this study, patients received a lymphodepleting regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by 2 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells/kg. Five patients (one with FL and four with tFL) also received bridging chemotherapy between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion.
Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 50% of FL patients and 39% of tFL patients (P = .35). Grade 1-2 neurotoxicity occurred in 50% and 23%, respectively (P = .67). There were no cases of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.
Most FL patients (7 of 8; 88%) achieved a complete response (CR) to treatment, and all of these patients were still in CR at a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 5-37 months). One FL patient received a transplant while in CR.
Six of 13 tFL patients (46%) achieved a CR. At a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 3-39 months), the median duration of response was 10.2 months. The median progression-free survival was 11.2 months in patients who achieved a CR and 1.4 months in all tFL patients.
The researchers noted that peak CAR T-cell counts and the duration of CAR T-cell detection were similar between FL and tFL patients. However, tFL patients had higher serum interleukin-8 concentrations and higher lactate dehydrogenase levels before treatment.
Past research suggested that IL-8 mediates the recruitment of tumor-associated neutrophils, promotes diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression, and can contribute to local immune suppression. Other studies have linked elevated lactate dehydrogenase to aggressive disease and a more immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.
“Although these data raise the possibility that differences in the tumor microenvironment may, in part, contribute to differences in outcomes after CAR T-cell immunotherapy in FL and tFL patients, additional studies are required,” the researchers wrote.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinician Investigator Program, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Immunotherapy Integrated Research Center, and Juno Therapeutics/Celgene.
The researchers disclosed relationships with Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Nohla, Kite Pharma, Gilead, Genentech, Novartis, Eureka Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Precision Biosciences, Aptevo, Humanigen, and Allogene.
SOURCE: Hirayama AV et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000905
All complete responders with FL were still in remission at a median follow-up of 24 months, but the median duration of response was 10.2 months for patients with tFL.
Alexandre V. Hirayama, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, and colleagues reported these results in Blood.
The trial enrolled 21 adults with relapsed/refractory CD19+ B-cell malignancies, including 8 patients with FL and 13 with tFL. At baseline, the FL/tFL patients had a median age of 56 years (range, 51-62), and 67% were male. Most patients (n = 19) had stage III/IV disease, 17 had extranodal disease, 8 had bulky disease, and 6 had bone marrow involvement. The patients had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range, 2-8), and 13 had received a transplant.
In this study, patients received a lymphodepleting regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by 2 x 106 CD19 CAR T cells/kg. Five patients (one with FL and four with tFL) also received bridging chemotherapy between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion.
Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 50% of FL patients and 39% of tFL patients (P = .35). Grade 1-2 neurotoxicity occurred in 50% and 23%, respectively (P = .67). There were no cases of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity.
Most FL patients (7 of 8; 88%) achieved a complete response (CR) to treatment, and all of these patients were still in CR at a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 5-37 months). One FL patient received a transplant while in CR.
Six of 13 tFL patients (46%) achieved a CR. At a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 3-39 months), the median duration of response was 10.2 months. The median progression-free survival was 11.2 months in patients who achieved a CR and 1.4 months in all tFL patients.
The researchers noted that peak CAR T-cell counts and the duration of CAR T-cell detection were similar between FL and tFL patients. However, tFL patients had higher serum interleukin-8 concentrations and higher lactate dehydrogenase levels before treatment.
Past research suggested that IL-8 mediates the recruitment of tumor-associated neutrophils, promotes diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progression, and can contribute to local immune suppression. Other studies have linked elevated lactate dehydrogenase to aggressive disease and a more immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.
“Although these data raise the possibility that differences in the tumor microenvironment may, in part, contribute to differences in outcomes after CAR T-cell immunotherapy in FL and tFL patients, additional studies are required,” the researchers wrote.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinician Investigator Program, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Immunotherapy Integrated Research Center, and Juno Therapeutics/Celgene.
The researchers disclosed relationships with Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Nohla, Kite Pharma, Gilead, Genentech, Novartis, Eureka Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Precision Biosciences, Aptevo, Humanigen, and Allogene.
SOURCE: Hirayama AV et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000905
FROM BLOOD
Flavopiridol elicits poor response in mantle cell lymphoma, DLBCL
Flavopiridol – also known as alvocidib – showed minimal clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and other B-cell lymphomas, according to results from a single-center, phase 1/2 trial.
“Promising preclinical data in cell lines derived from MCL and activated DLBCL led to a series of clinical trials of flavopiridol in various hematological malignancies,” wrote Milos D. Miljković, MD, and colleagues in the lymphoid malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. The findings were published in a letter to the editor in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The study included 28 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, DLBCL, transformed follicular lymphoma, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who received a hybrid dosing regimen of the novel CDK inhibitor. Flavopiridol was administered as a 30-minute bolus, followed by a 4-hour infusion.
The researchers used an intrapatient dose escalation between the first and successive cycles, in addition to a three-plus-three interpatient escalation, to lessen the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).
The primary outcomes were the clinical response rate, maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities, and toxicity profile of the hybrid dosing regimen.
Of 26 evaluable patients, one patient with DLBCL maintained a partial response for 84 days (overall response rate, 3.8%). One patient with MCL had a 50% decrease in the size of target lesions at 2 months, but this was not sustained at 4 months. In total, nine patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 38.4%.
“[Flavopiridol] had minimal efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, casting doubt on the utility of CDK inhibition in this disease,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, there were eight dose-limiting toxicities reported in three patients. These included grade 3 TLS, elevated transaminase levels, hypoalbuminemia, hyperkalemia, non-neutropenic infection, and grade 4 metabolic acidosis and gastrointestinal perforation.
The most common treatment-related toxicities were hematologic, including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, and lymphopenia.
Dr. Miljković and colleagues noted that CDK inhibitor therapy may elicit better responses when used in combination with other agents.
“Ongoing trials of more specific CDK inhibitors in combination with other agents will help elucidate their role in lymphoma treatment,” they wrote.
The trial is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the study authors are employees of the National Cancer Institute.
SOURCE: Miljkovic MD et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1627540.
Flavopiridol – also known as alvocidib – showed minimal clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and other B-cell lymphomas, according to results from a single-center, phase 1/2 trial.
“Promising preclinical data in cell lines derived from MCL and activated DLBCL led to a series of clinical trials of flavopiridol in various hematological malignancies,” wrote Milos D. Miljković, MD, and colleagues in the lymphoid malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. The findings were published in a letter to the editor in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The study included 28 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, DLBCL, transformed follicular lymphoma, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who received a hybrid dosing regimen of the novel CDK inhibitor. Flavopiridol was administered as a 30-minute bolus, followed by a 4-hour infusion.
The researchers used an intrapatient dose escalation between the first and successive cycles, in addition to a three-plus-three interpatient escalation, to lessen the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).
The primary outcomes were the clinical response rate, maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities, and toxicity profile of the hybrid dosing regimen.
Of 26 evaluable patients, one patient with DLBCL maintained a partial response for 84 days (overall response rate, 3.8%). One patient with MCL had a 50% decrease in the size of target lesions at 2 months, but this was not sustained at 4 months. In total, nine patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 38.4%.
“[Flavopiridol] had minimal efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, casting doubt on the utility of CDK inhibition in this disease,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, there were eight dose-limiting toxicities reported in three patients. These included grade 3 TLS, elevated transaminase levels, hypoalbuminemia, hyperkalemia, non-neutropenic infection, and grade 4 metabolic acidosis and gastrointestinal perforation.
The most common treatment-related toxicities were hematologic, including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, and lymphopenia.
Dr. Miljković and colleagues noted that CDK inhibitor therapy may elicit better responses when used in combination with other agents.
“Ongoing trials of more specific CDK inhibitors in combination with other agents will help elucidate their role in lymphoma treatment,” they wrote.
The trial is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the study authors are employees of the National Cancer Institute.
SOURCE: Miljkovic MD et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1627540.
Flavopiridol – also known as alvocidib – showed minimal clinical response in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and other B-cell lymphomas, according to results from a single-center, phase 1/2 trial.
“Promising preclinical data in cell lines derived from MCL and activated DLBCL led to a series of clinical trials of flavopiridol in various hematological malignancies,” wrote Milos D. Miljković, MD, and colleagues in the lymphoid malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. The findings were published in a letter to the editor in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The study included 28 patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, DLBCL, transformed follicular lymphoma, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who received a hybrid dosing regimen of the novel CDK inhibitor. Flavopiridol was administered as a 30-minute bolus, followed by a 4-hour infusion.
The researchers used an intrapatient dose escalation between the first and successive cycles, in addition to a three-plus-three interpatient escalation, to lessen the risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS).
The primary outcomes were the clinical response rate, maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities, and toxicity profile of the hybrid dosing regimen.
Of 26 evaluable patients, one patient with DLBCL maintained a partial response for 84 days (overall response rate, 3.8%). One patient with MCL had a 50% decrease in the size of target lesions at 2 months, but this was not sustained at 4 months. In total, nine patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 38.4%.
“[Flavopiridol] had minimal efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, casting doubt on the utility of CDK inhibition in this disease,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, there were eight dose-limiting toxicities reported in three patients. These included grade 3 TLS, elevated transaminase levels, hypoalbuminemia, hyperkalemia, non-neutropenic infection, and grade 4 metabolic acidosis and gastrointestinal perforation.
The most common treatment-related toxicities were hematologic, including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytosis, and lymphopenia.
Dr. Miljković and colleagues noted that CDK inhibitor therapy may elicit better responses when used in combination with other agents.
“Ongoing trials of more specific CDK inhibitors in combination with other agents will help elucidate their role in lymphoma treatment,” they wrote.
The trial is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the study authors are employees of the National Cancer Institute.
SOURCE: Miljkovic MD et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1627540.
FROM LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
On second thought, lenalidomide does improve DLBCL outcomes
LUGANO, Switzerland – Hot on the heels of the phase 3 ROBUST study showing that adding lenalidomide to standard chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma come results of a different study showing a significant benefit with the therapy.
Although, as previously reported, adding lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone in ROBUST, results from the randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study showed that R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, compared with R-CHOP alone.
“The efficacy endpoints are consistent, with trends toward higher PET complete response rate and improved overall survival with R-squared CHOP,” Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
So what’s behind the conflicting findings?
The differences between the results of the two studies may be accounted for by the higher lenalidomide dose used in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, the patient populations – all comers in ECOG-ACRIN versus only patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL in ROBUST – and by a 10-day shorter median time to treatment in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, said invited discussant Margaret A. Shipp, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non-germinal center-like B (GCB) type DLBCL.
In a subanalysis of patients enrolled in MC078E, Dr. Nowakowski and colleagues found that using classification of patients by cell of origin with the NanoString Lymphoma Subtype assay, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP “appears to mitigate the negative impact of an ABC molecular subtype on the outcome.”
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 details
Goals of the ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study were to evaluate the effect of lenalidomide both in all DLBCL subtypes and in the ABC subtype, maximize the synergy of the immunomodulator with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) while maintaining R-CHOP dose intensity, and facilitate the enrollment of patients with rapidly progressive disease.
To accomplish the last goal, the study was designed to allow enrollment based on local laboratory findings, scans, and diagnostic pathology, without required identification of the cell of origin. Built in to the design was the plan for final eligibility to be based on central pathology review. In other words, the trial design took into account the likelihood that some enrolled patients would not qualify for eligibility based on later pathology review.
The investigators enrolled 349 adults aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed DLBCL (regardless of the cell of origin), stage II bulky to stage IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 2 or greater, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or less.
The patients were stratified by age (younger than 60 years vs. 60 years and older) and by IPI score (2/3 vs. 4/5), and then randomized to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or R2-CHOP. Lenalidomide was given in a dose of 25 mg on days 1-10 of each cycle. In contrast, the dose used in ROBUST was 15 mg given on days 1-14 of each cycle.
In ECOG-ACRIN 1412, patients assigned to lenalidomide received mandatory neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.
The time from diagnosis to treatment was a median of 21 days, with only 61 of 280 evaluable patients starting treatment more than 31 days after diagnosis. In ROBUST, the median time to start therapy was 31 days.
Dr. Nowakowski and his colleagues had previously shown that time to treatment is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL.
The efficacy evaluation included 145 patients assigned to R2-CHOP, and 135 assigned to R-CHOP. Primary reasons for exclusion were ineligibity following central pathology review or lack of diagnostic material for review.
After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, P = .03). The 1-year progression-free survival rates were 83% with R2-CHOP and 73% with R-CHOP. Respective 2-year progression-free survival rates were 76% and 70%.
There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary overall survival endpoints with 1-year and 2-year overall survival of 93% vs. 87% and 86% vs. 80%, respectively.
Similarly, there was no difference in rates of PET-ascertained complete response, at 72% with R2-CHOP and 67% with R-CHOP.
R2-CHOP showed greater benefit across most subgroups, including patients with lower IPI score, patients with bulky disease, patients younger than 60 years, women, and patients with shorter time to treatment. There were also nonsignificant trends hinting at better outcomes with R2-CHOP, regardless of cell of origin.
Toxicities were typical for R-CHOP, although patients on R2-CHOP had significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
In addition to the trial differences mentioned previously, the differences in outcomes might be explained by the possibility that lenalidomide activity is not restricted to ABC DLBCL, Dr. Shipp said.
“One of the things that’s important to remember about lenalidomide is that it’s an immunomodulating agent and it has also has effects on tumor-infiltrating T cells,” she said.
Differences in response to therapy may also be explained by recent findings showing genetic heterogeneity in transcription-defined ABC DLBCLs, she said.
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported consulting/advising for and research funding from Celgene and others. Dr. Shipp reported consulting/advising for Bristol-Myers Squibb, honoraria from BMS and AstraZeneca, and institutional research funding from BMS and Bayer.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 006.
LUGANO, Switzerland – Hot on the heels of the phase 3 ROBUST study showing that adding lenalidomide to standard chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma come results of a different study showing a significant benefit with the therapy.
Although, as previously reported, adding lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone in ROBUST, results from the randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study showed that R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, compared with R-CHOP alone.
“The efficacy endpoints are consistent, with trends toward higher PET complete response rate and improved overall survival with R-squared CHOP,” Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
So what’s behind the conflicting findings?
The differences between the results of the two studies may be accounted for by the higher lenalidomide dose used in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, the patient populations – all comers in ECOG-ACRIN versus only patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL in ROBUST – and by a 10-day shorter median time to treatment in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, said invited discussant Margaret A. Shipp, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non-germinal center-like B (GCB) type DLBCL.
In a subanalysis of patients enrolled in MC078E, Dr. Nowakowski and colleagues found that using classification of patients by cell of origin with the NanoString Lymphoma Subtype assay, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP “appears to mitigate the negative impact of an ABC molecular subtype on the outcome.”
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 details
Goals of the ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study were to evaluate the effect of lenalidomide both in all DLBCL subtypes and in the ABC subtype, maximize the synergy of the immunomodulator with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) while maintaining R-CHOP dose intensity, and facilitate the enrollment of patients with rapidly progressive disease.
To accomplish the last goal, the study was designed to allow enrollment based on local laboratory findings, scans, and diagnostic pathology, without required identification of the cell of origin. Built in to the design was the plan for final eligibility to be based on central pathology review. In other words, the trial design took into account the likelihood that some enrolled patients would not qualify for eligibility based on later pathology review.
The investigators enrolled 349 adults aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed DLBCL (regardless of the cell of origin), stage II bulky to stage IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 2 or greater, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or less.
The patients were stratified by age (younger than 60 years vs. 60 years and older) and by IPI score (2/3 vs. 4/5), and then randomized to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or R2-CHOP. Lenalidomide was given in a dose of 25 mg on days 1-10 of each cycle. In contrast, the dose used in ROBUST was 15 mg given on days 1-14 of each cycle.
In ECOG-ACRIN 1412, patients assigned to lenalidomide received mandatory neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.
The time from diagnosis to treatment was a median of 21 days, with only 61 of 280 evaluable patients starting treatment more than 31 days after diagnosis. In ROBUST, the median time to start therapy was 31 days.
Dr. Nowakowski and his colleagues had previously shown that time to treatment is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL.
The efficacy evaluation included 145 patients assigned to R2-CHOP, and 135 assigned to R-CHOP. Primary reasons for exclusion were ineligibity following central pathology review or lack of diagnostic material for review.
After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, P = .03). The 1-year progression-free survival rates were 83% with R2-CHOP and 73% with R-CHOP. Respective 2-year progression-free survival rates were 76% and 70%.
There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary overall survival endpoints with 1-year and 2-year overall survival of 93% vs. 87% and 86% vs. 80%, respectively.
Similarly, there was no difference in rates of PET-ascertained complete response, at 72% with R2-CHOP and 67% with R-CHOP.
R2-CHOP showed greater benefit across most subgroups, including patients with lower IPI score, patients with bulky disease, patients younger than 60 years, women, and patients with shorter time to treatment. There were also nonsignificant trends hinting at better outcomes with R2-CHOP, regardless of cell of origin.
Toxicities were typical for R-CHOP, although patients on R2-CHOP had significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
In addition to the trial differences mentioned previously, the differences in outcomes might be explained by the possibility that lenalidomide activity is not restricted to ABC DLBCL, Dr. Shipp said.
“One of the things that’s important to remember about lenalidomide is that it’s an immunomodulating agent and it has also has effects on tumor-infiltrating T cells,” she said.
Differences in response to therapy may also be explained by recent findings showing genetic heterogeneity in transcription-defined ABC DLBCLs, she said.
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported consulting/advising for and research funding from Celgene and others. Dr. Shipp reported consulting/advising for Bristol-Myers Squibb, honoraria from BMS and AstraZeneca, and institutional research funding from BMS and Bayer.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 006.
LUGANO, Switzerland – Hot on the heels of the phase 3 ROBUST study showing that adding lenalidomide to standard chemotherapy did not improve outcomes for patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma come results of a different study showing a significant benefit with the therapy.
Although, as previously reported, adding lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone in ROBUST, results from the randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study showed that R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, compared with R-CHOP alone.
“The efficacy endpoints are consistent, with trends toward higher PET complete response rate and improved overall survival with R-squared CHOP,” Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
So what’s behind the conflicting findings?
The differences between the results of the two studies may be accounted for by the higher lenalidomide dose used in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, the patient populations – all comers in ECOG-ACRIN versus only patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL in ROBUST – and by a 10-day shorter median time to treatment in ECOG-ACRIN 1412, said invited discussant Margaret A. Shipp, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non-germinal center-like B (GCB) type DLBCL.
In a subanalysis of patients enrolled in MC078E, Dr. Nowakowski and colleagues found that using classification of patients by cell of origin with the NanoString Lymphoma Subtype assay, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP “appears to mitigate the negative impact of an ABC molecular subtype on the outcome.”
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 details
Goals of the ECOG-ACRIN 1412 study were to evaluate the effect of lenalidomide both in all DLBCL subtypes and in the ABC subtype, maximize the synergy of the immunomodulator with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) while maintaining R-CHOP dose intensity, and facilitate the enrollment of patients with rapidly progressive disease.
To accomplish the last goal, the study was designed to allow enrollment based on local laboratory findings, scans, and diagnostic pathology, without required identification of the cell of origin. Built in to the design was the plan for final eligibility to be based on central pathology review. In other words, the trial design took into account the likelihood that some enrolled patients would not qualify for eligibility based on later pathology review.
The investigators enrolled 349 adults aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed DLBCL (regardless of the cell of origin), stage II bulky to stage IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 2 or greater, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores of 2 or less.
The patients were stratified by age (younger than 60 years vs. 60 years and older) and by IPI score (2/3 vs. 4/5), and then randomized to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or R2-CHOP. Lenalidomide was given in a dose of 25 mg on days 1-10 of each cycle. In contrast, the dose used in ROBUST was 15 mg given on days 1-14 of each cycle.
In ECOG-ACRIN 1412, patients assigned to lenalidomide received mandatory neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.
The time from diagnosis to treatment was a median of 21 days, with only 61 of 280 evaluable patients starting treatment more than 31 days after diagnosis. In ROBUST, the median time to start therapy was 31 days.
Dr. Nowakowski and his colleagues had previously shown that time to treatment is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL.
The efficacy evaluation included 145 patients assigned to R2-CHOP, and 135 assigned to R-CHOP. Primary reasons for exclusion were ineligibity following central pathology review or lack of diagnostic material for review.
After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, R2-CHOP was associated with a 34% improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, P = .03). The 1-year progression-free survival rates were 83% with R2-CHOP and 73% with R-CHOP. Respective 2-year progression-free survival rates were 76% and 70%.
There was no significant difference, however, in the secondary overall survival endpoints with 1-year and 2-year overall survival of 93% vs. 87% and 86% vs. 80%, respectively.
Similarly, there was no difference in rates of PET-ascertained complete response, at 72% with R2-CHOP and 67% with R-CHOP.
R2-CHOP showed greater benefit across most subgroups, including patients with lower IPI score, patients with bulky disease, patients younger than 60 years, women, and patients with shorter time to treatment. There were also nonsignificant trends hinting at better outcomes with R2-CHOP, regardless of cell of origin.
Toxicities were typical for R-CHOP, although patients on R2-CHOP had significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
In addition to the trial differences mentioned previously, the differences in outcomes might be explained by the possibility that lenalidomide activity is not restricted to ABC DLBCL, Dr. Shipp said.
“One of the things that’s important to remember about lenalidomide is that it’s an immunomodulating agent and it has also has effects on tumor-infiltrating T cells,” she said.
Differences in response to therapy may also be explained by recent findings showing genetic heterogeneity in transcription-defined ABC DLBCLs, she said.
ECOG-ACRIN 1412 was supported by the National Cancer Institute and by Celgene. Dr. Nowakowski reported consulting/advising for and research funding from Celgene and others. Dr. Shipp reported consulting/advising for Bristol-Myers Squibb, honoraria from BMS and AstraZeneca, and institutional research funding from BMS and Bayer.
SOURCE: Nowakowski GS et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 006.
REPORTING FROM 15-ICML
SC daratumumab deemed feasible for every multiple myeloma patient
CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.
In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).
The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.
“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).
Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.
The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).
The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.
Treatment
Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.
The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.
At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.
Safety
Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).
Efficacy
One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.
The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.
The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.
Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).
Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.
“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.
The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.
The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.
SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.
CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.
In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).
The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.
“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).
Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.
The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).
The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.
Treatment
Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.
The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.
At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.
Safety
Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).
Efficacy
One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.
The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.
The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.
Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).
Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.
“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.
The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.
The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.
SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.
CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.
In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).
The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.
“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).
Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.
The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).
The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.
Treatment
Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.
The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.
At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.
Safety
Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).
Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).
Efficacy
One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.
The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.
The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.
Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).
Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.
“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.
The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.
The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.
SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.
REPORTING FROM ASCO 2019
R2-CHOP doesn’t improve survival in DLBCL
LUGANO, Switzerland – Adding the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone, investigators in the phase 3 ROBUST trial found.
Among 570 patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL followed for a median of 27.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the primary endpoint – had not been reached either for patients randomized to R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone) plus lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) or R-CHOP plus placebo.
The 1-year and 2-year PFS rate with R2-CHOP was 77%, compared with 75% for R-CHOP, and 2-year PFS rates were 67% and 64%, respectively, and neither comparison was statistically significant reported Umberto Vitolo, MD, from the Citta della Salute e della Scienzia Hospital and University in Turin, Italy.“The future direction is that promising preclinical data with next-generation immunomodulatory agents will be evaluated in future DLBCL clinical trials,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The ROBUST trial is the latest in a long line of studies that failed to show improvement in outcomes with the addition of a novel agent to R-CHOP.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in-vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non–germinal center–like B (GCB) type DLBCL, Dr. Vitolo said.
In the ROBUST trial, investigators across 257 global sites enrolled 570 patients with ABC-type DLBCL, stratified them by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (2 vs. 3 or greater), bulky disease (less than 7 cm vs. 7 cm or more), and age (younger than 65 years vs. 65 years and older) and randomly assigned them to receive R-CHOP with either oral lenalidomide 15 mg or placebo daily on days 1-14 of each 21-day cycle for six cycles.
All patients were required to have neutropenia prophylaxis according to local practice, with either a granulocyte- or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.
The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat and included 285 patients in each arm.
The investigators found no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS. Overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were high in both arms. The ORR was 91% in each arm, and the CR rate was 69% for R2-CHOP and 65% for R-CHOP.
Event-free survival (EFS) – a composite of first disease progression, death, or relapse after CR or start of second-line therapy – also did not differ significantly between the groups. The 1-year and 2-year EFS rates were 68% vs. 71% and 59% vs. 61%, respectively. The median EFS was not reached in either arm.
Similarly, overall survival did not differ between the groups. At 48 months of follow-up, 57 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 62 patients in the R-CHOP arm had died. Respective 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 91% vs. 90%, and 79% vs. 80%.
In the safety analysis, which included 283 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 284 in the placebo/R-CHOP arm, there were no new safety signals observed. In all, 78% of patients in the lenalidomide arm and 71% in the placebo arm had at least one grade 3 or greater adverse events. The most common adverse events were hematologic, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
The ROBUST study was funded by Celgene. Dr. Vitolo reported consulting and speaker’s bureau fees and research funding from the company.
SOURCE: Vitolo U et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 005.
LUGANO, Switzerland – Adding the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone, investigators in the phase 3 ROBUST trial found.
Among 570 patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL followed for a median of 27.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the primary endpoint – had not been reached either for patients randomized to R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone) plus lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) or R-CHOP plus placebo.
The 1-year and 2-year PFS rate with R2-CHOP was 77%, compared with 75% for R-CHOP, and 2-year PFS rates were 67% and 64%, respectively, and neither comparison was statistically significant reported Umberto Vitolo, MD, from the Citta della Salute e della Scienzia Hospital and University in Turin, Italy.“The future direction is that promising preclinical data with next-generation immunomodulatory agents will be evaluated in future DLBCL clinical trials,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The ROBUST trial is the latest in a long line of studies that failed to show improvement in outcomes with the addition of a novel agent to R-CHOP.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in-vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non–germinal center–like B (GCB) type DLBCL, Dr. Vitolo said.
In the ROBUST trial, investigators across 257 global sites enrolled 570 patients with ABC-type DLBCL, stratified them by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (2 vs. 3 or greater), bulky disease (less than 7 cm vs. 7 cm or more), and age (younger than 65 years vs. 65 years and older) and randomly assigned them to receive R-CHOP with either oral lenalidomide 15 mg or placebo daily on days 1-14 of each 21-day cycle for six cycles.
All patients were required to have neutropenia prophylaxis according to local practice, with either a granulocyte- or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.
The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat and included 285 patients in each arm.
The investigators found no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS. Overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were high in both arms. The ORR was 91% in each arm, and the CR rate was 69% for R2-CHOP and 65% for R-CHOP.
Event-free survival (EFS) – a composite of first disease progression, death, or relapse after CR or start of second-line therapy – also did not differ significantly between the groups. The 1-year and 2-year EFS rates were 68% vs. 71% and 59% vs. 61%, respectively. The median EFS was not reached in either arm.
Similarly, overall survival did not differ between the groups. At 48 months of follow-up, 57 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 62 patients in the R-CHOP arm had died. Respective 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 91% vs. 90%, and 79% vs. 80%.
In the safety analysis, which included 283 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 284 in the placebo/R-CHOP arm, there were no new safety signals observed. In all, 78% of patients in the lenalidomide arm and 71% in the placebo arm had at least one grade 3 or greater adverse events. The most common adverse events were hematologic, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
The ROBUST study was funded by Celgene. Dr. Vitolo reported consulting and speaker’s bureau fees and research funding from the company.
SOURCE: Vitolo U et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 005.
LUGANO, Switzerland – Adding the immunomodulator lenalidomide (Revlimid) to standard chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) – the so-called R2-CHOP regimen – did not significantly improve either progression-free or overall survival, compared with R-CHOP alone, investigators in the phase 3 ROBUST trial found.
Among 570 patients with activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL followed for a median of 27.1 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) – the primary endpoint – had not been reached either for patients randomized to R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone) plus lenalidomide (R2-CHOP) or R-CHOP plus placebo.
The 1-year and 2-year PFS rate with R2-CHOP was 77%, compared with 75% for R-CHOP, and 2-year PFS rates were 67% and 64%, respectively, and neither comparison was statistically significant reported Umberto Vitolo, MD, from the Citta della Salute e della Scienzia Hospital and University in Turin, Italy.“The future direction is that promising preclinical data with next-generation immunomodulatory agents will be evaluated in future DLBCL clinical trials,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The ROBUST trial is the latest in a long line of studies that failed to show improvement in outcomes with the addition of a novel agent to R-CHOP.
The rationale for adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP came from in-vitro studies showing antiproliferative and immunomodulatory action of lenalidomide against DLBCL, as well as two proof-of-concept clinical studies (REAL07 and MC078E) indicating efficacy against non–germinal center–like B (GCB) type DLBCL, Dr. Vitolo said.
In the ROBUST trial, investigators across 257 global sites enrolled 570 patients with ABC-type DLBCL, stratified them by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (2 vs. 3 or greater), bulky disease (less than 7 cm vs. 7 cm or more), and age (younger than 65 years vs. 65 years and older) and randomly assigned them to receive R-CHOP with either oral lenalidomide 15 mg or placebo daily on days 1-14 of each 21-day cycle for six cycles.
All patients were required to have neutropenia prophylaxis according to local practice, with either a granulocyte- or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.
The efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat and included 285 patients in each arm.
The investigators found no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS. Overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were high in both arms. The ORR was 91% in each arm, and the CR rate was 69% for R2-CHOP and 65% for R-CHOP.
Event-free survival (EFS) – a composite of first disease progression, death, or relapse after CR or start of second-line therapy – also did not differ significantly between the groups. The 1-year and 2-year EFS rates were 68% vs. 71% and 59% vs. 61%, respectively. The median EFS was not reached in either arm.
Similarly, overall survival did not differ between the groups. At 48 months of follow-up, 57 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 62 patients in the R-CHOP arm had died. Respective 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 91% vs. 90%, and 79% vs. 80%.
In the safety analysis, which included 283 patients in the R2-CHOP arm and 284 in the placebo/R-CHOP arm, there were no new safety signals observed. In all, 78% of patients in the lenalidomide arm and 71% in the placebo arm had at least one grade 3 or greater adverse events. The most common adverse events were hematologic, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.
The ROBUST study was funded by Celgene. Dr. Vitolo reported consulting and speaker’s bureau fees and research funding from the company.
SOURCE: Vitolo U et al. 15-ICML, Abstract 005.
REPORTING FROM 15-ICML
CNS-directed therapy appears more effective for synDLBCL
Controlling CNS disease is “paramount” in treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with synchronous CNS and systemic disease (synDLBCL), according to researchers.
In a retrospective study, the CNS was the most common site of relapse in patients with synDLBCL, and patients had better outcomes when they received CNS-directed therapy.
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in patients who received CNS-intensive therapy and 31% in those who received CNS-conservative therapy. The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively.
Dr. Joel C. Wight, of Austin Health in Heidelberg, Australia, and colleagues conducted this study and recounted their findings in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 80 patients with synDLBCL treated at 10 centers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Patients had DLBCL not otherwise specified (n = 67); high-grade B-cell lymphoma, including double-hit lymphoma (n = 12); or T-cell histiocyte-rich DLBCL (n = 1).
At baseline, all patients were treatment-naive, they had a median age of 64 years (range, 18-87 years), and 68% were male. Seventy percent of patients had high-risk disease according to the CNS International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 96% had non-CNS extranodal disease. The median number of extranodal sites outside the CNS was 2 (range, 0 to more than 10).
Patients were divided into those who received CNS-intensive therapy (n = 38) and those given CNS-conservative therapy (n = 42). The CNS-conservative group was significantly older (P less than .001), significantly more likely to have high-risk disease according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (P = .009) or CNS IPI (P = .01) and significantly more likely to have leptomeningeal disease only (P less than .001).
Treatment
CNS-intensive therapy was defined as any established multiagent IV chemotherapy regimen with two or more CNS-penetrating drugs and cytarabine, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
CNS-conservative therapy was defined as one or fewer IV CNS-penetrating chemotherapy agents in induction, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
Systemic induction in the CNS-intensive group consisted of R-HyperCVAD (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with IV methotrexate and cytarabine) in 66% of patients and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, cytarabine) in 24% of patients.
The most common systemic induction regimens in the CNS-conservative group were R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like regimens, given to 83% of patients.
CNS-directed IV therapy was given to 100% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. This consisted of IV methotrexate plus cytarabine (97%) or MATRix (methotrexate, cytarabine, and thiotepa; 3%) in the CNS-intensive group and high-dose methotrexate in the conservative group.
Intrathecal chemotherapy was given to 97% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. CNS-directed radiation was given to 32% and 19%, respectively.
Thirteen patients in the CNS-intensive group and one in the CNS-conservative group underwent autologous transplant as consolidation.
Outcomes
Dose reductions were more frequent in the CNS-conservative group than in the CNS-intensive group, at 48% and 18% (P = .009), as was early cessation of chemotherapy, at 52% and 18% (P = .002). Rates of treatment-related mortality were similar, at 13% in the CNS-intensive group and 12% in the CNS-conservative group.
At the end of induction, the complete response rate was 69% in the CNS-intensive group and 51% in the CNS-conservative group (P = .16). Primary refractory disease was observed in 19% and 38% of patients, respectively (P = .07).
The CNS was the most common site of relapse or progression (n = 28). CNS progression or relapse occurred in 25% of the CNS-intensive group and 49% of the CNS-conservative group (P = .03).
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% for the CNS-intensive group and 31% for the CNS-conservative group (P = .006). The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively (P = .037).
When patients were matched for induction outcomes, consolidative transplant did not improve survival.
“The most significant factor affecting survival was the ability to control the CNS disease, which was improved by the addition of IV cytarabine to [high-dose methotrexate],” the researchers wrote.
“Whilst the younger age and more intensive systemic treatment of the CNS-intensive group may have contributed to the improved survival, it is clear that CNS disease control was substantially improved by the addition of cytarabine with lower rates of CNS relapse/progression observed.”
The researchers noted that “adequate control of the CNS disease is paramount and is best achieved by intensive CNS-directed induction.”
There was no formal funding for this study, and the researchers did not provide financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wight JC et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16064.
Controlling CNS disease is “paramount” in treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with synchronous CNS and systemic disease (synDLBCL), according to researchers.
In a retrospective study, the CNS was the most common site of relapse in patients with synDLBCL, and patients had better outcomes when they received CNS-directed therapy.
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in patients who received CNS-intensive therapy and 31% in those who received CNS-conservative therapy. The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively.
Dr. Joel C. Wight, of Austin Health in Heidelberg, Australia, and colleagues conducted this study and recounted their findings in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 80 patients with synDLBCL treated at 10 centers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Patients had DLBCL not otherwise specified (n = 67); high-grade B-cell lymphoma, including double-hit lymphoma (n = 12); or T-cell histiocyte-rich DLBCL (n = 1).
At baseline, all patients were treatment-naive, they had a median age of 64 years (range, 18-87 years), and 68% were male. Seventy percent of patients had high-risk disease according to the CNS International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 96% had non-CNS extranodal disease. The median number of extranodal sites outside the CNS was 2 (range, 0 to more than 10).
Patients were divided into those who received CNS-intensive therapy (n = 38) and those given CNS-conservative therapy (n = 42). The CNS-conservative group was significantly older (P less than .001), significantly more likely to have high-risk disease according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (P = .009) or CNS IPI (P = .01) and significantly more likely to have leptomeningeal disease only (P less than .001).
Treatment
CNS-intensive therapy was defined as any established multiagent IV chemotherapy regimen with two or more CNS-penetrating drugs and cytarabine, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
CNS-conservative therapy was defined as one or fewer IV CNS-penetrating chemotherapy agents in induction, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
Systemic induction in the CNS-intensive group consisted of R-HyperCVAD (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with IV methotrexate and cytarabine) in 66% of patients and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, cytarabine) in 24% of patients.
The most common systemic induction regimens in the CNS-conservative group were R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like regimens, given to 83% of patients.
CNS-directed IV therapy was given to 100% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. This consisted of IV methotrexate plus cytarabine (97%) or MATRix (methotrexate, cytarabine, and thiotepa; 3%) in the CNS-intensive group and high-dose methotrexate in the conservative group.
Intrathecal chemotherapy was given to 97% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. CNS-directed radiation was given to 32% and 19%, respectively.
Thirteen patients in the CNS-intensive group and one in the CNS-conservative group underwent autologous transplant as consolidation.
Outcomes
Dose reductions were more frequent in the CNS-conservative group than in the CNS-intensive group, at 48% and 18% (P = .009), as was early cessation of chemotherapy, at 52% and 18% (P = .002). Rates of treatment-related mortality were similar, at 13% in the CNS-intensive group and 12% in the CNS-conservative group.
At the end of induction, the complete response rate was 69% in the CNS-intensive group and 51% in the CNS-conservative group (P = .16). Primary refractory disease was observed in 19% and 38% of patients, respectively (P = .07).
The CNS was the most common site of relapse or progression (n = 28). CNS progression or relapse occurred in 25% of the CNS-intensive group and 49% of the CNS-conservative group (P = .03).
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% for the CNS-intensive group and 31% for the CNS-conservative group (P = .006). The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively (P = .037).
When patients were matched for induction outcomes, consolidative transplant did not improve survival.
“The most significant factor affecting survival was the ability to control the CNS disease, which was improved by the addition of IV cytarabine to [high-dose methotrexate],” the researchers wrote.
“Whilst the younger age and more intensive systemic treatment of the CNS-intensive group may have contributed to the improved survival, it is clear that CNS disease control was substantially improved by the addition of cytarabine with lower rates of CNS relapse/progression observed.”
The researchers noted that “adequate control of the CNS disease is paramount and is best achieved by intensive CNS-directed induction.”
There was no formal funding for this study, and the researchers did not provide financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wight JC et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16064.
Controlling CNS disease is “paramount” in treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with synchronous CNS and systemic disease (synDLBCL), according to researchers.
In a retrospective study, the CNS was the most common site of relapse in patients with synDLBCL, and patients had better outcomes when they received CNS-directed therapy.
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in patients who received CNS-intensive therapy and 31% in those who received CNS-conservative therapy. The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively.
Dr. Joel C. Wight, of Austin Health in Heidelberg, Australia, and colleagues conducted this study and recounted their findings in the British Journal of Haematology.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 80 patients with synDLBCL treated at 10 centers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Patients had DLBCL not otherwise specified (n = 67); high-grade B-cell lymphoma, including double-hit lymphoma (n = 12); or T-cell histiocyte-rich DLBCL (n = 1).
At baseline, all patients were treatment-naive, they had a median age of 64 years (range, 18-87 years), and 68% were male. Seventy percent of patients had high-risk disease according to the CNS International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 96% had non-CNS extranodal disease. The median number of extranodal sites outside the CNS was 2 (range, 0 to more than 10).
Patients were divided into those who received CNS-intensive therapy (n = 38) and those given CNS-conservative therapy (n = 42). The CNS-conservative group was significantly older (P less than .001), significantly more likely to have high-risk disease according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (P = .009) or CNS IPI (P = .01) and significantly more likely to have leptomeningeal disease only (P less than .001).
Treatment
CNS-intensive therapy was defined as any established multiagent IV chemotherapy regimen with two or more CNS-penetrating drugs and cytarabine, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
CNS-conservative therapy was defined as one or fewer IV CNS-penetrating chemotherapy agents in induction, with or without intrathecal chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
Systemic induction in the CNS-intensive group consisted of R-HyperCVAD (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with IV methotrexate and cytarabine) in 66% of patients and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, cytarabine) in 24% of patients.
The most common systemic induction regimens in the CNS-conservative group were R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like regimens, given to 83% of patients.
CNS-directed IV therapy was given to 100% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. This consisted of IV methotrexate plus cytarabine (97%) or MATRix (methotrexate, cytarabine, and thiotepa; 3%) in the CNS-intensive group and high-dose methotrexate in the conservative group.
Intrathecal chemotherapy was given to 97% of the CNS-intensive group and 60% of the CNS-conservative group. CNS-directed radiation was given to 32% and 19%, respectively.
Thirteen patients in the CNS-intensive group and one in the CNS-conservative group underwent autologous transplant as consolidation.
Outcomes
Dose reductions were more frequent in the CNS-conservative group than in the CNS-intensive group, at 48% and 18% (P = .009), as was early cessation of chemotherapy, at 52% and 18% (P = .002). Rates of treatment-related mortality were similar, at 13% in the CNS-intensive group and 12% in the CNS-conservative group.
At the end of induction, the complete response rate was 69% in the CNS-intensive group and 51% in the CNS-conservative group (P = .16). Primary refractory disease was observed in 19% and 38% of patients, respectively (P = .07).
The CNS was the most common site of relapse or progression (n = 28). CNS progression or relapse occurred in 25% of the CNS-intensive group and 49% of the CNS-conservative group (P = .03).
The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 50% for the CNS-intensive group and 31% for the CNS-conservative group (P = .006). The 2-year overall survival rate was 54% and 44%, respectively (P = .037).
When patients were matched for induction outcomes, consolidative transplant did not improve survival.
“The most significant factor affecting survival was the ability to control the CNS disease, which was improved by the addition of IV cytarabine to [high-dose methotrexate],” the researchers wrote.
“Whilst the younger age and more intensive systemic treatment of the CNS-intensive group may have contributed to the improved survival, it is clear that CNS disease control was substantially improved by the addition of cytarabine with lower rates of CNS relapse/progression observed.”
The researchers noted that “adequate control of the CNS disease is paramount and is best achieved by intensive CNS-directed induction.”
There was no formal funding for this study, and the researchers did not provide financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wight JC et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16064.
FROM BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY