User login
Analysis suggests ‘Burkitt-like lymphoma’ is a misnomer
They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).
The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.
“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.
To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.
The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.
The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.
Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.
However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.
“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.
Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.
All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.
The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).
Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”
This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.
SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.
They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).
The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.
“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.
To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.
The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.
The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.
Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.
However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.
“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.
Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.
All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.
The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).
Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”
This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.
SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.
They found that BLL-11q has a genomic and mutational profile more closely related to that of high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) than typical Burkitt lymphoma (BL).
The researchers also found that BLL-11q has clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features that are “more consistent” with HGBCL or DLBCL than with typical BL.
“These observations support a reconsideration of the ‘Burkitt-like’ term for these tumors,” Blanca Gonzalez-Farre, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, and her colleagues wrote in Haematologica.
To reach this conclusion, the researchers performed copy number analysis and sequencing of B-cell lymphoma-related genes in 11 cases of BLL-11q.
The copy number analysis revealed that seven BLL-11q cases had the typical 11q gain/loss pattern, two had an 11q terminal deletion, one had two gains and two losses, and one had an 11q23.3-q25 copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity in addition to gain.
The BLL-11q cases also had frequent gains of 5q21.3-q32 and losses of 6q12.1-q21. However, they lacked the 1q gains observed in MYC-positive BL and alterations typically observed in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL, such as gains in 2p16.1 and 7p.
Targeted sequencing of the BLL-11q cases revealed mutations typically observed in germinal center-derived lymphomas, including mutations in BTG2, DDX3X, ETS1, EP300, GNA13, CREBBP, KMT2C, EZH2, ARID1A, KMT2D, HIST1H1D, HIST1H2BC, and TMEM30A.
However, the BLL-11q cases lacked mutations in ID3, TCF3, and CCND3, which are typically observed in BL.
“In addition to the genetic differences, our BLL-11q differed clinically, morphologically, and phenotypically from conventional BL and instead showed features more consistent with HGBCL or DLBCL,” the researchers wrote.
Specifically, the BLL-11q patients were all younger than 40 years, with a median age of 15. Most presented with localized lymphadenopathy. And all had favorable treatment outcomes, remaining alive and free of disease at a median follow-up of 30 months.
All cases had a germinal center phenotype. They did not have the typical cytological features of BL, but they did have a high proliferative index, and some cases had a starry sky pattern.
The researchers said the BLL-11q cases were better classified as HGBCL not otherwise specified (n = 8), DLBCL (n = 2), and atypical BL (n = 1).
Considering these findings together, the team concluded that a more appropriate name for BLL-11q might be “aggressive B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration.”
This research was supported by Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and other organizations, as well as the government of Catalonia.
SOURCE: Gonzalez-Farre B et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.207928.
REPORTING FROM HAEMATOLOGICA
Gene expression signature reveals high-grade GCB DLBCL
New research suggests a gene expression signature can distinguish high-grade diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) from other germinal center B-cell–like (GCB) DLBCLs.
Researchers identified GCB DLBCL patients with this 104-gene signature who had a “distinct mutational landscape” and inferior treatment outcomes. David W. Scott, MBChB, PhD, of the British Columbia Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, and his colleagues described these patients in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The findings were published alongside a related editorial and a similar study from another group.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues began their study by analyzing data from 157 patients with de novo GCB DLBCL. Twenty-five of these patients had double- or triple-hit high-grade B-cell lymphoma with BCL2 translocations (HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2).
The researchers identified 104 genes that were the “most significantly differentially expressed between HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 and other GCB DLBCLs” to create their double-hit gene signature (DHITsig).
The signature divided the patients into two groups — 42 patients (27%) whose tumors were positive for the DHITsig and 115 (73%) whose tumors were negative. Notably, 22 of the 25 HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 tumors were DHITsig-positive and 3 were negative.
The DHITsig was not associated with clinical variables such as tumor volume, but it was associated with prognosis. Treatment outcomes were inferior in patients who were DHITsig-positive.
The 5-year time to progression rate was 81% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 57% in those who were positive (P less than .001). The 5-year overall survival rate was 81% and 60%, respectively (P = .001).
The researchers observed similar results in a validation cohort of 262 patients with GCB-DLBCL who received rituximab-based therapy. The 5-year overall survival rate was 76% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 49% in those who were positive (P less than .001).
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also evaluated the DHITsig in a second validation cohort of 162 patients with GCB DLBCL.
In analyzing data from all three cohorts, the researchers found that mutations in MYC, BCL2, CREBBP, EZH2Y646, DDX3X, TP53, and KMT2D were more frequent in DHITsig-positive patients and mutations in TNFAIP3, KLHL6, NFKBIE, TET2, CD58, and STAT3 were more common in DHITsig-negative patients.
Additional analyses suggested the cell of origin for DHITsig-positive tumors comes from the intermediate zone or dark zone of the germinal center.
Finally, the researchers found they could use a “clinically relevant assay” to detect the DHITsig. They added a 30-gene module to the Lymph3Cx assay to create a NanoString-based assay called DLBCL90.
The team tested DLBCL90 in 171 GCB DLBCL patients. In this group, 26% of patients were DHITsig-positive, 64% were negative, and 10% were indeterminate. The prognostic significance of the signature was maintained with the assay results, according to the researchers.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also wanted to validate the association between the DHITsig and HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2, so they tested the DLBCL90 assay in two additional groups of patients.
First, the assay was used in 88 patients who had transformed follicular lymphoma with DLBCL morphology. Eleven of the 25 DHITsig-positive tumors and 4 of the 13 DHITsig-indeterminate tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2. However, none of the 50 DHITsig-negative tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2.
The researchers then used the DLBCL90 assay on 26 HGBL tumors. Twenty-three of these were DHITsig-positive and 3 were indeterminate.
This research was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other organizations. The researchers reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Roche, Janssen, Celgene, and various other companies.
SOURCE: Scott DW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 20;37(3):190-201.
New research suggests a gene expression signature can distinguish high-grade diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) from other germinal center B-cell–like (GCB) DLBCLs.
Researchers identified GCB DLBCL patients with this 104-gene signature who had a “distinct mutational landscape” and inferior treatment outcomes. David W. Scott, MBChB, PhD, of the British Columbia Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, and his colleagues described these patients in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The findings were published alongside a related editorial and a similar study from another group.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues began their study by analyzing data from 157 patients with de novo GCB DLBCL. Twenty-five of these patients had double- or triple-hit high-grade B-cell lymphoma with BCL2 translocations (HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2).
The researchers identified 104 genes that were the “most significantly differentially expressed between HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 and other GCB DLBCLs” to create their double-hit gene signature (DHITsig).
The signature divided the patients into two groups — 42 patients (27%) whose tumors were positive for the DHITsig and 115 (73%) whose tumors were negative. Notably, 22 of the 25 HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 tumors were DHITsig-positive and 3 were negative.
The DHITsig was not associated with clinical variables such as tumor volume, but it was associated with prognosis. Treatment outcomes were inferior in patients who were DHITsig-positive.
The 5-year time to progression rate was 81% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 57% in those who were positive (P less than .001). The 5-year overall survival rate was 81% and 60%, respectively (P = .001).
The researchers observed similar results in a validation cohort of 262 patients with GCB-DLBCL who received rituximab-based therapy. The 5-year overall survival rate was 76% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 49% in those who were positive (P less than .001).
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also evaluated the DHITsig in a second validation cohort of 162 patients with GCB DLBCL.
In analyzing data from all three cohorts, the researchers found that mutations in MYC, BCL2, CREBBP, EZH2Y646, DDX3X, TP53, and KMT2D were more frequent in DHITsig-positive patients and mutations in TNFAIP3, KLHL6, NFKBIE, TET2, CD58, and STAT3 were more common in DHITsig-negative patients.
Additional analyses suggested the cell of origin for DHITsig-positive tumors comes from the intermediate zone or dark zone of the germinal center.
Finally, the researchers found they could use a “clinically relevant assay” to detect the DHITsig. They added a 30-gene module to the Lymph3Cx assay to create a NanoString-based assay called DLBCL90.
The team tested DLBCL90 in 171 GCB DLBCL patients. In this group, 26% of patients were DHITsig-positive, 64% were negative, and 10% were indeterminate. The prognostic significance of the signature was maintained with the assay results, according to the researchers.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also wanted to validate the association between the DHITsig and HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2, so they tested the DLBCL90 assay in two additional groups of patients.
First, the assay was used in 88 patients who had transformed follicular lymphoma with DLBCL morphology. Eleven of the 25 DHITsig-positive tumors and 4 of the 13 DHITsig-indeterminate tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2. However, none of the 50 DHITsig-negative tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2.
The researchers then used the DLBCL90 assay on 26 HGBL tumors. Twenty-three of these were DHITsig-positive and 3 were indeterminate.
This research was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other organizations. The researchers reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Roche, Janssen, Celgene, and various other companies.
SOURCE: Scott DW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 20;37(3):190-201.
New research suggests a gene expression signature can distinguish high-grade diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) from other germinal center B-cell–like (GCB) DLBCLs.
Researchers identified GCB DLBCL patients with this 104-gene signature who had a “distinct mutational landscape” and inferior treatment outcomes. David W. Scott, MBChB, PhD, of the British Columbia Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, and his colleagues described these patients in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The findings were published alongside a related editorial and a similar study from another group.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues began their study by analyzing data from 157 patients with de novo GCB DLBCL. Twenty-five of these patients had double- or triple-hit high-grade B-cell lymphoma with BCL2 translocations (HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2).
The researchers identified 104 genes that were the “most significantly differentially expressed between HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 and other GCB DLBCLs” to create their double-hit gene signature (DHITsig).
The signature divided the patients into two groups — 42 patients (27%) whose tumors were positive for the DHITsig and 115 (73%) whose tumors were negative. Notably, 22 of the 25 HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2 tumors were DHITsig-positive and 3 were negative.
The DHITsig was not associated with clinical variables such as tumor volume, but it was associated with prognosis. Treatment outcomes were inferior in patients who were DHITsig-positive.
The 5-year time to progression rate was 81% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 57% in those who were positive (P less than .001). The 5-year overall survival rate was 81% and 60%, respectively (P = .001).
The researchers observed similar results in a validation cohort of 262 patients with GCB-DLBCL who received rituximab-based therapy. The 5-year overall survival rate was 76% in patients who were DHITsig-negative and 49% in those who were positive (P less than .001).
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also evaluated the DHITsig in a second validation cohort of 162 patients with GCB DLBCL.
In analyzing data from all three cohorts, the researchers found that mutations in MYC, BCL2, CREBBP, EZH2Y646, DDX3X, TP53, and KMT2D were more frequent in DHITsig-positive patients and mutations in TNFAIP3, KLHL6, NFKBIE, TET2, CD58, and STAT3 were more common in DHITsig-negative patients.
Additional analyses suggested the cell of origin for DHITsig-positive tumors comes from the intermediate zone or dark zone of the germinal center.
Finally, the researchers found they could use a “clinically relevant assay” to detect the DHITsig. They added a 30-gene module to the Lymph3Cx assay to create a NanoString-based assay called DLBCL90.
The team tested DLBCL90 in 171 GCB DLBCL patients. In this group, 26% of patients were DHITsig-positive, 64% were negative, and 10% were indeterminate. The prognostic significance of the signature was maintained with the assay results, according to the researchers.
Dr. Scott and his colleagues also wanted to validate the association between the DHITsig and HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2, so they tested the DLBCL90 assay in two additional groups of patients.
First, the assay was used in 88 patients who had transformed follicular lymphoma with DLBCL morphology. Eleven of the 25 DHITsig-positive tumors and 4 of the 13 DHITsig-indeterminate tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2. However, none of the 50 DHITsig-negative tumors were HGBL-DH/TH-BCL2.
The researchers then used the DLBCL90 assay on 26 HGBL tumors. Twenty-three of these were DHITsig-positive and 3 were indeterminate.
This research was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and other organizations. The researchers reported relationships with Seattle Genetics, Roche, Janssen, Celgene, and various other companies.
SOURCE: Scott DW et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 20;37(3):190-201.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Priority review granted to lenalidomide for FL, MZL
The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for lenalidomide (Revlimid).
Celgene is seeking approval for lenalidomide in combination with rituximab to treat patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).
The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA by June 27, 2019.
The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months. The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.
The sNDA for lenalidomide is supported by the phase 3 AUGMENT study (NCT01938001) in which researchers compared rituximab plus lenalidomide to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed/refractory FL or MZL.
Results from AUGMENT were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood 2018 Nov 29;132:445).
According to the ASH abstract, the trial included 358 patients who were randomized to receive rituximab plus lenalidomide (n = 178) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 180).
At a median follow-up of 28.3 months, the overall response rate was 78% in the lenalidomide arm and 53% in the placebo arm (P less than .0001). The complete response rate was 34% and 18%, respectively (P = .001).
The median progression-free survival was 39.4 months in the lenalidomide arm and 14.1 months in the placebo arm. Overall survival data were not mature, but there were 16 deaths reported in the lenalidomide arm and 26 deaths in the placebo arm.
Treatment-emergent adverse events that were more common in the lenalidomide arm than the placebo arm included infections, cutaneous reactions, constipation, thrombocytopenia, and tumor flare reaction.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for lenalidomide (Revlimid).
Celgene is seeking approval for lenalidomide in combination with rituximab to treat patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).
The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA by June 27, 2019.
The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months. The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.
The sNDA for lenalidomide is supported by the phase 3 AUGMENT study (NCT01938001) in which researchers compared rituximab plus lenalidomide to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed/refractory FL or MZL.
Results from AUGMENT were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood 2018 Nov 29;132:445).
According to the ASH abstract, the trial included 358 patients who were randomized to receive rituximab plus lenalidomide (n = 178) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 180).
At a median follow-up of 28.3 months, the overall response rate was 78% in the lenalidomide arm and 53% in the placebo arm (P less than .0001). The complete response rate was 34% and 18%, respectively (P = .001).
The median progression-free survival was 39.4 months in the lenalidomide arm and 14.1 months in the placebo arm. Overall survival data were not mature, but there were 16 deaths reported in the lenalidomide arm and 26 deaths in the placebo arm.
Treatment-emergent adverse events that were more common in the lenalidomide arm than the placebo arm included infections, cutaneous reactions, constipation, thrombocytopenia, and tumor flare reaction.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review to a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for lenalidomide (Revlimid).
Celgene is seeking approval for lenalidomide in combination with rituximab to treat patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL).
The FDA plans to make a decision on the sNDA by June 27, 2019.
The FDA aims to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months. The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that are expected to provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.
The sNDA for lenalidomide is supported by the phase 3 AUGMENT study (NCT01938001) in which researchers compared rituximab plus lenalidomide to rituximab plus placebo in patients with relapsed/refractory FL or MZL.
Results from AUGMENT were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood 2018 Nov 29;132:445).
According to the ASH abstract, the trial included 358 patients who were randomized to receive rituximab plus lenalidomide (n = 178) or rituximab plus placebo (n = 180).
At a median follow-up of 28.3 months, the overall response rate was 78% in the lenalidomide arm and 53% in the placebo arm (P less than .0001). The complete response rate was 34% and 18%, respectively (P = .001).
The median progression-free survival was 39.4 months in the lenalidomide arm and 14.1 months in the placebo arm. Overall survival data were not mature, but there were 16 deaths reported in the lenalidomide arm and 26 deaths in the placebo arm.
Treatment-emergent adverse events that were more common in the lenalidomide arm than the placebo arm included infections, cutaneous reactions, constipation, thrombocytopenia, and tumor flare reaction.
Myeloma therapies raise cardiovascular risks
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
REPORTING FROM ACC CARDIO-ONCOLOGY
Selinexor hits FDA stumbling block
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
ZUMA-1 update: Axi-cel responses persist at 2 years
HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.
Median duration of response to axi-cel and median overall survival have not yet been reached, while a recent subset analysis showed that nearly half of patients with certain high-risk characteristics had a durable response, said investigator Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Evidence of B-cell recovery and a decrease in detectable, gene-marked CAR T cells have been noted in further follow-up, suggesting that functional CAR T-cell persistence may not be required for long-term remissions, Dr. Neelapu added.
“These data support [the conclusion] that axi-cel induces durable remissions in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise lack curative options,” Dr. Neelapu said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
The update on the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study included 108 patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received axi-cel, the CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
In a previously reported 1-year update on the trial, 42% of patients had ongoing responses, Dr. Neelapu said. In the present update, with a median follow-up of 27.1 months, ongoing responses were seen in 39%, most of whom (37%) were in complete response, according to the data presented.
Thirty-three patients in the phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1 were known to have double-expressor or high-grade B-cell lymphoma, according to the investigator. In this high-risk subset, 48% were in ongoing complete response at the 2-year follow-up.
Progression-free survival in ZUMA-1 plateaued at the 6 month-follow-up, according to Dr. Neelapu, who said that plateau has been largely maintained, with just 10 patients progressing since then. Median progression-free survival is 5.9 months and median overall survival has not been reached, with a 24-month overall survival of 51%.
Late-onset serious adverse events mainly consisted of manageable infections, none of which were considered related to axi-cel treatment, according to Dr. Neelapu.
The proportion of ongoing responders with detectable CAR T-cells has decreased over time, from 95% at 3 months to 66% at 24 months, Dr. Neelapu reported. Meanwhile, the proportion of ongoing responders with detectable B cells after axi-cel treatment has gone from 17% to 75%.
More details on the 2-year follow-up data from ZUMA-1 were reported recently in the Lancet Oncology (2019 Jan;20[1]:31-42).
Funding for ZUMA-1 came from Kite and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Dr. Neelapu reported disclosures related to Kite, Celgene, Cellectis, Merck, Poseida, Acerta, Karus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Unum Therapeutics.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.
HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.
Median duration of response to axi-cel and median overall survival have not yet been reached, while a recent subset analysis showed that nearly half of patients with certain high-risk characteristics had a durable response, said investigator Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Evidence of B-cell recovery and a decrease in detectable, gene-marked CAR T cells have been noted in further follow-up, suggesting that functional CAR T-cell persistence may not be required for long-term remissions, Dr. Neelapu added.
“These data support [the conclusion] that axi-cel induces durable remissions in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise lack curative options,” Dr. Neelapu said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
The update on the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study included 108 patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received axi-cel, the CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
In a previously reported 1-year update on the trial, 42% of patients had ongoing responses, Dr. Neelapu said. In the present update, with a median follow-up of 27.1 months, ongoing responses were seen in 39%, most of whom (37%) were in complete response, according to the data presented.
Thirty-three patients in the phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1 were known to have double-expressor or high-grade B-cell lymphoma, according to the investigator. In this high-risk subset, 48% were in ongoing complete response at the 2-year follow-up.
Progression-free survival in ZUMA-1 plateaued at the 6 month-follow-up, according to Dr. Neelapu, who said that plateau has been largely maintained, with just 10 patients progressing since then. Median progression-free survival is 5.9 months and median overall survival has not been reached, with a 24-month overall survival of 51%.
Late-onset serious adverse events mainly consisted of manageable infections, none of which were considered related to axi-cel treatment, according to Dr. Neelapu.
The proportion of ongoing responders with detectable CAR T-cells has decreased over time, from 95% at 3 months to 66% at 24 months, Dr. Neelapu reported. Meanwhile, the proportion of ongoing responders with detectable B cells after axi-cel treatment has gone from 17% to 75%.
More details on the 2-year follow-up data from ZUMA-1 were reported recently in the Lancet Oncology (2019 Jan;20[1]:31-42).
Funding for ZUMA-1 came from Kite and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Dr. Neelapu reported disclosures related to Kite, Celgene, Cellectis, Merck, Poseida, Acerta, Karus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Unum Therapeutics.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.
HOUSTON – With a median follow-up now exceeding 2 years, 39% of refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients enrolled in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial have maintained ongoing response to axicabtagene ciloleucel, according to an investigator involved in the study.
Median duration of response to axi-cel and median overall survival have not yet been reached, while a recent subset analysis showed that nearly half of patients with certain high-risk characteristics had a durable response, said investigator Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Evidence of B-cell recovery and a decrease in detectable, gene-marked CAR T cells have been noted in further follow-up, suggesting that functional CAR T-cell persistence may not be required for long-term remissions, Dr. Neelapu added.
“These data support [the conclusion] that axi-cel induces durable remissions in patients with large B-cell lymphoma who otherwise lack curative options,” Dr. Neelapu said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
The update on the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study included 108 patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received axi-cel, the CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
In a previously reported 1-year update on the trial, 42% of patients had ongoing responses, Dr. Neelapu said. In the present update, with a median follow-up of 27.1 months, ongoing responses were seen in 39%, most of whom (37%) were in complete response, according to the data presented.
Thirty-three patients in the phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1 were known to have double-expressor or high-grade B-cell lymphoma, according to the investigator. In this high-risk subset, 48% were in ongoing complete response at the 2-year follow-up.
Progression-free survival in ZUMA-1 plateaued at the 6 month-follow-up, according to Dr. Neelapu, who said that plateau has been largely maintained, with just 10 patients progressing since then. Median progression-free survival is 5.9 months and median overall survival has not been reached, with a 24-month overall survival of 51%.
Late-onset serious adverse events mainly consisted of manageable infections, none of which were considered related to axi-cel treatment, according to Dr. Neelapu.
The proportion of ongoing responders with detectable CAR T-cells has decreased over time, from 95% at 3 months to 66% at 24 months, Dr. Neelapu reported. Meanwhile, the proportion of ongoing responders with detectable B cells after axi-cel treatment has gone from 17% to 75%.
More details on the 2-year follow-up data from ZUMA-1 were reported recently in the Lancet Oncology (2019 Jan;20[1]:31-42).
Funding for ZUMA-1 came from Kite and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Dr. Neelapu reported disclosures related to Kite, Celgene, Cellectis, Merck, Poseida, Acerta, Karus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Unum Therapeutics.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Neelapu SS et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 82.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
Dual-targeted CAR T shows ‘clinical signal’ in NHL
HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.
The bispecific CAR T-cell product, designed to limit relapses due to loss of target antigen, was produced at the point of care with a 100% success rate for these heavily pretreated patients, the first of whom has now maintained a complete response for 19 months, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.
There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.
Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.
The median age of patients enrolled in the study was 55 years. Six patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, five had mantle cell lymphoma, and two had chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All but one patient underwent fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion prior to receiving the inpatient CAR T-cell infusions, given over the course of 2 days.
Dr. Hari specifically highlighted the mantle cell lymphoma patient subset, noting that four out of five patients were in complete remission at day 28, and remained in ongoing complete remission at times ranging from 1 to 16 months.
With a set manufacturing time of 14 days, production was successful in all 12 patients, and 10 were able to receive fresh product, while 3 received cryopreserved product due to illness-related delays and a holiday, according to the investigators.
“The time to actual delivery of CAR T cell in the patient is actually shortened dramatically,” Dr. Hari said. “We hope to get it down to day 10.”
Local manufacturing can also reduce some costs associated with CAR T-cell production, such as shipping and courier costs, he added.
Taken together, these findings suggest that locally manufactured anti-CD19/CD20 CAR T cells could improve clinical outcomes for patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell NHL, with efficiency through point-of-care delivery, Dr. Hari concluded.
Further studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy of the product and to investigate the mechanism of relapse or progression in patients who experience treatment failure, he said.
Dr. Hari reported disclosures related to Juno, Kite, Spectrum, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, and BMS. Several study coauthors reported that they were employed by Lentigen Technology, a Miltenyi Biotec Company.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.
HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.
The bispecific CAR T-cell product, designed to limit relapses due to loss of target antigen, was produced at the point of care with a 100% success rate for these heavily pretreated patients, the first of whom has now maintained a complete response for 19 months, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.
There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.
Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.
The median age of patients enrolled in the study was 55 years. Six patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, five had mantle cell lymphoma, and two had chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All but one patient underwent fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion prior to receiving the inpatient CAR T-cell infusions, given over the course of 2 days.
Dr. Hari specifically highlighted the mantle cell lymphoma patient subset, noting that four out of five patients were in complete remission at day 28, and remained in ongoing complete remission at times ranging from 1 to 16 months.
With a set manufacturing time of 14 days, production was successful in all 12 patients, and 10 were able to receive fresh product, while 3 received cryopreserved product due to illness-related delays and a holiday, according to the investigators.
“The time to actual delivery of CAR T cell in the patient is actually shortened dramatically,” Dr. Hari said. “We hope to get it down to day 10.”
Local manufacturing can also reduce some costs associated with CAR T-cell production, such as shipping and courier costs, he added.
Taken together, these findings suggest that locally manufactured anti-CD19/CD20 CAR T cells could improve clinical outcomes for patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell NHL, with efficiency through point-of-care delivery, Dr. Hari concluded.
Further studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy of the product and to investigate the mechanism of relapse or progression in patients who experience treatment failure, he said.
Dr. Hari reported disclosures related to Juno, Kite, Spectrum, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, and BMS. Several study coauthors reported that they were employed by Lentigen Technology, a Miltenyi Biotec Company.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.
HOUSTON – A dual-targeted, locally manufactured, anti-CD19/CD20 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was safe and produced ongoing complete responses in a phase 1 study of heavily pretreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients, an investigator reported.
The bispecific CAR T-cell product, designed to limit relapses due to loss of target antigen, was produced at the point of care with a 100% success rate for these heavily pretreated patients, the first of whom has now maintained a complete response for 19 months, said Parameswaran Hari, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“So far, this trial has demonstrated safety for this bispecific vector and suggests a clinical signal, with 7 out of 12 patients with ongoing CR, and with minimal toxicity,” Dr. Hari said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
“Point of care delivery, we think, allowed patients to have fresh infusion of CAR T cells, with the avoidance of cryopreservation,” added Dr. Hari, who presented the results on behalf of coinvestigators at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Lentigen Technology.
There was no grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome among the 12 patients reported to date in the phase 1, dose-escalation trial, and no patient required intensive care, according to Dr. Hari. Grade 1 and 2 neurotoxicity occurred in two and one patients, respectively, while grade 1 and 2 cytokine release syndrome was observed in three patients each.
Among the 12 patients treated to date, the overall response rate was 81% at day 28, Dr. Hari said, noting that of 6 patients treated at the goal dose of 2.5 x 106 cells/kg, 5 remain in ongoing complete remission.
The median age of patients enrolled in the study was 55 years. Six patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, five had mantle cell lymphoma, and two had chronic lymphocytic leukemia. All but one patient underwent fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion prior to receiving the inpatient CAR T-cell infusions, given over the course of 2 days.
Dr. Hari specifically highlighted the mantle cell lymphoma patient subset, noting that four out of five patients were in complete remission at day 28, and remained in ongoing complete remission at times ranging from 1 to 16 months.
With a set manufacturing time of 14 days, production was successful in all 12 patients, and 10 were able to receive fresh product, while 3 received cryopreserved product due to illness-related delays and a holiday, according to the investigators.
“The time to actual delivery of CAR T cell in the patient is actually shortened dramatically,” Dr. Hari said. “We hope to get it down to day 10.”
Local manufacturing can also reduce some costs associated with CAR T-cell production, such as shipping and courier costs, he added.
Taken together, these findings suggest that locally manufactured anti-CD19/CD20 CAR T cells could improve clinical outcomes for patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell NHL, with efficiency through point-of-care delivery, Dr. Hari concluded.
Further studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy of the product and to investigate the mechanism of relapse or progression in patients who experience treatment failure, he said.
Dr. Hari reported disclosures related to Juno, Kite, Spectrum, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, and BMS. Several study coauthors reported that they were employed by Lentigen Technology, a Miltenyi Biotec Company.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Shah NN et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 80.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
MRD negativity linked to survival in MM after auto-HCT
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
Similar results for once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib in MM
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
FROM HAEMATOLOGICA
Alisertib response rate in PTCL patients was 33%
An open-label randomized phase 3 trial of oral alisertib for relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (rrPTCL) was terminated in 2015 after it became clear that it was not going to prove significantly superior to options already on the market.
A new report explains what happened. Oral Alisertib was compared to two agents approved for rrPTCL: intravenous pralatrexate (Folotyn) and romidepsin (Istodax), as well as a common off-label option, intravenous gemcitabine (Gemzar). In all, 138 adults were randomized to alisertib 50 mg two times per day on days 1-7, with a median of four 21-day cycles; 133 were randomized to a comparator, the majority to gemcitabine, and again with repeated cycles as tolerated (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899).
Overall response rate (ORR) was 33% for alisertib versus 45% for the comparator arm (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.08). Median progression-free survival was 115 days for alisertib versus 104 days for the comparators, a non–statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.637-1.178). Median overall survival was 415 days in the alisertib arm versus 367 days in the comparator arm, also not statistically significant (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.707-1.369).
In patients with rrPTCL, alisertib “did not demonstrate superior efficacy over comparators,” concluded investigators led by oncologist Owen A. O’Connor, MD, PhD, of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Another downside to this drug is that it was associated with adverse events in more than half of patients who took it. While 53% of alisertib patients developed anemia and 47% became neutropenic, in the comparator arm, only 34% and 31% developed anemia and neutropenia, respectively. Further, three deaths in the trial were judged to have be related to alisertib. An additional two deaths occurred in this trial; those were judged to have been related to the rival treatments.
Despite alisertib’s less than great results, the story of this drug’s use for rrPTCL may not be over.
There were hints of benefits for rrPCLT, which might play out in a more focused trial, maybe “in a subgroup of patients with PTCL who responded poorly to comparator agents,” perhaps as a last ditch option. There’s also “potential for treatment combinations of alisertib with novel agents,” the investigators said.
The ORR differences were driven mostly by better performance with the approved agents: ORR was 61% with romidepsin and 43% with pralatrexate; however, alisertib’s ORR (33%) was similar to that for gemcitabine (35%) with “the potential benefits of ... oral administration,” the researchers said.
Also, the number of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events was higher in the comparator arm (14%) than in the alisertib group (9%), and more comparator patients required dose reductions (33% versus 28%) because of drug side effects.
Alisertib binds to and inhibits Aurora A kinase (AAK), which is essential for mitosis; studies have demonstrated overexpression in PTCL, which supports AAK inhibition as a novel therapeutic strategy. Research on alisertib for other cancer indications continues, including breast and lung cancer and leukemia.
Most of the subjects in both study arms were white, and about two-thirds were men; the median age was 63 years in both arms.
The work was funded by alisertib maker Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Takeda. Dr. O’Connor and other investigators reported various ties to Millennium and Takeda, including research funding, honoraria, and consulting work. The study included employees of the companies.
SOURCE: O’Connor OA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899.
An open-label randomized phase 3 trial of oral alisertib for relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (rrPTCL) was terminated in 2015 after it became clear that it was not going to prove significantly superior to options already on the market.
A new report explains what happened. Oral Alisertib was compared to two agents approved for rrPTCL: intravenous pralatrexate (Folotyn) and romidepsin (Istodax), as well as a common off-label option, intravenous gemcitabine (Gemzar). In all, 138 adults were randomized to alisertib 50 mg two times per day on days 1-7, with a median of four 21-day cycles; 133 were randomized to a comparator, the majority to gemcitabine, and again with repeated cycles as tolerated (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899).
Overall response rate (ORR) was 33% for alisertib versus 45% for the comparator arm (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.08). Median progression-free survival was 115 days for alisertib versus 104 days for the comparators, a non–statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.637-1.178). Median overall survival was 415 days in the alisertib arm versus 367 days in the comparator arm, also not statistically significant (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.707-1.369).
In patients with rrPTCL, alisertib “did not demonstrate superior efficacy over comparators,” concluded investigators led by oncologist Owen A. O’Connor, MD, PhD, of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Another downside to this drug is that it was associated with adverse events in more than half of patients who took it. While 53% of alisertib patients developed anemia and 47% became neutropenic, in the comparator arm, only 34% and 31% developed anemia and neutropenia, respectively. Further, three deaths in the trial were judged to have be related to alisertib. An additional two deaths occurred in this trial; those were judged to have been related to the rival treatments.
Despite alisertib’s less than great results, the story of this drug’s use for rrPTCL may not be over.
There were hints of benefits for rrPCLT, which might play out in a more focused trial, maybe “in a subgroup of patients with PTCL who responded poorly to comparator agents,” perhaps as a last ditch option. There’s also “potential for treatment combinations of alisertib with novel agents,” the investigators said.
The ORR differences were driven mostly by better performance with the approved agents: ORR was 61% with romidepsin and 43% with pralatrexate; however, alisertib’s ORR (33%) was similar to that for gemcitabine (35%) with “the potential benefits of ... oral administration,” the researchers said.
Also, the number of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events was higher in the comparator arm (14%) than in the alisertib group (9%), and more comparator patients required dose reductions (33% versus 28%) because of drug side effects.
Alisertib binds to and inhibits Aurora A kinase (AAK), which is essential for mitosis; studies have demonstrated overexpression in PTCL, which supports AAK inhibition as a novel therapeutic strategy. Research on alisertib for other cancer indications continues, including breast and lung cancer and leukemia.
Most of the subjects in both study arms were white, and about two-thirds were men; the median age was 63 years in both arms.
The work was funded by alisertib maker Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Takeda. Dr. O’Connor and other investigators reported various ties to Millennium and Takeda, including research funding, honoraria, and consulting work. The study included employees of the companies.
SOURCE: O’Connor OA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899.
An open-label randomized phase 3 trial of oral alisertib for relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (rrPTCL) was terminated in 2015 after it became clear that it was not going to prove significantly superior to options already on the market.
A new report explains what happened. Oral Alisertib was compared to two agents approved for rrPTCL: intravenous pralatrexate (Folotyn) and romidepsin (Istodax), as well as a common off-label option, intravenous gemcitabine (Gemzar). In all, 138 adults were randomized to alisertib 50 mg two times per day on days 1-7, with a median of four 21-day cycles; 133 were randomized to a comparator, the majority to gemcitabine, and again with repeated cycles as tolerated (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899).
Overall response rate (ORR) was 33% for alisertib versus 45% for the comparator arm (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.08). Median progression-free survival was 115 days for alisertib versus 104 days for the comparators, a non–statistically significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.637-1.178). Median overall survival was 415 days in the alisertib arm versus 367 days in the comparator arm, also not statistically significant (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.707-1.369).
In patients with rrPTCL, alisertib “did not demonstrate superior efficacy over comparators,” concluded investigators led by oncologist Owen A. O’Connor, MD, PhD, of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Another downside to this drug is that it was associated with adverse events in more than half of patients who took it. While 53% of alisertib patients developed anemia and 47% became neutropenic, in the comparator arm, only 34% and 31% developed anemia and neutropenia, respectively. Further, three deaths in the trial were judged to have be related to alisertib. An additional two deaths occurred in this trial; those were judged to have been related to the rival treatments.
Despite alisertib’s less than great results, the story of this drug’s use for rrPTCL may not be over.
There were hints of benefits for rrPCLT, which might play out in a more focused trial, maybe “in a subgroup of patients with PTCL who responded poorly to comparator agents,” perhaps as a last ditch option. There’s also “potential for treatment combinations of alisertib with novel agents,” the investigators said.
The ORR differences were driven mostly by better performance with the approved agents: ORR was 61% with romidepsin and 43% with pralatrexate; however, alisertib’s ORR (33%) was similar to that for gemcitabine (35%) with “the potential benefits of ... oral administration,” the researchers said.
Also, the number of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events was higher in the comparator arm (14%) than in the alisertib group (9%), and more comparator patients required dose reductions (33% versus 28%) because of drug side effects.
Alisertib binds to and inhibits Aurora A kinase (AAK), which is essential for mitosis; studies have demonstrated overexpression in PTCL, which supports AAK inhibition as a novel therapeutic strategy. Research on alisertib for other cancer indications continues, including breast and lung cancer and leukemia.
Most of the subjects in both study arms were white, and about two-thirds were men; the median age was 63 years in both arms.
The work was funded by alisertib maker Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Takeda. Dr. O’Connor and other investigators reported various ties to Millennium and Takeda, including research funding, honoraria, and consulting work. The study included employees of the companies.
SOURCE: O’Connor OA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00899.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY