User login
Quality of life decrement with salvage ASCT is short-lived
For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.
But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.
“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).
In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.
Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.
After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.
“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.
At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.
The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.
Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.
Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).
Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.
The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.
SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.
For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.
But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.
“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).
In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.
Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.
After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.
“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.
At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.
The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.
Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.
Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).
Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.
The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.
SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.
For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.
But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.
“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).
In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.
Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.
After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.
“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.
At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.
The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.
Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.
Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).
Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.
The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.
SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
RIT consolidation may be an option for unfit MCL patients
For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.
RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.
In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.
“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.
Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.
The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.
Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.
RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m2 dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m2 administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of 90Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm3. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.
The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.
For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.
For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).
At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.
Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.
Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.
Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.
The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.
SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.
For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.
RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.
In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.
“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.
Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.
The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.
Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.
RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m2 dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m2 administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of 90Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm3. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.
The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.
For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.
For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).
At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.
Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.
Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.
Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.
The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.
SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.
For older, less fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who may not be able to withstand the rigors of autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), induction chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation with ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) was associated with good response rates and promising progression-free and overall survival rates, according to results of a phase 2 prospective study.
RIT consolidation improved the complete response rate following first-line therapy from 41% to 91%, reported Wojciech Jurczak, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology at the Uniwersytet Jagiellonski in Krakow, Poland, and colleagues.
In the patients who received RIT following first-line induction, median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and median overall survival was 6.5 years.
“The achieved responses are durable. Although, several novel agents and targeted therapies alone or in combination are currently being studied and developed in both the upfront and relapsed settings, RIT constitutes a valid and underused option especially in the first-line setting,” they wrote in a study published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 46 patients with clinical stage III to IV MCL who were either ineligible for, or unwilling to undergo, ASCT. The cohort included 34 patients with newly diagnosed advanced MCL and 12 with chemo-sensitive MCL in first relapse.
Patients were assigned to induction with six cycles of chemotherapy, with or without rituximab. Patients then underwent consolidation with RIT if they had confirmed reductions of the maximal lymph node diameter below 3 cm, their longest spleen measurement was below 15 cm, and bone marrow infiltration was less than 20%.
The chemotherapy regimens included either CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or FCM (FC plus mitoxantrone). Additionally, 27 of the 46 patients received rituximab, which was not considered the standard of care in Poland when the study began in 2005 and was delivered based on availability.
Of the 34 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 20 received FC or FCM (with or without rituximab), and 14 received CHOP or CVP (with or without rituximab). In this group, 14 patients (41%) had a complete response, and 20 (95%) had a partial response. Of the 12 patients treated after first relapse, two (17%) had a complete response and 10 (83%) had partial response after induction.
RIT consolidation was performed 3-5 weeks after the last chemotherapy cycle. Patients with cytopenias after chemotherapy could wait an additional 3 weeks, during which they would receive a bridging dose of rituximab at the standard 375 mg/m2 dose. The patients received two doses of rituximab 250 mg/m2 administered 7 days then 24 hours prior to intravenous injection of 90Y-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan. The radiation doses delivered were 0.4 mCi/kg for patients with normal platelet counts and 0.3 mCi/kg for those with platelet counts from 100,000 to 150,000 cells/mm3. The maximum dose was 32.0 mCi.
The longest follow-up was out to slightly more than 8 years.
For the patients who received RIT after first-line induction, the complete response rate was 91%, and the partial response rate was 9%, compared with 41% complete response and 59% partial response after induction. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 3.3 years, and the median overall survival was 6.5 years.
For the patients who received RIT consolidation after first relapse and second chemotherapy regimen, the complete response rate was 75% and the partial response rate was 25%, compared with 17% and 83% at the end of second induction therapy. In this group, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 years (P less than .05, compared with patients treated after first-line responses), and the median overall survival was 2.2 years (P less than .05).
At 8 years of follow-up, 30% of patients who received RIT consolidation following first-line therapy were alive.
Adverse events included cytopenias in the majority of patients (77%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity in 43% and grade 3 or 4 in 34%. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with fludarabine-based regimens, and the thrombocytopenias in these patients lasted longer and required more platelet transfusions than those in CHOP- or CVP-treated patients. Two patients who underwent RIT following FCM induction died from prolonged thrombocytopenia, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes.
Among all patients, 22 patients developed infections following RIT consolidation. Five patients, all of whom had received fludarabine, required hospitalization for the treatment of the infections. There were no infection-related deaths, however.
Five patients developed the myelodysplastic syndrome, with a median onset time of 26 months. Of these patients, four had received fludarabine, and one had undergone a prior ASCT.
The trial was sponsored by Schering AG. Dr. Jurczak reported speakers bureau participation and research funding from multiple companies, not including Schering AG.
SOURCE: Jurczak W et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1602261.
FROM LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Creating CAR T-cell therapies for T-cell malignancies
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.
Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.
John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Obstacles to development
“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”
A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.
“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.
A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.
And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.
The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
UCART7
One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.
The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.
“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”
In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
UCART2 and NT-I7
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.
The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.
NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).
Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.
Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.
Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.
John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Obstacles to development
“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”
A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.
“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.
A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.
And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.
The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
UCART7
One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.
The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.
“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”
In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
UCART2 and NT-I7
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.
The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.
NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).
Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.
Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.
Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.
John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Obstacles to development
“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”
A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.
“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.
A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.
And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.
The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
UCART7
One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.
The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.
“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”
In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
UCART2 and NT-I7
Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.
The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.
NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).
Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.
Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ALF 2019
Dr. Louis Weiner: AACR presentations highlight new “transformative strategies”
ATLANTA – Several studies featured during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research highlight the types of “transformative strategies” currently being developed and implemented, according to Louis Weiner, MD.
“Had this been the AACR [meeting] 20 years ago ... each one of them would have been a main plenary presentation and would have been the talk of the meeting,” Dr. Weiner, director of the Georgetown Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University, Washington, and press briefing moderator, said of the findings.
While they are well accepted as being high quality presentations of great value, they don’t cause the same amount of stir, he said, adding: “I wouldn’t say we’re jaded, but we’ve come to the point where we almost expect great results at these meetings, and isn’t that wonderful?”
In this video interview he discussed the findings of two of the studies, including the phase 2 UNITY-NHL study and a preclinical Lynch syndrome mouse model used to develop a potential cancer preventive vaccine.
The Lynch syndrome data “suggest the strong possibility that we might be able to immunize people and combine that treatment with standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents such as naproxen to delay or reduce the impact of Lynch syndrome.”
“This set of findings ... opens the door to investigators in many different areas of cancer research to explore whether or not there are common frameshift mutations that might create novel neoantigens that we can go after with vaccines – be they for therapeutic benefit or for prevention,” he said.
The UNITY-NHL study, which showed that umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, suggests “it’s quite possible that [the phosphoinositide 3-kinase delta inhibitor] is going to become a very important element in the treatment of patients with marginal zone lymphomas, and obviously it can be then used in earlier stages of diseases since it’s well tolerated, and it may well have useful activity in other B-cell malignancies,” he said.
Dr. Weiner reported having no relevant disclosures.
ATLANTA – Several studies featured during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research highlight the types of “transformative strategies” currently being developed and implemented, according to Louis Weiner, MD.
“Had this been the AACR [meeting] 20 years ago ... each one of them would have been a main plenary presentation and would have been the talk of the meeting,” Dr. Weiner, director of the Georgetown Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University, Washington, and press briefing moderator, said of the findings.
While they are well accepted as being high quality presentations of great value, they don’t cause the same amount of stir, he said, adding: “I wouldn’t say we’re jaded, but we’ve come to the point where we almost expect great results at these meetings, and isn’t that wonderful?”
In this video interview he discussed the findings of two of the studies, including the phase 2 UNITY-NHL study and a preclinical Lynch syndrome mouse model used to develop a potential cancer preventive vaccine.
The Lynch syndrome data “suggest the strong possibility that we might be able to immunize people and combine that treatment with standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents such as naproxen to delay or reduce the impact of Lynch syndrome.”
“This set of findings ... opens the door to investigators in many different areas of cancer research to explore whether or not there are common frameshift mutations that might create novel neoantigens that we can go after with vaccines – be they for therapeutic benefit or for prevention,” he said.
The UNITY-NHL study, which showed that umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, suggests “it’s quite possible that [the phosphoinositide 3-kinase delta inhibitor] is going to become a very important element in the treatment of patients with marginal zone lymphomas, and obviously it can be then used in earlier stages of diseases since it’s well tolerated, and it may well have useful activity in other B-cell malignancies,” he said.
Dr. Weiner reported having no relevant disclosures.
ATLANTA – Several studies featured during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research highlight the types of “transformative strategies” currently being developed and implemented, according to Louis Weiner, MD.
“Had this been the AACR [meeting] 20 years ago ... each one of them would have been a main plenary presentation and would have been the talk of the meeting,” Dr. Weiner, director of the Georgetown Lombardi Cancer Center at Georgetown University, Washington, and press briefing moderator, said of the findings.
While they are well accepted as being high quality presentations of great value, they don’t cause the same amount of stir, he said, adding: “I wouldn’t say we’re jaded, but we’ve come to the point where we almost expect great results at these meetings, and isn’t that wonderful?”
In this video interview he discussed the findings of two of the studies, including the phase 2 UNITY-NHL study and a preclinical Lynch syndrome mouse model used to develop a potential cancer preventive vaccine.
The Lynch syndrome data “suggest the strong possibility that we might be able to immunize people and combine that treatment with standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents such as naproxen to delay or reduce the impact of Lynch syndrome.”
“This set of findings ... opens the door to investigators in many different areas of cancer research to explore whether or not there are common frameshift mutations that might create novel neoantigens that we can go after with vaccines – be they for therapeutic benefit or for prevention,” he said.
The UNITY-NHL study, which showed that umbralisib is active and well tolerated as single-agent therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma, suggests “it’s quite possible that [the phosphoinositide 3-kinase delta inhibitor] is going to become a very important element in the treatment of patients with marginal zone lymphomas, and obviously it can be then used in earlier stages of diseases since it’s well tolerated, and it may well have useful activity in other B-cell malignancies,” he said.
Dr. Weiner reported having no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM AACR
In situ vaccination produced responses in indolent NHL
A three-pronged treatment approach can produce responses in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), according to research published in Nature Medicine.
The approach – “in situ vaccination (ISV)” – involves intratumoral injections of Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), local radiotherapy, and intratumoral injections of a TLR3 agonist (poly-ICLC).
ISV produced responses in patients with iNHL, prompting regression of tumors that were directly targeted with ISV, as well as untreated tumors.
In preclinical experiments, ISV induced tumor regression in mice but also overcame resistance to PD1 inhibition. This result led researchers to initiate a trial testing ISV in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.
“We discovered why some tumors do not respond to PD1 blockade: insufficient dendritic cells (DCs) and cross-presentation,” lead study author Joshua Brody, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “We developed a treatment, in situ vaccination (ISV), which brings DCs to the tumor, loads them with tumor antigens, and activates the DCs.”
Specifically, the researchers found that injecting Flt3L into a tumor recruits intratumoral DCs, local radiotherapy loads the DCs with tumor-associated antigens, and poly-ICLC activates DCs. This approach produced responses in mouse models of lymphoma and patients with iNHL.
Preclinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues tested ISV in A20 tumor-bearing mice. The mice received intratumoral injections of Flt3L, followed by local radiotherapy and poly-ICLC.
Tumor regression occurred within days of radiotherapy. About 40% of mice experienced tumor-free survival of at least 3 months, although most tumors recurred within 4 weeks of ISV administration.
However, the researchers observed increased PD1 and PD-L1 expression in ISV-treated mice, so the team theorized that an anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody (RMP1-14) could improve the efficacy of ISV.
The researchers found that ISV plus RMP1-14 delayed tumor growth when compared with ISV alone, and the rate of durable remissions increased from about 40% to about 80%.
Clinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues also tested ISV in a clinical trial. That trial included 11 iNHL patients – 9 with follicular lymphoma, 1 with marginal zone lymphoma, and 1 with small lymphocytic lymphoma.
The patients received nine daily injections of Flt3L (25 mcg/kg) into a target lesion, then two doses of radiation (2 Gy) to the same lesion, and eight intratumoral injections of poly-ICLC (2 mg).
“We ... have observed dramatic clinical responses; i.e., we administer ISV at one tumor site, and tumors throughout the body regress,” Dr. Brody said.
At the target lesion, there were two complete responses, six partial responses, and three cases of stable disease. At nontarget lesions, there was one complete response, two partial responses, six cases of stable disease, and two cases of progression.
ISV was considered well tolerated. One patient had grade 2 fever, three had grade 1 fever, and nine had grade 1 flu-like symptoms. Two patients did not have any adverse events.
This research was supported by Merck, Celldex Therapeutics, Oncovir, and Genentech. The authors reported relationships with Acerta Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, Celgene, Celldex Therapeutics, and Oncovir.
SOURCE: Hammerich L et al. Nat Med. 2019 Apr 8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0410-x.
A three-pronged treatment approach can produce responses in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), according to research published in Nature Medicine.
The approach – “in situ vaccination (ISV)” – involves intratumoral injections of Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), local radiotherapy, and intratumoral injections of a TLR3 agonist (poly-ICLC).
ISV produced responses in patients with iNHL, prompting regression of tumors that were directly targeted with ISV, as well as untreated tumors.
In preclinical experiments, ISV induced tumor regression in mice but also overcame resistance to PD1 inhibition. This result led researchers to initiate a trial testing ISV in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.
“We discovered why some tumors do not respond to PD1 blockade: insufficient dendritic cells (DCs) and cross-presentation,” lead study author Joshua Brody, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “We developed a treatment, in situ vaccination (ISV), which brings DCs to the tumor, loads them with tumor antigens, and activates the DCs.”
Specifically, the researchers found that injecting Flt3L into a tumor recruits intratumoral DCs, local radiotherapy loads the DCs with tumor-associated antigens, and poly-ICLC activates DCs. This approach produced responses in mouse models of lymphoma and patients with iNHL.
Preclinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues tested ISV in A20 tumor-bearing mice. The mice received intratumoral injections of Flt3L, followed by local radiotherapy and poly-ICLC.
Tumor regression occurred within days of radiotherapy. About 40% of mice experienced tumor-free survival of at least 3 months, although most tumors recurred within 4 weeks of ISV administration.
However, the researchers observed increased PD1 and PD-L1 expression in ISV-treated mice, so the team theorized that an anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody (RMP1-14) could improve the efficacy of ISV.
The researchers found that ISV plus RMP1-14 delayed tumor growth when compared with ISV alone, and the rate of durable remissions increased from about 40% to about 80%.
Clinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues also tested ISV in a clinical trial. That trial included 11 iNHL patients – 9 with follicular lymphoma, 1 with marginal zone lymphoma, and 1 with small lymphocytic lymphoma.
The patients received nine daily injections of Flt3L (25 mcg/kg) into a target lesion, then two doses of radiation (2 Gy) to the same lesion, and eight intratumoral injections of poly-ICLC (2 mg).
“We ... have observed dramatic clinical responses; i.e., we administer ISV at one tumor site, and tumors throughout the body regress,” Dr. Brody said.
At the target lesion, there were two complete responses, six partial responses, and three cases of stable disease. At nontarget lesions, there was one complete response, two partial responses, six cases of stable disease, and two cases of progression.
ISV was considered well tolerated. One patient had grade 2 fever, three had grade 1 fever, and nine had grade 1 flu-like symptoms. Two patients did not have any adverse events.
This research was supported by Merck, Celldex Therapeutics, Oncovir, and Genentech. The authors reported relationships with Acerta Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, Celgene, Celldex Therapeutics, and Oncovir.
SOURCE: Hammerich L et al. Nat Med. 2019 Apr 8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0410-x.
A three-pronged treatment approach can produce responses in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), according to research published in Nature Medicine.
The approach – “in situ vaccination (ISV)” – involves intratumoral injections of Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), local radiotherapy, and intratumoral injections of a TLR3 agonist (poly-ICLC).
ISV produced responses in patients with iNHL, prompting regression of tumors that were directly targeted with ISV, as well as untreated tumors.
In preclinical experiments, ISV induced tumor regression in mice but also overcame resistance to PD1 inhibition. This result led researchers to initiate a trial testing ISV in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.
“We discovered why some tumors do not respond to PD1 blockade: insufficient dendritic cells (DCs) and cross-presentation,” lead study author Joshua Brody, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “We developed a treatment, in situ vaccination (ISV), which brings DCs to the tumor, loads them with tumor antigens, and activates the DCs.”
Specifically, the researchers found that injecting Flt3L into a tumor recruits intratumoral DCs, local radiotherapy loads the DCs with tumor-associated antigens, and poly-ICLC activates DCs. This approach produced responses in mouse models of lymphoma and patients with iNHL.
Preclinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues tested ISV in A20 tumor-bearing mice. The mice received intratumoral injections of Flt3L, followed by local radiotherapy and poly-ICLC.
Tumor regression occurred within days of radiotherapy. About 40% of mice experienced tumor-free survival of at least 3 months, although most tumors recurred within 4 weeks of ISV administration.
However, the researchers observed increased PD1 and PD-L1 expression in ISV-treated mice, so the team theorized that an anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody (RMP1-14) could improve the efficacy of ISV.
The researchers found that ISV plus RMP1-14 delayed tumor growth when compared with ISV alone, and the rate of durable remissions increased from about 40% to about 80%.
Clinical results
Dr. Brody and his colleagues also tested ISV in a clinical trial. That trial included 11 iNHL patients – 9 with follicular lymphoma, 1 with marginal zone lymphoma, and 1 with small lymphocytic lymphoma.
The patients received nine daily injections of Flt3L (25 mcg/kg) into a target lesion, then two doses of radiation (2 Gy) to the same lesion, and eight intratumoral injections of poly-ICLC (2 mg).
“We ... have observed dramatic clinical responses; i.e., we administer ISV at one tumor site, and tumors throughout the body regress,” Dr. Brody said.
At the target lesion, there were two complete responses, six partial responses, and three cases of stable disease. At nontarget lesions, there was one complete response, two partial responses, six cases of stable disease, and two cases of progression.
ISV was considered well tolerated. One patient had grade 2 fever, three had grade 1 fever, and nine had grade 1 flu-like symptoms. Two patients did not have any adverse events.
This research was supported by Merck, Celldex Therapeutics, Oncovir, and Genentech. The authors reported relationships with Acerta Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, Celgene, Celldex Therapeutics, and Oncovir.
SOURCE: Hammerich L et al. Nat Med. 2019 Apr 8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0410-x.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
DA-EPOCH-R appears more toxic than standard R-CHOP in DLBCL
The use of dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) as upfront treatment in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) showed greater toxicity and did not improve progression-free survival versus standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“Less favorable outcomes for patients with recurrent DLBCL prompted efforts to improve first-line approaches and biomarkers to identify high-risk patients,” wrote Nancy L. Bartlett, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and her colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The Alliance/CALGB 50303 study included 491 patients with DLBCL who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP every 21 days for a total of six cycles. Dosing for the DA-EPOCH-R regimen was determined using absolute neutrophil and platelet counts.
The primary endpoint measured was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and response rate.
After a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the researchers found no significant difference in PFS between the study arms (DA-EPOCH-R hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .65). Additionally, there was no significant difference in OS (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.59; P = .64).
The overall response rate was 88.0% in the R-CHOP arm versus 86.7% in the DA-EPOCH-R arm (P = .67).
With respect to safety, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequently seen in the DA-EPOCH-R group than in the R-CHOP group (P less than .001). These toxicities included febrile neutropenia, infections, neuropathy, and mucositis.
The researchers did see significantly improved PFS in the DA-EPOCH-R arm in post hoc subset analyses of patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) 3-5, but the subset analysis “was unplanned and not powered” and the significance “must be tempered in light of multiple comparisons.”
“We now understand DLBCL is even more heterogeneous than appreciated when this trial was designed,” the researchers wrote. “Therefore, the National Clinical Trials Network is planning a precision medicine approach to identify molecular subsets of DLBCL and determine if specific chemotherapy platforms and/or targeted agents offer differential benefit.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Morphosys, and other companies.
SOURCE: Bartlett NL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994.
The use of dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) as upfront treatment in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) showed greater toxicity and did not improve progression-free survival versus standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“Less favorable outcomes for patients with recurrent DLBCL prompted efforts to improve first-line approaches and biomarkers to identify high-risk patients,” wrote Nancy L. Bartlett, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and her colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The Alliance/CALGB 50303 study included 491 patients with DLBCL who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP every 21 days for a total of six cycles. Dosing for the DA-EPOCH-R regimen was determined using absolute neutrophil and platelet counts.
The primary endpoint measured was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and response rate.
After a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the researchers found no significant difference in PFS between the study arms (DA-EPOCH-R hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .65). Additionally, there was no significant difference in OS (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.59; P = .64).
The overall response rate was 88.0% in the R-CHOP arm versus 86.7% in the DA-EPOCH-R arm (P = .67).
With respect to safety, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequently seen in the DA-EPOCH-R group than in the R-CHOP group (P less than .001). These toxicities included febrile neutropenia, infections, neuropathy, and mucositis.
The researchers did see significantly improved PFS in the DA-EPOCH-R arm in post hoc subset analyses of patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) 3-5, but the subset analysis “was unplanned and not powered” and the significance “must be tempered in light of multiple comparisons.”
“We now understand DLBCL is even more heterogeneous than appreciated when this trial was designed,” the researchers wrote. “Therefore, the National Clinical Trials Network is planning a precision medicine approach to identify molecular subsets of DLBCL and determine if specific chemotherapy platforms and/or targeted agents offer differential benefit.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Morphosys, and other companies.
SOURCE: Bartlett NL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994.
The use of dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) as upfront treatment in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) showed greater toxicity and did not improve progression-free survival versus standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“Less favorable outcomes for patients with recurrent DLBCL prompted efforts to improve first-line approaches and biomarkers to identify high-risk patients,” wrote Nancy L. Bartlett, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and her colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The Alliance/CALGB 50303 study included 491 patients with DLBCL who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP every 21 days for a total of six cycles. Dosing for the DA-EPOCH-R regimen was determined using absolute neutrophil and platelet counts.
The primary endpoint measured was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and response rate.
After a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the researchers found no significant difference in PFS between the study arms (DA-EPOCH-R hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .65). Additionally, there was no significant difference in OS (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.59; P = .64).
The overall response rate was 88.0% in the R-CHOP arm versus 86.7% in the DA-EPOCH-R arm (P = .67).
With respect to safety, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequently seen in the DA-EPOCH-R group than in the R-CHOP group (P less than .001). These toxicities included febrile neutropenia, infections, neuropathy, and mucositis.
The researchers did see significantly improved PFS in the DA-EPOCH-R arm in post hoc subset analyses of patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) 3-5, but the subset analysis “was unplanned and not powered” and the significance “must be tempered in light of multiple comparisons.”
“We now understand DLBCL is even more heterogeneous than appreciated when this trial was designed,” the researchers wrote. “Therefore, the National Clinical Trials Network is planning a precision medicine approach to identify molecular subsets of DLBCL and determine if specific chemotherapy platforms and/or targeted agents offer differential benefit.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Morphosys, and other companies.
SOURCE: Bartlett NL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Polatuzumab outperforms pinatuzumab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Favorable results from a phase 2 trial have prompted further development of polatuzumab vedotin in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In the ROMULUS trial, polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pola) produced more durable responses than did pinatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pina) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL).
Researchers also observed a more favorable benefit-risk profile with R-pola.
Franck Morschhauser, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, France, and his colleagues described these findings in the Lancet Haematology.
The ROMULUS trial included 81 DLBCL patients and 42 FL patients. They were randomized to receive R-pola or R-pina (rituximab at 375 mg/m2 plus either antibody-drug conjugate at 2.4 mg/kg) every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Among DLBCL patients, the median age was 69 years in the R-pina arm and 68 years in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, the median age was 59 years in the R-pina arm and 67 years in the R-pola arm.
Seventy-six percent of DLBCL patients randomized to R-pina were refractory to their last treatment, as were 80% of DLBCL patients assigned to R-pola, 52% of FL patients assigned to R-pina, and 35% of FL patients assigned to R-pola.
The median number of prior systemic therapies was three in the R-pina DLBCL arm, the R-pola DLBCL arm, and the R-pina FL arm. The median number of prior therapies was two in the R-pola FL arm.
Response and survival
Among the DLBCL patients, R-pina produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 60% and a complete response (CR) rate of 26%. R-pola produced an ORR of 54% and a CR rate of 21%. The median duration of response was 6.2 months in the R-pina arm and 13.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the DLBCL cohort was 5.4 months for the R-pina arm and 5.6 months for the R-pola arm. The median overall survival was 16.5 months and 20.1 months, respectively.
In the FL cohort, R-pina produced an ORR of 62% and a CR rate of 5%. R-pola produced an ORR of 70% and a CR rate of 45%. The median duration of response was 6.5 months in the R-pina arm and 9.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the FL cohort was 12.7 months for the R-pina arm and 15.3 months for the R-pola arm. The 2-year overall survival rate was 90.5% and 87.8%, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.
“Patients treated with R-pola tended to have longer durations of response than those receiving R-pina (particularly those with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), and the results for R-pola compared favorably with other novel antilymphoma agents,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Safety
Among DLBCL patients, serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.0% of those in the R-pina arm and 35.9% of those in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, serious AEs occurred in 28.6% of those the R-pina arm and 35.0% of those in the R-pola arm.
Ten grade 5 AEs occurred in nine DLBCL patients who received R-pina (21.4%). These events included two cases of sepsis, influenza and pneumonia in the same patient, general physical health deterioration including one death attributed to disease progression, and one case each of Clostridium difficile sepsis, respiratory failure, urosepsis, and sudden death.
There was one grade 5 AE in a FL patient who received R-pola. The 84-year-old patient died of pulmonary congestion 64 days after the last of 12 cycles of treatment.
There were no fatal AEs in the other arms.
“These findings make pola a promising novel candidate for further clinical evaluation in combination regimens in treatment-refractory patients and also in a first-line setting in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Polatuzumab vedotin was chosen by the study funder for further development in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, partly because of longer durations of response, compared with pinatuzumab vedotin.
Polatuzumab vedotin is currently under investigation in the phase 3 POLARIX study. The drug is being combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone and compared to rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with DLBCL.
The ROMULUS study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The study authors reported relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30026-2.
Favorable results from a phase 2 trial have prompted further development of polatuzumab vedotin in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In the ROMULUS trial, polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pola) produced more durable responses than did pinatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pina) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL).
Researchers also observed a more favorable benefit-risk profile with R-pola.
Franck Morschhauser, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, France, and his colleagues described these findings in the Lancet Haematology.
The ROMULUS trial included 81 DLBCL patients and 42 FL patients. They were randomized to receive R-pola or R-pina (rituximab at 375 mg/m2 plus either antibody-drug conjugate at 2.4 mg/kg) every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Among DLBCL patients, the median age was 69 years in the R-pina arm and 68 years in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, the median age was 59 years in the R-pina arm and 67 years in the R-pola arm.
Seventy-six percent of DLBCL patients randomized to R-pina were refractory to their last treatment, as were 80% of DLBCL patients assigned to R-pola, 52% of FL patients assigned to R-pina, and 35% of FL patients assigned to R-pola.
The median number of prior systemic therapies was three in the R-pina DLBCL arm, the R-pola DLBCL arm, and the R-pina FL arm. The median number of prior therapies was two in the R-pola FL arm.
Response and survival
Among the DLBCL patients, R-pina produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 60% and a complete response (CR) rate of 26%. R-pola produced an ORR of 54% and a CR rate of 21%. The median duration of response was 6.2 months in the R-pina arm and 13.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the DLBCL cohort was 5.4 months for the R-pina arm and 5.6 months for the R-pola arm. The median overall survival was 16.5 months and 20.1 months, respectively.
In the FL cohort, R-pina produced an ORR of 62% and a CR rate of 5%. R-pola produced an ORR of 70% and a CR rate of 45%. The median duration of response was 6.5 months in the R-pina arm and 9.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the FL cohort was 12.7 months for the R-pina arm and 15.3 months for the R-pola arm. The 2-year overall survival rate was 90.5% and 87.8%, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.
“Patients treated with R-pola tended to have longer durations of response than those receiving R-pina (particularly those with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), and the results for R-pola compared favorably with other novel antilymphoma agents,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Safety
Among DLBCL patients, serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.0% of those in the R-pina arm and 35.9% of those in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, serious AEs occurred in 28.6% of those the R-pina arm and 35.0% of those in the R-pola arm.
Ten grade 5 AEs occurred in nine DLBCL patients who received R-pina (21.4%). These events included two cases of sepsis, influenza and pneumonia in the same patient, general physical health deterioration including one death attributed to disease progression, and one case each of Clostridium difficile sepsis, respiratory failure, urosepsis, and sudden death.
There was one grade 5 AE in a FL patient who received R-pola. The 84-year-old patient died of pulmonary congestion 64 days after the last of 12 cycles of treatment.
There were no fatal AEs in the other arms.
“These findings make pola a promising novel candidate for further clinical evaluation in combination regimens in treatment-refractory patients and also in a first-line setting in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Polatuzumab vedotin was chosen by the study funder for further development in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, partly because of longer durations of response, compared with pinatuzumab vedotin.
Polatuzumab vedotin is currently under investigation in the phase 3 POLARIX study. The drug is being combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone and compared to rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with DLBCL.
The ROMULUS study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The study authors reported relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30026-2.
Favorable results from a phase 2 trial have prompted further development of polatuzumab vedotin in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In the ROMULUS trial, polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pola) produced more durable responses than did pinatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab (R-pina) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL).
Researchers also observed a more favorable benefit-risk profile with R-pola.
Franck Morschhauser, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, France, and his colleagues described these findings in the Lancet Haematology.
The ROMULUS trial included 81 DLBCL patients and 42 FL patients. They were randomized to receive R-pola or R-pina (rituximab at 375 mg/m2 plus either antibody-drug conjugate at 2.4 mg/kg) every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 1 year.
Among DLBCL patients, the median age was 69 years in the R-pina arm and 68 years in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, the median age was 59 years in the R-pina arm and 67 years in the R-pola arm.
Seventy-six percent of DLBCL patients randomized to R-pina were refractory to their last treatment, as were 80% of DLBCL patients assigned to R-pola, 52% of FL patients assigned to R-pina, and 35% of FL patients assigned to R-pola.
The median number of prior systemic therapies was three in the R-pina DLBCL arm, the R-pola DLBCL arm, and the R-pina FL arm. The median number of prior therapies was two in the R-pola FL arm.
Response and survival
Among the DLBCL patients, R-pina produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 60% and a complete response (CR) rate of 26%. R-pola produced an ORR of 54% and a CR rate of 21%. The median duration of response was 6.2 months in the R-pina arm and 13.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the DLBCL cohort was 5.4 months for the R-pina arm and 5.6 months for the R-pola arm. The median overall survival was 16.5 months and 20.1 months, respectively.
In the FL cohort, R-pina produced an ORR of 62% and a CR rate of 5%. R-pola produced an ORR of 70% and a CR rate of 45%. The median duration of response was 6.5 months in the R-pina arm and 9.4 months in the R-pola arm.
The median progression-free survival in the FL cohort was 12.7 months for the R-pina arm and 15.3 months for the R-pola arm. The 2-year overall survival rate was 90.5% and 87.8%, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.
“Patients treated with R-pola tended to have longer durations of response than those receiving R-pina (particularly those with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), and the results for R-pola compared favorably with other novel antilymphoma agents,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Safety
Among DLBCL patients, serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50.0% of those in the R-pina arm and 35.9% of those in the R-pola arm. Among FL patients, serious AEs occurred in 28.6% of those the R-pina arm and 35.0% of those in the R-pola arm.
Ten grade 5 AEs occurred in nine DLBCL patients who received R-pina (21.4%). These events included two cases of sepsis, influenza and pneumonia in the same patient, general physical health deterioration including one death attributed to disease progression, and one case each of Clostridium difficile sepsis, respiratory failure, urosepsis, and sudden death.
There was one grade 5 AE in a FL patient who received R-pola. The 84-year-old patient died of pulmonary congestion 64 days after the last of 12 cycles of treatment.
There were no fatal AEs in the other arms.
“These findings make pola a promising novel candidate for further clinical evaluation in combination regimens in treatment-refractory patients and also in a first-line setting in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” Dr. Morschhauser and his colleagues wrote.
Polatuzumab vedotin was chosen by the study funder for further development in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, partly because of longer durations of response, compared with pinatuzumab vedotin.
Polatuzumab vedotin is currently under investigation in the phase 3 POLARIX study. The drug is being combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone and compared to rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with DLBCL.
The ROMULUS study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The study authors reported relationships with Roche and other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30026-2.
FROM LANCET HAEMATOLOGY
Early data support R-BAC for post-BTKi mantle cell lymphoma
GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.
Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.
This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.
Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.
Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.
All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m2 or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.
Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.
Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.
Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.
For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).
The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.
The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.
Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”
During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.
“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”
The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.
“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”
However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.
Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.
He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”
With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.
The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.
Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.
This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.
Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.
Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.
All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m2 or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.
Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.
Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.
Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.
For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).
The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.
The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.
Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”
During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.
“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”
The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.
“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”
However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.
Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.
He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”
With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.
The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
GLASGOW – Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who experience disease progression on a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) may respond best to a combination of rituximab, bendamustine, and cytarabine (R-BAC), based on early results from an ongoing retrospective study.
Findings from the study, which were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, showed that R-BAC after BTKi failure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 90.5%.
This is a “remarkable response rate” according to the investigators, who cited previously reported response rates for other treatments ranging from 29% to 53%.
Treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL patients in the post-BTKi setting is an area of unmet clinical need, said senior author Simon Rule, MD, of the University of Plymouth, England. He noted that there is currently no consensus regarding best treatment strategy for this patient population.
Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues have collected data on 30 patients so far, of which 22 were included in this early data release.
All patients received R-BAC between 2016 and 2018 at treatment centers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Treatment consisted of rituximab (375 mg/m2 or 500 mg) on day 1, bendamustine 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, and cytarabine 500 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3, given in a 28-day cycle.
Patients received R-BAC immediately after BTKi failure. Data were drawn from hospital records.
Analysis showed that the median patient age was 65 years, with a range from 43 to 79 years. Most patients were men (81.8%), 55.0% were high risk based on the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and 22.7% had blastoid morphology.
Patients had a median of two prior systemic therapies, with a range from one to six lines. First-line therapies included rituximab in combination with HDAC (high-dose cytarabine containing regimen), CHOP, CVP, or ibrutinib. Nine patients (42.9%) had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after induction treatment.
For BTKi therapy, most patients received ibrutinib (n = 18), while the remainder received acalabrutinib, tirabrutinib or M7583. Most patients discontinued BTKi therapy because of disease progression (90.9%); two patients stopped because of a lack of response (9.1%).
The median number of R-BAC cycles received was four. Two patients started with attenuated doses and seven patients reduced doses after the first cycle. More than 70% of patients completed R-BAC treatment.
The estimated median progression-free survival was 7.3 months and estimated median overall survival was 11.2 months.
Although the investigators reported a complete response rate of 57.1%, they noted that this figure “may be exaggerated” because of a lack of bone marrow biopsy; however, they suggested that the overall response rate (90.5%) “should be accurate.”
During the course of treatment, 31.8% of patients required inpatient admission, 22.7% developed neutropenic fever, and 77.8% required transfusion support. No treatment-related deaths occurred.
“This population, enriched for patients with high risk features, showed remarkable response rates to R-BAC,” the investigators wrote. “The treatment had acceptable toxicity, maintained efficacy at attenuated doses, and was used successfully as a bridge to ASCT in over 20% of patients.”
The investigators suggested that R-BAC should be considered a new standard of care in the United Kingdom for bendamustine-naive patients who are unable to be enrolled in clinical trials. “The high response rate makes it particularly appealing for patients considered candidates for consolidation ASCT,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Rule added perspective to these findings.
“There’s been an obsession with venetoclax, that that’s the answer, but it really isn’t,” Dr. Rule said. “So people are looking for a new drug. I guess what I do differently to most people is I use CHOP frontline rather than bendamustine. To me, that’s the best way of sequencing the therapies, whereas if you use [bendamustine and rituximab] up front, which a lot of people do, particularly in the [United] States, your R-BAC might not be so effective.”
However, Dr. Rule said that first-line therapies appear to have minimal impact on R-BAC efficacy. “Even if you’ve had bendamustine, even if you’ve had high-dose cytarabine, even if you’ve had an allogeneic stem cell transplant, [R-BAC] still works,” he said.
Where patients have issues with tolerability, Dr. Rule noted that dose reductions are possible without sacrificing efficacy.
He offered an example of such a scenario. “My oldest patient was about 80 with blastoid disease, relapsing,” Dr. Rule said. “After ibrutinib, I gave him just a single dose of bendamustine at 70 mg, a single dose of cytarabine at 500 mg, just 1 day, and he had that six times, probably 3 weeks apart. He’s been in complete remission for over a year.”
With data on 30 patients collected, Dr. Rule said that he and his colleagues plan to present more extensive findings at the European Hematology Association Congress, held June 13-16 in Amsterdam.
The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM BSH 2019
ASCO, CCO issue multiple myeloma treatment guidelines
New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.
The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.
“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.
Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.
There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.
All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.
Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.
“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.
Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.
Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.
For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.
Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.
If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.
The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.
SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.
New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.
The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.
“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.
Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.
There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.
All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.
Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.
“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.
Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.
Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.
For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.
Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.
If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.
The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.
SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.
New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.
The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.
“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.
Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.
There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.
All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.
Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.
“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.
Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.
Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.
For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.
Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.
If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.
The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.
SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Real world responses mirror TOURMALINE-MM1 data
Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.
Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).
Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”
This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.
“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.
In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.
The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.
About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).
Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.
Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.
Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.
Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.
“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”
When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.
However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.
“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.
The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.
Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.
Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).
Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”
This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.
“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.
In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.
The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.
About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).
Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.
Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.
Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.
Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.
“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”
When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.
However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.
“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.
The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.
Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.
Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).
Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”
This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.
“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.
In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.
The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.
About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).
Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.
Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.
Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.
Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.
“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”
When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.
However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.
“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.
The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.
Reporting from BSH 2019