User login
Cerdulatinib yields ‘encouraging’ results in CTCL, PTCL
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The spleen tyrosine kinase/Janus kinase inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated activity against relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphomas.
In a phase 2 trial, cerdulatinib produced responses in 34% of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and 26% of those with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
The best responders were patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, half of whom achieved a complete response (CR).
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were amylase increase and lipase increase. However, these increases resolved with dose reduction or interruption, and there were no cases of clinical pancreatitis.
“The data is very encouraging,” said Tatyana Feldman, MD, of the John Theurer Cancer Center in Hackensack, N.J.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues previously presented results from the phase 2 trial of cerdulatinib (NCT01994382) at the 2018 annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues presented data from expansion cohorts of the ongoing trial at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The cohorts included patients with PTCL or CTCL who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.
PTCL cohort
The 45 PTCL patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 21-84). They had received a median of 3 (range, 1-12) prior therapeutic regimens, 51% were refractory to their last therapy, and 27% had undergone stem cell transplant (SCT).
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 41 patients were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 34% (n = 14). Eleven patients had a CR, three had a partial response (PR), and nine had stable disease.
Responses according to subtype were as follows:
- 7 CRs and 1 PR in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.
- 2 CRs in PTCL not otherwise specified.
- 1 CR in gamma-delta T-cell lymphoma.
- 1 PR in ALK-negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
- 1 CR and 1 PR in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Eight responders have remained on cerdulatinib for anywhere from 3 months to more than 12 months. Five patients have had a response lasting at least 6 months. One patient went on to SCT after achieving a CR.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs observed in PTCL patients were amylase increase (n = 8), lipase increase (n = 6), pneumonia/lung infection (n = 5), neutropenia (n = 4), diarrhea (n = 4), febrile neutropenia (n = 4), abdominal pain (n = 4), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), anemia (n = 3), fatigue (n = 2), and pain (n = 1).
There were two grade 5 AEs – acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia.
CTCL cohort
The 29 CTCL patients had a median age of 62 years (range, 24-79). They had received a median of 4 (range, 1-13) prior therapies, 55% were refractory to their last therapy, and 3% had undergone SCT.
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 27 were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 26% (n = 7). Two patients achieved a CR, five achieved a PR, and nine had stable disease. Responses occurred in mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.
Eleven of 23 patients (48%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in skin lesions, and the researchers observed rapid improvements in pruritus.
“I saw patients who would take the first pill, and they would call me and say, ‘I no longer itch,’ ” Dr. Feldman said.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs in CTCL patients were lipase increase (n = 11), amylase increase (n = 5), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), pain (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), neutropenia (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1).
“It’s a very well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Feldman said, adding that there were “really no severe side effects which would prohibit the use of the drug.”
She noted that cerdulatinib’s “favorable” side effect profile might make it a promising candidate for use in combination regimens.
“I think it will be possible to combine it with other drugs in development in T-cell lymphoma. … immunological checkpoint inhibitors, epigenetic modulators such as HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, methylating agents, and PI3 kinase inhibitors,” Dr. Feldman said.
She reported having no disclosures relevant to this study. The trial is sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The spleen tyrosine kinase/Janus kinase inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated activity against relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphomas.
In a phase 2 trial, cerdulatinib produced responses in 34% of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and 26% of those with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
The best responders were patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, half of whom achieved a complete response (CR).
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were amylase increase and lipase increase. However, these increases resolved with dose reduction or interruption, and there were no cases of clinical pancreatitis.
“The data is very encouraging,” said Tatyana Feldman, MD, of the John Theurer Cancer Center in Hackensack, N.J.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues previously presented results from the phase 2 trial of cerdulatinib (NCT01994382) at the 2018 annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues presented data from expansion cohorts of the ongoing trial at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The cohorts included patients with PTCL or CTCL who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.
PTCL cohort
The 45 PTCL patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 21-84). They had received a median of 3 (range, 1-12) prior therapeutic regimens, 51% were refractory to their last therapy, and 27% had undergone stem cell transplant (SCT).
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 41 patients were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 34% (n = 14). Eleven patients had a CR, three had a partial response (PR), and nine had stable disease.
Responses according to subtype were as follows:
- 7 CRs and 1 PR in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.
- 2 CRs in PTCL not otherwise specified.
- 1 CR in gamma-delta T-cell lymphoma.
- 1 PR in ALK-negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
- 1 CR and 1 PR in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Eight responders have remained on cerdulatinib for anywhere from 3 months to more than 12 months. Five patients have had a response lasting at least 6 months. One patient went on to SCT after achieving a CR.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs observed in PTCL patients were amylase increase (n = 8), lipase increase (n = 6), pneumonia/lung infection (n = 5), neutropenia (n = 4), diarrhea (n = 4), febrile neutropenia (n = 4), abdominal pain (n = 4), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), anemia (n = 3), fatigue (n = 2), and pain (n = 1).
There were two grade 5 AEs – acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia.
CTCL cohort
The 29 CTCL patients had a median age of 62 years (range, 24-79). They had received a median of 4 (range, 1-13) prior therapies, 55% were refractory to their last therapy, and 3% had undergone SCT.
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 27 were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 26% (n = 7). Two patients achieved a CR, five achieved a PR, and nine had stable disease. Responses occurred in mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.
Eleven of 23 patients (48%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in skin lesions, and the researchers observed rapid improvements in pruritus.
“I saw patients who would take the first pill, and they would call me and say, ‘I no longer itch,’ ” Dr. Feldman said.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs in CTCL patients were lipase increase (n = 11), amylase increase (n = 5), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), pain (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), neutropenia (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1).
“It’s a very well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Feldman said, adding that there were “really no severe side effects which would prohibit the use of the drug.”
She noted that cerdulatinib’s “favorable” side effect profile might make it a promising candidate for use in combination regimens.
“I think it will be possible to combine it with other drugs in development in T-cell lymphoma. … immunological checkpoint inhibitors, epigenetic modulators such as HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, methylating agents, and PI3 kinase inhibitors,” Dr. Feldman said.
She reported having no disclosures relevant to this study. The trial is sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The spleen tyrosine kinase/Janus kinase inhibitor cerdulatinib has demonstrated activity against relapsed and refractory T-cell lymphomas.
In a phase 2 trial, cerdulatinib produced responses in 34% of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and 26% of those with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
The best responders were patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, half of whom achieved a complete response (CR).
The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were amylase increase and lipase increase. However, these increases resolved with dose reduction or interruption, and there were no cases of clinical pancreatitis.
“The data is very encouraging,” said Tatyana Feldman, MD, of the John Theurer Cancer Center in Hackensack, N.J.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues previously presented results from the phase 2 trial of cerdulatinib (NCT01994382) at the 2018 annual congress of the European Hematology Association.
Dr. Feldman and her colleagues presented data from expansion cohorts of the ongoing trial at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The cohorts included patients with PTCL or CTCL who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.
PTCL cohort
The 45 PTCL patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 21-84). They had received a median of 3 (range, 1-12) prior therapeutic regimens, 51% were refractory to their last therapy, and 27% had undergone stem cell transplant (SCT).
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 41 patients were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 34% (n = 14). Eleven patients had a CR, three had a partial response (PR), and nine had stable disease.
Responses according to subtype were as follows:
- 7 CRs and 1 PR in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.
- 2 CRs in PTCL not otherwise specified.
- 1 CR in gamma-delta T-cell lymphoma.
- 1 PR in ALK-negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
- 1 CR and 1 PR in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Eight responders have remained on cerdulatinib for anywhere from 3 months to more than 12 months. Five patients have had a response lasting at least 6 months. One patient went on to SCT after achieving a CR.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs observed in PTCL patients were amylase increase (n = 8), lipase increase (n = 6), pneumonia/lung infection (n = 5), neutropenia (n = 4), diarrhea (n = 4), febrile neutropenia (n = 4), abdominal pain (n = 4), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), anemia (n = 3), fatigue (n = 2), and pain (n = 1).
There were two grade 5 AEs – acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia.
CTCL cohort
The 29 CTCL patients had a median age of 62 years (range, 24-79). They had received a median of 4 (range, 1-13) prior therapies, 55% were refractory to their last therapy, and 3% had undergone SCT.
The patients received cerdulatinib at 30 mg orally twice a day until progression or intolerance, and 27 were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate was 26% (n = 7). Two patients achieved a CR, five achieved a PR, and nine had stable disease. Responses occurred in mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.
Eleven of 23 patients (48%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in skin lesions, and the researchers observed rapid improvements in pruritus.
“I saw patients who would take the first pill, and they would call me and say, ‘I no longer itch,’ ” Dr. Feldman said.
The most common grade 3 or higher AEs in CTCL patients were lipase increase (n = 11), amylase increase (n = 5), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 3), pain (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), neutropenia (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1).
“It’s a very well-tolerated drug,” Dr. Feldman said, adding that there were “really no severe side effects which would prohibit the use of the drug.”
She noted that cerdulatinib’s “favorable” side effect profile might make it a promising candidate for use in combination regimens.
“I think it will be possible to combine it with other drugs in development in T-cell lymphoma. … immunological checkpoint inhibitors, epigenetic modulators such as HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, methylating agents, and PI3 kinase inhibitors,” Dr. Feldman said.
She reported having no disclosures relevant to this study. The trial is sponsored by Portola Pharmaceuticals.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
REPORTING FROM TCLF 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The overall response rate was 34% in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and 26% in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Study details: Expansion cohorts of a phase 2 trial including 45 PTCL patients and 29 CTCL patients
Disclosures: The study was funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals. The investigator reported having no relevant conflicts.
Combo emerges as bridge to transplant in rel/ref PTCL
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The combination of duvelisib and romidepsin is active and can provide a bridge to transplant in relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), according to researchers.
In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.
“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.
She reported results in 80 patients – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
Treatment
Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.
Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.
Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.
In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.
The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
Lead-in phase
The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.
“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.
There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.
There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
Efficacy with romidepsin
Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).
Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.
CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.
The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.
Efficacy with bortezomib
Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).
Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.
The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
Safety
Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).
Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.
Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.
This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The combination of duvelisib and romidepsin is active and can provide a bridge to transplant in relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), according to researchers.
In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.
“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.
She reported results in 80 patients – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
Treatment
Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.
Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.
Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.
In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.
The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
Lead-in phase
The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.
“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.
There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.
There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
Efficacy with romidepsin
Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).
Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.
CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.
The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.
Efficacy with bortezomib
Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).
Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.
The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
Safety
Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).
Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.
Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.
This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – The combination of duvelisib and romidepsin is active and can provide a bridge to transplant in relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), according to researchers.
In a phase 1 trial, duvelisib plus romidepsin produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 59% in patients with PTCL. Sixteen patients achieved a response, nine had a complete response (CR), and six complete responders went on to transplant.
“So we think that you can achieve remission deep enough to then move on to a potentially curative approach,” said study investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.
She and her colleagues evaluated romidepsin plus duvelisib, as well as bortezomib plus duvelisib, in a phase 1 trial (NCT02783625) of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Dr. Mehta-Shah presented the results at the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.
She reported results in 80 patients – 51 with PTCL and 29 with CTCL. The patients’ median age was 64 years (range, 28-83), and 57% of the study population were men. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-16) prior therapies, and 16% had received a prior transplant.
Treatment
Dr. Mehta-Shah noted that patients and providers could choose whether patients would receive romidepsin or bortezomib.
Patients in the romidepsin arm received romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients in the bortezomib arm received bortezomib at 1 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle.
Duvelisib dosing was escalated, so patients received duvelisib at 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg twice daily.
In the bortezomib arm, there was one dose-limiting toxicity – grade 3 neutropenia – in a patient who received duvelisib at the 25-mg dose. There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the romidepsin arm.
The researchers determined that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of duvelisib was 75 mg twice daily in the romidepsin arm and 25 mg twice daily in the bortezomib arm.
Lead-in phase
The study also had a lead-in phase during which patients could receive single-agent duvelisib.
“Because the original phase 1 study of duvelisib did not collect as many prospective tumor biopsies or on-treatment biopsies, we built into this study a lead-in phase so that we could characterize on-treatment biopsies to better understand mechanisms of response or resistance,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Patients and providers could choose to be part of the lead-in phase, she noted. Patients who did not achieve a CR during this phase went on to receive either combination therapy, which was predetermined before the monotherapy began.
There were 14 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 75 mg twice daily. Four of them achieved a CR, and three had a partial response (PR). Ten patients went on to receive romidepsin as well. One of them achieved a CR, and three had a PR.
There were 12 patients who received duvelisib monotherapy at 25 mg twice daily. Three of them achieved a CR, and two had a PR. Nine patients went on to receive bortezomib as well. This combination produced one CR and two PRs.
Efficacy with romidepsin
Among all evaluable PTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 59% (16/27), and the CR rate was 33% (9/27).
Responses occurred in seven patients with PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS), six with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), one with hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, one with aggressive epidermotropic CD8+ T-cell lymphoma, and one with primary cutaneous PTCL.
CRs occurred in five patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. Six patients who achieved a CR went on to transplant.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the romidepsin arm, the ORR was 45% (5/11), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in three patients with mycosis fungoides and two with Sézary syndrome.
The median progression-free survival was 5.41 months in CTCL patients and 6.72 months in PTCL patients.
Efficacy with bortezomib
Among evaluable PTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 44% (7/16), and the CR rate was 25% (4/16).
Responses occurred in three patients with AITL and four with PTCL-NOS. CRs occurred in two patients with each subtype.
Among evaluable CTCL patients in the bortezomib arm, the ORR was 27% (4/15), and there were no CRs. Responses occurred in one patient with mycosis fungoides and three with Sézary syndrome. One CTCL patient went on to transplant.
The median progression-free survival was 4.56 months among CTCL patients and 4.39 months in PTCL patients.
Safety
Dr. Mehta-Shah said both combinations were considered safe and well tolerated. However, there was a grade 5 adverse event (AE) – Stevens-Johnson syndrome – that occurred in the bortezomib arm and was considered possibly related to treatment.
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 31 patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm were transaminase increase (n = 7), diarrhea (n = 6), hyponatremia (n = 4), neutrophil count decrease (n = 10), and platelet count decrease (n = 3).
Grade 3/4 AEs observed in the 23 patients treated at the MTD in the bortezomib arm were transaminase increase (n = 2) and neutrophil count decrease (n = 5).
Grade 3/4 transaminitis seemed to be more common among patients who received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase, Dr. Mehta-Shah said.
Among patients treated at the MTD in the romidepsin arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in four patients treated during the lead-in phase and three who began receiving romidepsin and duvelisib together. In the bortezomib arm, grade 3/4 transaminitis occurred in two patients treated at the MTD, both of whom received duvelisib alone during the lead-in phase.
Based on these results, Dr. Mehta-Shah and her colleagues are planning to expand the romidepsin arm to an additional 25 patients. By testing the combination in more patients, the researchers hope to better understand the occurrence of transaminitis and assess the durability of response.
This study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.
The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is held by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
REPORTING FROM TCLF 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The overall response rate was 59%, and six of nine complete responders went on to transplant.
Study details: Phase 1 trial of 80 patients that included 27 evaluable PTCL patients who received romidepsin and duvelisib.
Disclosures: The study is supported by Verastem. Dr. Shah reported relationships with Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, and Genentech.
The Use of Immuno-Oncology Treatments in the VA (FULL)
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work. 
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work.
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
The following is a lightly edited transcript of a teleconference discussion recorded in April 2018.
Suman Kambhampati, MD. Immuno-oncology is a paradigm-shifting treatment approach. It is an easy-to-understand term for both providers and for patients. The underlying principle is that the body’s own immune system is used or stimulated to fight cancer, and there are drugs that clearly have shown huge promise for this, not only in oncology, but also for other diseases. Time will tell whether that really pans out or not, but to begin with, the emphasis has been inoncology, and therefore, the term immunooncology is fitting.
Dr. Kaster. It was encouraging at first, especially when ipilimumab came out, to see the effects on patients with melanoma. Then the KEYNOTE-024 trial came out, and we were able to jump in anduse monoclonal antibodies directed against programmed death 1 (PD-1) in the first line, which is when things got exciting.1 We have a smaller populationin Boise, so PD-1s in lung cancer have had the biggest impact on our patients so far.
Ellen Nason, RN, MSN. Patients are open to immunotherapies.They’re excited about it. And as the other panelists have said, you can start broadly, as the body fights the cancer on its own, to providing more specific details as a patient wants more information. Immuno-oncology is definitely accepted by patients, and they’re very excited about it, especially with all the news about new therapies.
Dr. Kambhampati. For the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) population, lung cancer has seen significant impact, and now it’s translating into other diseases through more research, trials, and better understanding about how these drugs are used and work.
The paradigm is shifting toward offering these drugs not only in metastatic cancers, but also in the surgically resectable tumors. The 2018 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting, just concluded. At the meeting several abstracts reported instances where immunooncology drugs are being introduced in the early phases of lung cancer and showing outstanding results. It’s very much possible that we’re going to see less use of traditional chemotherapy in the near future.
Ms. Nason. I primarily work with solid tumors,and the majority of the population I work with have lung cancer. So we’re excited about some of the results that we’ve seen and the lower toxicity involved. Recently, we’ve begun using durvalumab with patients with stage III disease. We have about 5 people now that are using it as a maintenance or consolidative treatment vs just using it for patients with stage IV disease. Hopefully, we’ll see some of the same results describedin the paper published on it.2
Dr. Kaster. Yes, we are incorporating these new changes into care as they're coming out. As Ms. Nason mentioned, we're already using immunotherapies in earlier settings, and we are seeing as much research that could be translated into care soon, like combining immunotherapies
in first-line settings, as we see in the Checkmate-227 study with nivolumab and ipilimumab.3,4 The landscape is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years.
Accessing Testing For First-Line Treatments
Dr. Lynch. There has been an ongoing discussionin the literature on accessing appropriate testing—delays in testing can result in patients who are not able to access the best targeted drugs on a first-line basis. The drug companiesand the VA have become highly sensitized to ensuring that veterans are accessing the appropriate testing. We are expanding the capability of VA labs to do that testing.
Ms. Nason. I want to put in a plug for the VA Precision Oncology Program (POP). It’s about 2 years into its existence, and Neil Spector, MD, is the director. The POP pays for sequencing the tumor samples.
A new sequencing contract will go into effect October 2018 and will include sequencing for hematologic malignancies in addition to the current testing of solid tumors. Patients from New York who have been unable to receive testing through the current vendors used by POP, will be included in the new contract. It is important to note that POP is working closely with the National Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) to develop a policy for approving off-label use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies based on sequenced data collected on patients tested through POP.
In addition, the leadership of POP is working to leverage the molecular testing results conducted through POP to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, both inside and outside the VA. Within the VA people can access information at tinyurl.com/precisiononcology. There is no reason why any eligible patient with cancer in the VA health care system should not have their tumor tissue sequenced through POP, particularly once the new contract goes into effect.
Dr. Lynch. Fortunately, the cost of next-generation sequencing has come down so much that most VA contracted reference laboratories offer next-generation sequencing, including LabCorp (Burlington,NC), Quest Diagnostics (Secaucus, NJ), Fulgent (Temple City, CA), and academic partners such as Oregon Health Sciences University and University of Washington.
Ms. Nason. At the Durham VAMC, sometimes a lack of tissue has been a barrier, but we now have the ability to send blood (liquid biopsy) for next-generation sequencing. Hopefully that will open up options for veterans with inadequate tissue. Importantly, all VA facilities can request liquid biopsiesthrough POP.
Dr. Lynch. That’s an important point. There have been huge advances in liquid biopsy testing.The VA Salt Lake City Health Care System (VASLCHCS) was in talks with Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA) to do a study as part of clinical operations to look at the concordance between the liquid biopsy testing and the precision oncology data. But Genomic Health eventually abandoned its liquid biopsy testing. Currently, the VA is only reimbursing or encouraging liquid biopsy if the tissue is not available or if the veteran has too high a level of comorbidities to undergo tissue biopsy. The main point for the discussion today is that access to testing is a key component of access to all of these advanced drugs.
Dr. Kambhampati. The precision medicine piece will be a game changer—no question about that. Liquid biopsy is very timely. Many patients have difficulty getting rebiopsied, so liquid biopsy is definitely a big, big step forward.
Still, there has not been consistency across the VA as there should be. Perhaps there are a few select centers, including our site in Kansas City, where access to precision medicine is readily available and liquid biopsies are available. We use the PlasmaSELECT test from Personal Genome Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD). We have just added Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) also in hematology. Access to mutational profilingis absolutely a must for precision medicine.
All that being said, the unique issue with immuno-oncology is that it pretty much transcends the mutational profile and perhaps has leveled the playing field, irrespective of the tumor mutation profile or burden. In some solid tumors these immuno-oncology drugs have been shown to work across tumor types and across different mutation types. And there is a hint now in the recent data presented at AACR and in the New England Journalof Medicine showing that the tumor mutational burden is a predictor of pathologic response to at least PD-1 blockade in the resectable stages of lung cancer.1,3 To me, that’s a very important piece of data because that’s something that can be tested and can have a prognostic impact in immuno-oncology, particularly in the early stages of lung cancer and is further proof of the broad value of immunotherapics in targeting tumors irrespective of the precise tumor targets.
Dr. Kaster. Yes, it’s nice to see other options like tumor mutational burden and Lung Immune Prognostic Index being studied.5 It would be nice if we could rely a little more on these, and not PD-L1, which as we all know is a variable and an unreliable target.
Dr. Kambhampati. I agree.
Rural Challenges In A Veterans Population
Dr. Lynch. Providing high-quality cancer care to rural veterans care can be a challenge but it is a VA priority. The VA National Genomic Medicine Services offers better access for rural veterans to germline genetic testing than any other healthcare system in the country. In terms of access to somatic testing and next-generation sequencing, we are working toward providing the same level of cancer care as patients would receive at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers. The VA oncology leadership has done teleconsults and virtual tumor boards, but for some rural VAMCs, fellowsare leading the clinical care. As we expand use of oral agents for oncology treatment, it will be easier to ensure that rural veterans receive the same standard of care for POP that veterans being cared for at VASLCHCS, Kansas City VAMC, or Durham VAMC get.
Dr. Kambhampati. The Kansas City VAMC in its catchment area includes underserved areas, such as Topeka and Leavenworth, Kansas. What we’ve been able to do here is something that’s unique—Kansas City VAMC is the only standalone VA in the country to be recognized as a primary SWOG (Southwestern Oncology Group) institution, which provides access to many trials, such as the Lung-MAP trial and others. And that has allowed us to use the full expanse of precision medicine without financial barriers. The research has helped us improve the standard of
care for patients across VISN 15.
Dr. Lynch. In precision oncology, the chief of pathology is an important figure in access to advanced care. I’ve worked with Sharad Mathur,MD, of the Kansas City VAMC on many clinical trials. He’s on the Kansas City VAMC Institutional Review Board and the cancer committee and is tuned in to veterans’ access to precision oncology. Kansas City was ordering Foundation One for select patients that met the criteria probably sooner than any other VA and participated in NCI Cooperative Group clinical trials. It is a great example of how veterans are getting access to
the same level of care as are patients who gettreated at NCI partners.
Comorbidities
Dr. Kambhampati. I don’t treat a lot of patients with lung cancer, but I find it easier to use these immuno-oncology drugs than platinums and etoposide. I consider them absolutely nasty chemotherapy drugs now in this era of immuno-oncology and targeted therapy.
Dr. Lynch. The VA is very important in translational lung cancer research and clinical care. It used to be thought that African American patients don’t get epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. And that’s because not enough African American patients with lung cancer were included in the NCI-based clinical trial.There are7,000 veterans who get lung cancer each year, and 20% to 25% of those are African Americans. Prevalence of various mutations and the pharmacogenetics of some of these drugs differ by patient ancestry. Including veterans with lung
cancer in precision oncology clinical trials and clinical care is not just a priority for the VA but a priority for NCI and internationally. I can’t emphasize this enough—veterans with lung cancer should be included in these studies and should be getting the same level of care that our partners are getting at NCI cancer centers. In the VA we’re positioned to do this because of our nationalelectronic health record (EHR) and becauseof our ability to identify patients with specific variants and enroll them in clinical trials.
Ms. Nason. One of the barriers that I find withsome of the patients that I have treated is getting them to a trial. If the trial isn’t available locally, specifically there are socioeconomic and distance issues that are hard to overcome.
Dr. Kaster. For smaller medical centers, getting patients to clinical trials can be difficult. The Boise VAMC is putting together a proposal now to justify hiring a research pharmacist in order to get trials atour site. The goal is to offer trial participation to our patients who otherwise might not be able to participate while offsetting some of the costs of immunotherapy. We are trying to make what could be a negative into a positive.
Measuring Success
Dr. Kambhampati. Unfortunately, we do not have any calculators to incorporate the quality of lives saved to the society. I know there are clearmetrics in transplant and in hematology, but unfortunately, there are no established metrics in solid tumor treatment that allow us to predict the cost savings to the health care system or to society or the benefit to the society. I don’t use any such predictive models or metrics in my decision making. These decisions are made based on existing evidence, and the existing evidence overwhelmingly supports use of immuno-oncology in certain types of solid tumors and in a select group of hematologic malignancies.
Dr. Kaster. This is where you can get more bang for your buck with an oncology pharmacist these days. A pharmacist can make a minor dosing change that will allow the same benefit for the patient, but could equal tens of thousands of dollars in cost-benefit for the VA. They can also be the second set of eyes when adjudicating a nonformulary request to ensure that a patient will benefit.
Dr. Lynch. Inappropriate prescribing is far more expensive than appropriate treatment. And the care for veterans whose long-term health outcomes could be improved by the new immunotherapies. It’s cheaper for veterans to be healthy and live longer than it is to take care of them in
their last 6 weeks of life. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies that have demonstrated that empirically, but I think it’s important to do those studies.
Role of Pharmacists
Dr. Lynch. I was at a meeting recently talking about how to improve veteran access to clinical trials. Francesca Cunningham, PharmD, director of the VA Center for Medication Safety of the VA Pharmacy Benefit Management Service (PBM) described the commitment that pharmacy has in taking a leadership role in the integration of precision medicine. Linking veterans’ tumor mutation status and pharmacogenetic variants to pharmacy databases is the best way to ensure treatment is informed by genetics. We have to be realistic about what we’re asking community oncologists to do. With the onset of precision oncology, 10 cancers have become really 100 cancers. In the prior model of care, it was the oncologist, maybe in collaboration with a pathologist, but it was mostly oncologists who determined care.
And in the evolution of precision oncology, Ithink that it’s become an interdisciplinary adventure. Pharmacy is going to play an increasinglyimportant role in precision medicine around all of the molecular alterations, even immuno-oncology regardless of molecular status in which the VA has an advantage. We’re not talking about some community pharmacist. We’re talking about a national health care system where there’s a national EHR, where there’s national PBM systems. So my thoughts on this aspect is that it’s an intricate multidisciplinary team who can ensure that veteran sget the best care possible: the best most cost-effective care possible.
Dr. Kaster. As an oncology pharmacist, I have to second that.
Ms. Nason. As Dr. Kaster said earlier, having a dedicated oncology pharmacist is tremendouslybeneficial. The oncology/hematology pharmacists are following the patients closely and notice when dose adjustments need to be made, optimizing the drug benefit and providing additional safety. Not to mention the cost benefit that can be realized with appropriate adjustment and the expertise they bring to managing possible interactionsand pharmacodynamics.
Dr. Kambhampati. To brag about the Kansas City VAMC program, we have published in Federal Practitioner our best practices showing the collaboration between a pharmacist and providers.6 And we have used several examples of cost savings, which have basically helped us build the research program, and several examples of dual monitoring oral chemotherapy monitoring. And we have created these templates within the EHR that allow everyone to get a quick snapshot of where things are, what needs to be done, and what needs to be monitored.
Now, we are taking it a step further to determine when to stop chemotherapy or when to stop treatments. For example, for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), there are good data onstopping tyrosine kinase inhibitors.7 And that alone, if implemented across the VA, could bring
in huge cost savings, which perhaps could be put into investments in immuno-oncology or other efforts. We have several examples here that we have published, and we continue to increaseand strengthen our collaboration withour oncology pharmacist. We are very lucky and privileged to have a dedicated oncology pharmacistfor clinics and for research.
Dr. Lynch. The example of CML is perfect, because precision oncology has increased the complexity of care substantially. The VA is wellpositioned to be a leader in this area when care becomes this complex because of its ability to measure access to testing, to translate the results
of testing to pharmacy, to have pharmacists take the lead on prescribing, to have pathologists take the lead on molecular alterations, and to have oncologists take the lead on delivering the cancer care to the patients.
With hematologic malignancies, adherence in the early stages can result in patients getting offcare sooner, which is cost savings. But that requires access to testing, monitoring that testing, and working in partnership with pharmacy. This is a great story about how the VA is positioned to lead in this area of care.
Dr. Kaster. I would like to put a plug in for advanced practice providers and the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).The VA is well positioned because it often has established interdisciplinary teams with these providers, pharmacy, nursing, and often social work, to coordinate the care and manage symptoms outside of oncologist visits.
Dr. Lynch. In the NCI cancer center model, once the patient has become stable, the ongoing careis designated to the NP or PA. Then as soon as there’s a change and it requires reevaluation, the oncologist becomes involved again. That pointabout the oncology treatment team is totally in line
with some of the previous comments.
Areas For Further Investigation
Dr. Kaster. There are so many nuances that we’re finding out all of the time about immunotherapies. A recent study brought up the role of antibiotics in the 30 or possibly 60 days prior to immunotherapy.3 How does that change treatment? Which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapies, and which are susceptible to “hyperprogression”? How do we integrate palliative care discussions into the carenow that patients are feeling better on treatment and may be less likely to want to discuss palliative care?
Ms. Nason. I absolutely agree with that, especially keeping palliative care integrated within our services. Our focus is now a little different, in thatwe have more optimistic outcomes in mind, butthere still are symptoms and issues where our colleaguesin palliative care are invaluable.
Dr. Lynch. I third that motion. What I would really like to see come out of this discussion is how veterans are getting access to leading oncology care. We just published an analysis of Medicare data and access to EGFR testing. The result of that analysis showed that testing in the VA was consistent with testing in Medicare.
For palliative care, I think the VA does a better job. And it’s just so discouraging as VA employees and as clinicians treating veterans to see publicationsthat suggest that veterans are getting a lower quality of care and that they would be better if care was privatized or outsourced. It’s just fundamentally not the case.
In CML, we see it. We’ve analyzed the data, in that there’s a far lower number of patients with CML who are included in the registry because patients who are diagnosed outside the VA are incorporated in other cancer registries.8 But as soon as their copays increase for access to targeted drugs, they immediately activate their VA benefits so that theycan get their drugs at the VA. For hematologic malignancies that are diagnosed outside the VA and are captured in other cancer registries, as soon as the drugs become expensive, they start getting their care in the VA. I don’t think there’s beena lot of empirical research that’s shown this, but we have the data to illustrate this trend. I hope thatthere are more publications that show that veterans with cancer are getting really good care inside the VA in the existing VA health care system.
Ms. Nason. It is disheartening to see negativepublicity, knowing that I work with colleagues who are strongly committed to providing up-to-date and relevant oncology care.
Dr. Lynch. As we record this conversation, I am in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in a meeting about genomewide testing. In hematologic malignancies, prostate cancer, and breast cancer, it’s a huge issue. And that is the other area that MVP (Million Veteran Program) is leading the way with the MVP biorepository data. Frankly, there’s no other biorepository that has this many patients, that has so many African Americans, and that has such rich EHR data. So inthat other area, the VA is doing really well.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.
1. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al; KEYNOTE-024 Investigators. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833.
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al; PACIFIC Investigators. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–smallcell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919-1929.
3. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzansk A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018 April 16. [Epub ahead of print.]
4. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; CheckMate214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinibin advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
5. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018 March 30. [Epub ahead of print.]
6. Heinrichs A, Dessars B, El Housni H, et al. Identification of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib who are potentially eligible for treatment discontinuation by assessingreal-life molecular responses on the international scale in a EUTOS-certified lab. Leuk Res. 2018;67:27-31.
7. Keefe S, Kambhampati S, Powers B. An electronic chemotherapy ordering process and template. Fed Pract. 2015;32(suppl 1):21S-25S.
8. Lynch JA, Berse B, Rabb M, et al. Underutilization and disparities in access to EGFR testing among Medicare patients with lung cancer from 2010 - 2013. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):306.
FDA grants BI-1206 orphan designation for MCL
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted orphan designation to BI-1206 for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
BI-1206 is a monoclonal antibody being developed by BioInvent International.
The company says BI-1206 works by inhibiting FcgRIIB (CD32B), which is associated with poor prognosis in MCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. By inhibiting FcgRIIB, BI-1206 is expected to enhance the activity of rituximab or other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies.
BioInvent is conducting a phase 1/2a study (NCT03571568) of BI-1206 in combination with rituximab in patients with indolent, relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including MCL. The first patient began receiving treatment with BI-1206 in September 2018.
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
GALLIUM: MRD response correlates with outcomes in follicular lymphoma
SAN DIEGO – Minimal residual disease (MRD) response at the end of induction correlates with outcomes in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients who receive obinutuzumab- or rituximab-based immunochemotherapy, according to updated results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study.
After 57 months of follow-up, and regardless of treatment arm, 564 MRD-evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction had significantly greater probability of progression-free survival (PFS) than did 70 patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction (about 80% vs. 50%; hazard ratio, 0.38), Christiane Pott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
GALLIUM participants were adults with follicular lymphoma requiring treatment. They were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy in combination with 6-8 cycles of either intravenous obinutuzumab at a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of the remaining cycles or intravenous rituximab at a dose of 375mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Responders in each group received their assigned antibody as maintenance every 2 months for up to 2 years, said Dr. Pott, of University Hospital of Schleswig‐Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Of 324 MRD-evaluable patients in the obinutuzumab arm who continued on maintenance treatment, 300 (92.6%) were MRD-negative at the end of induction, compared with 264 of 310 (85.2%) in the rituximab arm.
The majority of the MRD-negative patients remained negative during maintenance, including 67% of patients receiving obinutuzumab and 63.2% of patient receiving rituximab, she said. There was no difference seen in the relapse rate between groups – 6.3% vs. 6.1%, respectively.
The rate of disease progression or death was 11.4% in the obinutuzumab arm and 15.5% in the rituximab arm.
Additionally, 24 patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 46 in the rituximab arm were MRD positive at the end of induction but were eligible for maintenance therapy based on clinical response; of these, 22 (92%) and 36 (78%), respectively, achieved MRD negativity during maintenance, with 18 and 27 patients in the arms, respectively, achieving MRD negativity within the first 4 months of maintenance therapy, she said.
Of the 12 patients who never achieved an MRD response, 8 progressed or died within 7 months after the end of induction, 1 progressed after 15 months, 1 progressed after 26 months, and 2 remained MRD positive during maintenance up to month 8 and month 12, respectively, but had no documented tumor progression until day 1,348 and day 1,709.
“MRD status reflects the depth of response to treatment and provides insight regarding prognosis after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma,” Dr. Pott said in an interview, adding that “the findings of the current analysis demonstrate the prognostic value of MRD response assessments in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients receiving immunochemotherapy.”
Further, the finding that a majority of patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction achieved MRD negativity during the first 4 months of maintenance is likely indicative of the efficacy of continued treatment, and it also suggests that response kinetics can be slower than in patients with an early MRD response at midinduction, she said.
“Also, responses that are beyond the sensitivity of the MRD assay may be less deep,” she added, noting that patients who failed to achieve MRD negativity at the end of induction or during early maintenance had a high chance of experiencing early progression or death.
The findings have implications for individualized treatment based on patient response, as well as for future clinical trial design, she said.
For example, MRD status could allow for earlier identification of patients with poor prognosis who aren’t likely to benefit from maintenance therapy. In clinical trials, it could be used to assess the efficiency of new treatments and to stratify patients based on the likelihood of response, allowing for the evaluation of different treatments in those groups, she explained.
“That would be a very important step in the direction of tailored therapies,” she said, adding that patients with follicular lymphoma tend to have very long PFS, and earlier outcomes parameters or tools beyond clinical parameters for assessing treatment efficiency are needed.
“I hope that future trials will address MRD-based treatment stratification as the adverse prognosis we detect by residual disease might be overcome by an MRD-based switch of patients to more effective and efficient treatments, including novel drugs,” she said.
The GALLIUM study is supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Pott reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Pott C et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 396.
SAN DIEGO – Minimal residual disease (MRD) response at the end of induction correlates with outcomes in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients who receive obinutuzumab- or rituximab-based immunochemotherapy, according to updated results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study.
After 57 months of follow-up, and regardless of treatment arm, 564 MRD-evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction had significantly greater probability of progression-free survival (PFS) than did 70 patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction (about 80% vs. 50%; hazard ratio, 0.38), Christiane Pott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
GALLIUM participants were adults with follicular lymphoma requiring treatment. They were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy in combination with 6-8 cycles of either intravenous obinutuzumab at a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of the remaining cycles or intravenous rituximab at a dose of 375mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Responders in each group received their assigned antibody as maintenance every 2 months for up to 2 years, said Dr. Pott, of University Hospital of Schleswig‐Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Of 324 MRD-evaluable patients in the obinutuzumab arm who continued on maintenance treatment, 300 (92.6%) were MRD-negative at the end of induction, compared with 264 of 310 (85.2%) in the rituximab arm.
The majority of the MRD-negative patients remained negative during maintenance, including 67% of patients receiving obinutuzumab and 63.2% of patient receiving rituximab, she said. There was no difference seen in the relapse rate between groups – 6.3% vs. 6.1%, respectively.
The rate of disease progression or death was 11.4% in the obinutuzumab arm and 15.5% in the rituximab arm.
Additionally, 24 patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 46 in the rituximab arm were MRD positive at the end of induction but were eligible for maintenance therapy based on clinical response; of these, 22 (92%) and 36 (78%), respectively, achieved MRD negativity during maintenance, with 18 and 27 patients in the arms, respectively, achieving MRD negativity within the first 4 months of maintenance therapy, she said.
Of the 12 patients who never achieved an MRD response, 8 progressed or died within 7 months after the end of induction, 1 progressed after 15 months, 1 progressed after 26 months, and 2 remained MRD positive during maintenance up to month 8 and month 12, respectively, but had no documented tumor progression until day 1,348 and day 1,709.
“MRD status reflects the depth of response to treatment and provides insight regarding prognosis after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma,” Dr. Pott said in an interview, adding that “the findings of the current analysis demonstrate the prognostic value of MRD response assessments in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients receiving immunochemotherapy.”
Further, the finding that a majority of patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction achieved MRD negativity during the first 4 months of maintenance is likely indicative of the efficacy of continued treatment, and it also suggests that response kinetics can be slower than in patients with an early MRD response at midinduction, she said.
“Also, responses that are beyond the sensitivity of the MRD assay may be less deep,” she added, noting that patients who failed to achieve MRD negativity at the end of induction or during early maintenance had a high chance of experiencing early progression or death.
The findings have implications for individualized treatment based on patient response, as well as for future clinical trial design, she said.
For example, MRD status could allow for earlier identification of patients with poor prognosis who aren’t likely to benefit from maintenance therapy. In clinical trials, it could be used to assess the efficiency of new treatments and to stratify patients based on the likelihood of response, allowing for the evaluation of different treatments in those groups, she explained.
“That would be a very important step in the direction of tailored therapies,” she said, adding that patients with follicular lymphoma tend to have very long PFS, and earlier outcomes parameters or tools beyond clinical parameters for assessing treatment efficiency are needed.
“I hope that future trials will address MRD-based treatment stratification as the adverse prognosis we detect by residual disease might be overcome by an MRD-based switch of patients to more effective and efficient treatments, including novel drugs,” she said.
The GALLIUM study is supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Pott reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Pott C et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 396.
SAN DIEGO – Minimal residual disease (MRD) response at the end of induction correlates with outcomes in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients who receive obinutuzumab- or rituximab-based immunochemotherapy, according to updated results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study.
After 57 months of follow-up, and regardless of treatment arm, 564 MRD-evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction had significantly greater probability of progression-free survival (PFS) than did 70 patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction (about 80% vs. 50%; hazard ratio, 0.38), Christiane Pott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
GALLIUM participants were adults with follicular lymphoma requiring treatment. They were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy in combination with 6-8 cycles of either intravenous obinutuzumab at a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of the remaining cycles or intravenous rituximab at a dose of 375mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Responders in each group received their assigned antibody as maintenance every 2 months for up to 2 years, said Dr. Pott, of University Hospital of Schleswig‐Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Of 324 MRD-evaluable patients in the obinutuzumab arm who continued on maintenance treatment, 300 (92.6%) were MRD-negative at the end of induction, compared with 264 of 310 (85.2%) in the rituximab arm.
The majority of the MRD-negative patients remained negative during maintenance, including 67% of patients receiving obinutuzumab and 63.2% of patient receiving rituximab, she said. There was no difference seen in the relapse rate between groups – 6.3% vs. 6.1%, respectively.
The rate of disease progression or death was 11.4% in the obinutuzumab arm and 15.5% in the rituximab arm.
Additionally, 24 patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 46 in the rituximab arm were MRD positive at the end of induction but were eligible for maintenance therapy based on clinical response; of these, 22 (92%) and 36 (78%), respectively, achieved MRD negativity during maintenance, with 18 and 27 patients in the arms, respectively, achieving MRD negativity within the first 4 months of maintenance therapy, she said.
Of the 12 patients who never achieved an MRD response, 8 progressed or died within 7 months after the end of induction, 1 progressed after 15 months, 1 progressed after 26 months, and 2 remained MRD positive during maintenance up to month 8 and month 12, respectively, but had no documented tumor progression until day 1,348 and day 1,709.
“MRD status reflects the depth of response to treatment and provides insight regarding prognosis after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma,” Dr. Pott said in an interview, adding that “the findings of the current analysis demonstrate the prognostic value of MRD response assessments in previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients receiving immunochemotherapy.”
Further, the finding that a majority of patients who were MRD positive at the end of induction achieved MRD negativity during the first 4 months of maintenance is likely indicative of the efficacy of continued treatment, and it also suggests that response kinetics can be slower than in patients with an early MRD response at midinduction, she said.
“Also, responses that are beyond the sensitivity of the MRD assay may be less deep,” she added, noting that patients who failed to achieve MRD negativity at the end of induction or during early maintenance had a high chance of experiencing early progression or death.
The findings have implications for individualized treatment based on patient response, as well as for future clinical trial design, she said.
For example, MRD status could allow for earlier identification of patients with poor prognosis who aren’t likely to benefit from maintenance therapy. In clinical trials, it could be used to assess the efficiency of new treatments and to stratify patients based on the likelihood of response, allowing for the evaluation of different treatments in those groups, she explained.
“That would be a very important step in the direction of tailored therapies,” she said, adding that patients with follicular lymphoma tend to have very long PFS, and earlier outcomes parameters or tools beyond clinical parameters for assessing treatment efficiency are needed.
“I hope that future trials will address MRD-based treatment stratification as the adverse prognosis we detect by residual disease might be overcome by an MRD-based switch of patients to more effective and efficient treatments, including novel drugs,” she said.
The GALLIUM study is supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Pott reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Pott C et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 396.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Progression-free survival (PFS) probability was about 80% in patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction, compared with about 50% in patients who were MRD positive (hazard ratio, 0.38).
Study details: An analysis of data from 634 patients in the phase 3 GALLIUM study.
Disclosures: The GALLIUM study is supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Pott reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Pott C et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 396.
Applying ECHELON-2 results to clinical practice
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Results from the ECHELON-2 trial led to the U.S. approval of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP), but there are still questions about how to apply the trial results to practice.
At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.
BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).
Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).
These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).
ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.
CD30 expression
One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.
For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.
“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.
“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”
“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”
Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.
“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”
Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.
PTCL subtypes
Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.
At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.
As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).
Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
CHOP vs. CHOEP
The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.
A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).
Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.
Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.
However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.
Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.
ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.
Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Results from the ECHELON-2 trial led to the U.S. approval of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP), but there are still questions about how to apply the trial results to practice.
At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.
BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).
Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).
These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).
ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.
CD30 expression
One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.
For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.
“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.
“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”
“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”
Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.
“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”
Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.
PTCL subtypes
Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.
At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.
As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).
Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
CHOP vs. CHOEP
The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.
A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).
Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.
Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.
However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.
Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.
ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.
Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Results from the ECHELON-2 trial led to the U.S. approval of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP), but there are still questions about how to apply the trial results to practice.
At the annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum, trial investigators and other physicians debated the best use of this combination.
BV-CHP is approved to treat patients with previously untreated systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), including angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) and PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS).
Patients who received BV-CHP in ECHELON-2 had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP).
These results were initially presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in The Lancet (2019 Jan 19;393[10168]:229-40).
ECHELON-2 investigator Owen O’Connor, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, also presented details on the trial at the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. His presentation was followed by a discussion with meeting attendees about applying the trial results to clinical practice.
CD30 expression
One of the issues discussed was the importance of CD30 expression in deciding which patients should receive BV.
For a patient to be eligible for ECHELON-2, the diagnostic biopsy had to show at least 10% of the neoplastic cells were CD30-positive. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made a similar requirement for prescribing BV. PTCL patients with any level of CD30 expression are eligible for treatment with BV-CHP, according to the FDA.
“[I]t’s still a matter of great debate and controversy as to whether we have good enough data to suggest that there’s a threshold effect with regard to the expression of CD30 and responsiveness or sensitivity to brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. O’Connor said.
“This has been an issue from the very first day with this drug, which is, ‘Just how much CD30 do you need to get a response?’ I can’t speak on behalf of the FDA, but I think they are not absolutely convinced that there’s a threshold. They take [CD30-] positive as ‘good enough’ across the board.”
“The FDA has said, ‘The data we’ve seen says there’s a lot of heterogeneity [with biopsies].’ You may do a biopsy and find 30% [of cells are CD30-positive], and you may do another biopsy [in the same patient] and find less than 10%. I don’t think the regulatory agencies are convinced that a single biopsy looking at CD30 ... is representative of the entire tumor burden.”
Andrei Shustov, MD, an ECHELON-2 investigator from the University of Washington in Seattle, questioned whether CD30 expression should be considered when deciding on the use of BV in PTCL.
“Is CD30 staining relevant at all, or should we default back to studies, say, in colon cancer where we didn’t even care about EGFR because we might be missing it by current techniques?” Dr. Shustov asked. “Should we even worry about CD30 expression ... because we cannot reliably detect low levels of CD30?”
Some attendees echoed this sentiment, questioning the utility of assessing CD30 expression. Other attendees said they would defer to the trial data and only treat patients with BV-CHP if they had at least 10% CD30.
PTCL subtypes
Meeting attendees also discussed the value of BV in different PTCL subtypes.
At the request of European regulatory agencies, ECHELON-2 was largely focused on patients with sALCL. They made up 70% of the total trial population, while 16% of patients had PTCL-NOS, 12% had AITL, and a small number of patients had other subtypes. These numbers meant ECHELON-2 was not powered to determine differences in OS or PFS in non-sALCL subtypes.
As a result, some attendees expressed concerns about using BV-CHP to treat PTCL-NOS or AITL. They argued that it wasn’t clear whether patients with these subtypes would derive more benefit from BV-CHP, CHOP, or CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP).
Other attendees said they would feel comfortable using BV-CHP in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL based on ECHELON-2 results.
CHOP vs. CHOEP
The use of CHOP in ECHELON-2 was another point of discussion. Some attendees said CHOEP should have been used as the comparator instead.
A few individuals mentioned retrospective data suggesting CHOEP may confer a benefit over CHOP in PTCL (Blood. 2010 Nov 4;116[18]:3418-25).
Marek Trneny, MD, of Charles University General Hospital in Prague, referenced new data from the Czech National Lymphoma Registry, which showed that patients newly diagnosed with PTCL had superior PFS and OS when they received CHOEP rather than CHOP.
Based on these findings, Dr. Trneny said he would consider treating CD30-positive PTCL patients with CHOEP plus BV rather than BV-CHP.
However, most other attendees said they would not consider adding BV to CHOEP due to the absence of clinical trial data supporting this approach.
Some attendees did say they would use CHOEP instead of BV-CHP, particularly in patients with PTCL-NOS or AITL and in patients with CD30 expression below 10%.
ECHELON-2 was funded by Seattle Genetics and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.
Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shustov were investigators on ECHELON-2. Dr. O’Connor is a cochair of the T-cell Lymphoma Forum. The T-cell Lymphoma Forum is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM TCLF 2019
IPH4102 on fast track for Sézary syndrome
The who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
IPH4102 is an anti-KIR3DL2 antibody being developed by Innate Pharma as a treatment for T-cell lymphomas.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to expedite the review of products that are intended to treat serious conditions and have the potential to address unmet medical needs.
The fast track designation for IPH4102 is based on preliminary results from a phase 1 study (NCT02593045) of patients with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Data on 35 Sézary patients in this trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:684). The patients had a median age of 70 (range, 31-90), and they had received a median of 2 (range, 1-9) prior systemic therapies.
As of Oct. 15, 2018, the overall response rate was 42.9%, with 2 complete responses and 13 partial responses. The median duration of response was 13.8 months, and the median progression-free survival was 11.7 months.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) included asthenia (n = 5), lymphopenia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 3), pyrexia (n = 3), arthralgia (n = 2), and diarrhea (n = 1). The only grade 3/4 treatment-related AE was lymphopenia (n = 2).
Four patients experienced six grade 3 or higher AEs that were possibly related to treatment—grade 5 hepatitis (n = 1), grade 4 sepsis (n = 1), grade 3 lymphopenia (n = 3), and grade 3 hypotension (n = 1).
Based on these results, Innate Pharma is planning a phase 2 trial of IPH4102, which is expected to begin in the first half of this year.
The who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
IPH4102 is an anti-KIR3DL2 antibody being developed by Innate Pharma as a treatment for T-cell lymphomas.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to expedite the review of products that are intended to treat serious conditions and have the potential to address unmet medical needs.
The fast track designation for IPH4102 is based on preliminary results from a phase 1 study (NCT02593045) of patients with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Data on 35 Sézary patients in this trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:684). The patients had a median age of 70 (range, 31-90), and they had received a median of 2 (range, 1-9) prior systemic therapies.
As of Oct. 15, 2018, the overall response rate was 42.9%, with 2 complete responses and 13 partial responses. The median duration of response was 13.8 months, and the median progression-free survival was 11.7 months.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) included asthenia (n = 5), lymphopenia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 3), pyrexia (n = 3), arthralgia (n = 2), and diarrhea (n = 1). The only grade 3/4 treatment-related AE was lymphopenia (n = 2).
Four patients experienced six grade 3 or higher AEs that were possibly related to treatment—grade 5 hepatitis (n = 1), grade 4 sepsis (n = 1), grade 3 lymphopenia (n = 3), and grade 3 hypotension (n = 1).
Based on these results, Innate Pharma is planning a phase 2 trial of IPH4102, which is expected to begin in the first half of this year.
The who have received at least two prior systemic therapies.
IPH4102 is an anti-KIR3DL2 antibody being developed by Innate Pharma as a treatment for T-cell lymphomas.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to expedite the review of products that are intended to treat serious conditions and have the potential to address unmet medical needs.
The fast track designation for IPH4102 is based on preliminary results from a phase 1 study (NCT02593045) of patients with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Data on 35 Sézary patients in this trial were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:684). The patients had a median age of 70 (range, 31-90), and they had received a median of 2 (range, 1-9) prior systemic therapies.
As of Oct. 15, 2018, the overall response rate was 42.9%, with 2 complete responses and 13 partial responses. The median duration of response was 13.8 months, and the median progression-free survival was 11.7 months.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) included asthenia (n = 5), lymphopenia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 3), pyrexia (n = 3), arthralgia (n = 2), and diarrhea (n = 1). The only grade 3/4 treatment-related AE was lymphopenia (n = 2).
Four patients experienced six grade 3 or higher AEs that were possibly related to treatment—grade 5 hepatitis (n = 1), grade 4 sepsis (n = 1), grade 3 lymphopenia (n = 3), and grade 3 hypotension (n = 1).
Based on these results, Innate Pharma is planning a phase 2 trial of IPH4102, which is expected to begin in the first half of this year.
Umbralisib gains FDA breakthrough designation for MZL
The who have received at least one prior anti-CD20 regimen.
Umbralisib (formerly TGR-1202) is a PI3K-delta inhibitor being developed by TG Therapeutics.
Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance and other actions that may expedite FDA review. For a treatment to earn breakthrough designation, early clinical results must show that it provides improvement over available therapies or fulfills an unmet need.
The breakthrough designation for umbralisib was based on interim data from the MZL cohort in the ongoing, phase 2b UNITY-NHL trial (NCT02793583).
In this trial, researchers are testing umbralisib alone or in combination with ublituximab, with or without bendamustine, in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“The MZL single-agent umbralisib cohort of the UNITY-NHL study is fully enrolled, and we look forward to reporting topline results from this cohort by mid-year and presenting the data at a major medical meeting in 2019,” Michael S. Weiss, chief executive officer of TG Therapeutics, said in a statement.
Umbralisib monotherapy was previously evaluated in a phase 1 trial (NCT01767766) of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19[4]:486-96).
The trial enrolled 90 patients, and five of them had MZL. A total of 33 patients achieved a response to umbralisib. This includes one MZL patient who achieved a partial response.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in this trial were diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia.
Serious AEs considered at least possibly related to umbralisib were pneumonia, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and colitis. There were no treatment-related deaths.
The who have received at least one prior anti-CD20 regimen.
Umbralisib (formerly TGR-1202) is a PI3K-delta inhibitor being developed by TG Therapeutics.
Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance and other actions that may expedite FDA review. For a treatment to earn breakthrough designation, early clinical results must show that it provides improvement over available therapies or fulfills an unmet need.
The breakthrough designation for umbralisib was based on interim data from the MZL cohort in the ongoing, phase 2b UNITY-NHL trial (NCT02793583).
In this trial, researchers are testing umbralisib alone or in combination with ublituximab, with or without bendamustine, in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“The MZL single-agent umbralisib cohort of the UNITY-NHL study is fully enrolled, and we look forward to reporting topline results from this cohort by mid-year and presenting the data at a major medical meeting in 2019,” Michael S. Weiss, chief executive officer of TG Therapeutics, said in a statement.
Umbralisib monotherapy was previously evaluated in a phase 1 trial (NCT01767766) of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19[4]:486-96).
The trial enrolled 90 patients, and five of them had MZL. A total of 33 patients achieved a response to umbralisib. This includes one MZL patient who achieved a partial response.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in this trial were diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia.
Serious AEs considered at least possibly related to umbralisib were pneumonia, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and colitis. There were no treatment-related deaths.
The who have received at least one prior anti-CD20 regimen.
Umbralisib (formerly TGR-1202) is a PI3K-delta inhibitor being developed by TG Therapeutics.
Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance and other actions that may expedite FDA review. For a treatment to earn breakthrough designation, early clinical results must show that it provides improvement over available therapies or fulfills an unmet need.
The breakthrough designation for umbralisib was based on interim data from the MZL cohort in the ongoing, phase 2b UNITY-NHL trial (NCT02793583).
In this trial, researchers are testing umbralisib alone or in combination with ublituximab, with or without bendamustine, in patients with previously treated non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“The MZL single-agent umbralisib cohort of the UNITY-NHL study is fully enrolled, and we look forward to reporting topline results from this cohort by mid-year and presenting the data at a major medical meeting in 2019,” Michael S. Weiss, chief executive officer of TG Therapeutics, said in a statement.
Umbralisib monotherapy was previously evaluated in a phase 1 trial (NCT01767766) of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19[4]:486-96).
The trial enrolled 90 patients, and five of them had MZL. A total of 33 patients achieved a response to umbralisib. This includes one MZL patient who achieved a partial response.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) in this trial were diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia.
Serious AEs considered at least possibly related to umbralisib were pneumonia, lung infection, febrile neutropenia, and colitis. There were no treatment-related deaths.
Novel bispecific CAR shows promise in B-cell malignancies
SAN DIEGO – A chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) targeting both CD19 and CD22 shows promising safety and efficacy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies in adults, according to early findings from a phase 1 trial of the novel bispecific CAR.
Of six patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and two patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) enrolled in the single-institution dose escalation study and available for safety analysis after the bispecific CAR T-cell infusion, five developed reversible grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and one developed grade 2 CRS requiring treatment with tocilizumab, Nasheed Hossain, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Additionally, two patients developed grade 1 neurotoxicity, and one developed grade 2 neurotoxicity requiring treatment with dexamethasone.
“But no dose-limiting toxicities have been encountered thus far,” said Dr. Hossain of Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago. “With regard to efficacy, the DLBCL overall response rate is 60%, with 1 [complete response] and 2 [partial responses] at day 28 and day 90, and the ALL overall response rate is 100%, with 1 CR and 1 PR at day 28.
“With longer follow-up, five patients have relapsed and biopsies at the time of progression all showed ongoing CD19 expression,” he said, adding that all enrolled patients are alive, except for one patient who died from disease progression.
Study participants were adults aged 35-75 years with DLBCL or B-ALL that was refractory to standard therapies.
“Our primary objectives are twofold: One is to determine the feasibility of making our CAR ... and [the other] is to assess the safety using an escalating CAR dose following standard cyclophosphamide/fludarabine conditioning,” Dr. Hossain said.
The dose assessed in the current analysis was 1 x 106 CAR T cells/kg; other planned doses include 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg and 1 x 107 CAR T cells/kg, he said.
All patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) followed by CAR T-cell infusion 2 days later.
The findings of this ongoing study – the first in-human study of a bispecific loop CAR in the United States – suggest that the novel CAR has low toxicity and promising efficacy, Dr. Hossain said.
Currently approved therapies target CD19 alone, he said, noting that they all use the same anti-CD19 domain, but different costimulatory domains, and have good clinical efficacy of greater than 70% CRs in ALL and up to 52% CRs in DLBCL.
“But questions remain about determining the durability of response and the causes of therapy failure,” he said.
One common cause of treatment failure is CD19 antigen loss, and efforts to reduce such antigen loss using bispecific loop CARs targeting both CD19 and CD22 have shown promise. The CAR construct evaluated in this study was developed to target CD19 and CD22 with intracellular signaling domains incorporating 4-1BB and CD3-zeta to overcome CD19 immune escape.
“We have now escalated the dose to 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg ... and an expansion study of 60 patients will follow,” Dr. Hossain said.
A companion phase 1 pediatric trial using the same CAR construct is also underway, with preliminary data presented at the ASH meeting demonstrating safety and tolerability in children with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL.
Dr. Hossain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Hossain N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 490.
SAN DIEGO – A chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) targeting both CD19 and CD22 shows promising safety and efficacy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies in adults, according to early findings from a phase 1 trial of the novel bispecific CAR.
Of six patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and two patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) enrolled in the single-institution dose escalation study and available for safety analysis after the bispecific CAR T-cell infusion, five developed reversible grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and one developed grade 2 CRS requiring treatment with tocilizumab, Nasheed Hossain, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Additionally, two patients developed grade 1 neurotoxicity, and one developed grade 2 neurotoxicity requiring treatment with dexamethasone.
“But no dose-limiting toxicities have been encountered thus far,” said Dr. Hossain of Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago. “With regard to efficacy, the DLBCL overall response rate is 60%, with 1 [complete response] and 2 [partial responses] at day 28 and day 90, and the ALL overall response rate is 100%, with 1 CR and 1 PR at day 28.
“With longer follow-up, five patients have relapsed and biopsies at the time of progression all showed ongoing CD19 expression,” he said, adding that all enrolled patients are alive, except for one patient who died from disease progression.
Study participants were adults aged 35-75 years with DLBCL or B-ALL that was refractory to standard therapies.
“Our primary objectives are twofold: One is to determine the feasibility of making our CAR ... and [the other] is to assess the safety using an escalating CAR dose following standard cyclophosphamide/fludarabine conditioning,” Dr. Hossain said.
The dose assessed in the current analysis was 1 x 106 CAR T cells/kg; other planned doses include 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg and 1 x 107 CAR T cells/kg, he said.
All patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) followed by CAR T-cell infusion 2 days later.
The findings of this ongoing study – the first in-human study of a bispecific loop CAR in the United States – suggest that the novel CAR has low toxicity and promising efficacy, Dr. Hossain said.
Currently approved therapies target CD19 alone, he said, noting that they all use the same anti-CD19 domain, but different costimulatory domains, and have good clinical efficacy of greater than 70% CRs in ALL and up to 52% CRs in DLBCL.
“But questions remain about determining the durability of response and the causes of therapy failure,” he said.
One common cause of treatment failure is CD19 antigen loss, and efforts to reduce such antigen loss using bispecific loop CARs targeting both CD19 and CD22 have shown promise. The CAR construct evaluated in this study was developed to target CD19 and CD22 with intracellular signaling domains incorporating 4-1BB and CD3-zeta to overcome CD19 immune escape.
“We have now escalated the dose to 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg ... and an expansion study of 60 patients will follow,” Dr. Hossain said.
A companion phase 1 pediatric trial using the same CAR construct is also underway, with preliminary data presented at the ASH meeting demonstrating safety and tolerability in children with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL.
Dr. Hossain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Hossain N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 490.
SAN DIEGO – A chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) targeting both CD19 and CD22 shows promising safety and efficacy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies in adults, according to early findings from a phase 1 trial of the novel bispecific CAR.
Of six patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and two patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) enrolled in the single-institution dose escalation study and available for safety analysis after the bispecific CAR T-cell infusion, five developed reversible grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and one developed grade 2 CRS requiring treatment with tocilizumab, Nasheed Hossain, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Additionally, two patients developed grade 1 neurotoxicity, and one developed grade 2 neurotoxicity requiring treatment with dexamethasone.
“But no dose-limiting toxicities have been encountered thus far,” said Dr. Hossain of Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago. “With regard to efficacy, the DLBCL overall response rate is 60%, with 1 [complete response] and 2 [partial responses] at day 28 and day 90, and the ALL overall response rate is 100%, with 1 CR and 1 PR at day 28.
“With longer follow-up, five patients have relapsed and biopsies at the time of progression all showed ongoing CD19 expression,” he said, adding that all enrolled patients are alive, except for one patient who died from disease progression.
Study participants were adults aged 35-75 years with DLBCL or B-ALL that was refractory to standard therapies.
“Our primary objectives are twofold: One is to determine the feasibility of making our CAR ... and [the other] is to assess the safety using an escalating CAR dose following standard cyclophosphamide/fludarabine conditioning,” Dr. Hossain said.
The dose assessed in the current analysis was 1 x 106 CAR T cells/kg; other planned doses include 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg and 1 x 107 CAR T cells/kg, he said.
All patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2 daily x 3 doses) followed by CAR T-cell infusion 2 days later.
The findings of this ongoing study – the first in-human study of a bispecific loop CAR in the United States – suggest that the novel CAR has low toxicity and promising efficacy, Dr. Hossain said.
Currently approved therapies target CD19 alone, he said, noting that they all use the same anti-CD19 domain, but different costimulatory domains, and have good clinical efficacy of greater than 70% CRs in ALL and up to 52% CRs in DLBCL.
“But questions remain about determining the durability of response and the causes of therapy failure,” he said.
One common cause of treatment failure is CD19 antigen loss, and efforts to reduce such antigen loss using bispecific loop CARs targeting both CD19 and CD22 have shown promise. The CAR construct evaluated in this study was developed to target CD19 and CD22 with intracellular signaling domains incorporating 4-1BB and CD3-zeta to overcome CD19 immune escape.
“We have now escalated the dose to 3 x 106 CAR T cells/kg ... and an expansion study of 60 patients will follow,” Dr. Hossain said.
A companion phase 1 pediatric trial using the same CAR construct is also underway, with preliminary data presented at the ASH meeting demonstrating safety and tolerability in children with relapsed or refractory B-cell ALL.
Dr. Hossain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Hossain N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 490.
REPORTING FROM ASH 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Grade 1 cytokine release syndrome occurred in five patients, and grade 2 CRS occurred in one patient; there were no dose-limiting toxicities.
Study details: A phase 1 dose escalation study of nine patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Hossain reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Hossain N et al. ASH 2018, Abstract 490.
Imaging, radiotherapy clarified in new PMBCL guidelines
Fertility preservation, imaging and radiotherapy guidelines, and best practices in relapse or salvage therapy for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) are all highlighted in a new good practice paper from the British Society for Haematology.
Though PMBCL was previously thought of as a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, “gene expression profiling data has shown it to be a separate clinicopathological entity with evidence of an overlap with classic Hodgkin lymphoma,” said Kate Cwynarski, MD, PhD, of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, and her coauthors. The recommendations were published in the British Journal of Haematology.
PMBCL makes up 2%-4% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, they said; a bulky anterior mediastinal mass is the usual initial presentation. PMBCL does not usually spread beyond the thoracic cavity.
Biopsy, which should be reviewed by a hematopathologist, is required for a histological diagnosis of PMBCL. A multidisciplinary team should review the clinical presentation, pathology, and management plan, according to the good practice paper authors. This was a strong recommendation backed by a high level of evidence.
In addition, patients should receive positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) at diagnosis, before steroids are administered, if possible, as standard of care. Results from the PET/CT should be reported in accordance with international guidelines. These strong recommendations are backed by high-quality evidence.
If PET/CT is performed, then “a bone marrow biopsy is not considered essential,” said Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors. However, if the findings would influence management, such as when there is extranodal disease that presents central nervous system opportunities, then bone marrow biopsy should be performed. It should also be performed when cytotoxic therapy was initiated before PET/CT could be done. This is a weak recommendation supported by moderate evidence.
Since patients with PMBCL are usually young adults at presentation, it’s important to consider fertility preservation in the face of chemotherapy. For males, semen preservation should be offered. Female patients may not be able to postpone treatment long enough to accomplish egg harvesting. The risk of infertility and premature ovarian failure will depend on the treatment regimen, so “the risks of each individual therapeutic regimen should be discussed with the patient,” Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said.
If a patient is diagnosed with PMBCL while pregnant, treatment should be managed in conjunction with high-risk obstetrics and anesthesia specialists. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has been used in pregnancy, and immunotherapy without antimetabolites can be considered in the second and third trimesters, according to the good practice paper. These are strong fertility and pregnancy recommendations, backed by moderate to low-quality evidence.
If superior vena cava obstruction causes thrombosis, local standard of care for anticoagulation should be used, but therapy-induced thrombocytopenia should be taken into consideration.
There is a lack of prospective, randomized studies to guide treatment decisions in PMBCL, according to the paper. Still, adding rituximab improves both response rates and duration of remission, they noted.
The standard of care for treatment is six cycles of R-CHOP and involved site radiotherapy (ISRT). If the patient is being cared for at a site that can manage the complexities of dose adjustment and monitoring, dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) without ISRT is an alternative, according to the good practice paper.
All patients should be offered clinical trial participation when feasible, a strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence.
To assess the response to therapy, R-CHOP and ISRT recipients not participating in a clinical trial should receive a PET-CT scan 2-3 months after treatment is completed, and DA-EPOCH-R patients should receive their scan 6 weeks after the end of therapy. For all patients, Deauville criteria should be used in reporting response scan results. These strong recommendations about posttherapy imaging are based on moderate-quality evidence.
The rate of relapse and refractory disease is relatively low at about 10%-30%, Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said. Relapse usually happens within the first year and is rare after 2 years; extranodal disease is common, but usually spares the central nervous system and bone marrow. The good practice paper authors strongly recommend, based on high-quality evidence, that biopsy and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT should be performed with relapse.
Radiotherapy can be considered if the relapse is localized and the patient didn’t receive initial radiotherapy, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence to support it.
Salvage regimens for patients who have not previously achieved complete metabolic response lack a disease-specific evidence base, noted Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues. Taking this into consideration, a PMBCL salvage regimen should be the same as that offered to patients with relapsed diffused large B-cell lymphoma. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation is appropriate for responsive disease.
If radiotherapy had not been given previously, it should be considered either pre- or post transplant. This, along with the other salvage therapy guidance, is a weak recommendation, backed by moderate evidence.
For longer-term follow-up, asymptomatic patients should not have routine imaging, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence. “[P]atients who remain in remission may be considered for discharge back to primary care,” Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors said, making a weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence. Patients and their primary care providers should know about the potential for such long-term complications as cardiac toxicities and second malignancies.
SOURCE: Cwynarski K et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jan 4. doi:10.1111/bjh.15731
Fertility preservation, imaging and radiotherapy guidelines, and best practices in relapse or salvage therapy for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) are all highlighted in a new good practice paper from the British Society for Haematology.
Though PMBCL was previously thought of as a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, “gene expression profiling data has shown it to be a separate clinicopathological entity with evidence of an overlap with classic Hodgkin lymphoma,” said Kate Cwynarski, MD, PhD, of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, and her coauthors. The recommendations were published in the British Journal of Haematology.
PMBCL makes up 2%-4% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, they said; a bulky anterior mediastinal mass is the usual initial presentation. PMBCL does not usually spread beyond the thoracic cavity.
Biopsy, which should be reviewed by a hematopathologist, is required for a histological diagnosis of PMBCL. A multidisciplinary team should review the clinical presentation, pathology, and management plan, according to the good practice paper authors. This was a strong recommendation backed by a high level of evidence.
In addition, patients should receive positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) at diagnosis, before steroids are administered, if possible, as standard of care. Results from the PET/CT should be reported in accordance with international guidelines. These strong recommendations are backed by high-quality evidence.
If PET/CT is performed, then “a bone marrow biopsy is not considered essential,” said Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors. However, if the findings would influence management, such as when there is extranodal disease that presents central nervous system opportunities, then bone marrow biopsy should be performed. It should also be performed when cytotoxic therapy was initiated before PET/CT could be done. This is a weak recommendation supported by moderate evidence.
Since patients with PMBCL are usually young adults at presentation, it’s important to consider fertility preservation in the face of chemotherapy. For males, semen preservation should be offered. Female patients may not be able to postpone treatment long enough to accomplish egg harvesting. The risk of infertility and premature ovarian failure will depend on the treatment regimen, so “the risks of each individual therapeutic regimen should be discussed with the patient,” Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said.
If a patient is diagnosed with PMBCL while pregnant, treatment should be managed in conjunction with high-risk obstetrics and anesthesia specialists. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has been used in pregnancy, and immunotherapy without antimetabolites can be considered in the second and third trimesters, according to the good practice paper. These are strong fertility and pregnancy recommendations, backed by moderate to low-quality evidence.
If superior vena cava obstruction causes thrombosis, local standard of care for anticoagulation should be used, but therapy-induced thrombocytopenia should be taken into consideration.
There is a lack of prospective, randomized studies to guide treatment decisions in PMBCL, according to the paper. Still, adding rituximab improves both response rates and duration of remission, they noted.
The standard of care for treatment is six cycles of R-CHOP and involved site radiotherapy (ISRT). If the patient is being cared for at a site that can manage the complexities of dose adjustment and monitoring, dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) without ISRT is an alternative, according to the good practice paper.
All patients should be offered clinical trial participation when feasible, a strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence.
To assess the response to therapy, R-CHOP and ISRT recipients not participating in a clinical trial should receive a PET-CT scan 2-3 months after treatment is completed, and DA-EPOCH-R patients should receive their scan 6 weeks after the end of therapy. For all patients, Deauville criteria should be used in reporting response scan results. These strong recommendations about posttherapy imaging are based on moderate-quality evidence.
The rate of relapse and refractory disease is relatively low at about 10%-30%, Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said. Relapse usually happens within the first year and is rare after 2 years; extranodal disease is common, but usually spares the central nervous system and bone marrow. The good practice paper authors strongly recommend, based on high-quality evidence, that biopsy and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT should be performed with relapse.
Radiotherapy can be considered if the relapse is localized and the patient didn’t receive initial radiotherapy, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence to support it.
Salvage regimens for patients who have not previously achieved complete metabolic response lack a disease-specific evidence base, noted Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues. Taking this into consideration, a PMBCL salvage regimen should be the same as that offered to patients with relapsed diffused large B-cell lymphoma. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation is appropriate for responsive disease.
If radiotherapy had not been given previously, it should be considered either pre- or post transplant. This, along with the other salvage therapy guidance, is a weak recommendation, backed by moderate evidence.
For longer-term follow-up, asymptomatic patients should not have routine imaging, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence. “[P]atients who remain in remission may be considered for discharge back to primary care,” Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors said, making a weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence. Patients and their primary care providers should know about the potential for such long-term complications as cardiac toxicities and second malignancies.
SOURCE: Cwynarski K et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jan 4. doi:10.1111/bjh.15731
Fertility preservation, imaging and radiotherapy guidelines, and best practices in relapse or salvage therapy for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) are all highlighted in a new good practice paper from the British Society for Haematology.
Though PMBCL was previously thought of as a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, “gene expression profiling data has shown it to be a separate clinicopathological entity with evidence of an overlap with classic Hodgkin lymphoma,” said Kate Cwynarski, MD, PhD, of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, and her coauthors. The recommendations were published in the British Journal of Haematology.
PMBCL makes up 2%-4% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, they said; a bulky anterior mediastinal mass is the usual initial presentation. PMBCL does not usually spread beyond the thoracic cavity.
Biopsy, which should be reviewed by a hematopathologist, is required for a histological diagnosis of PMBCL. A multidisciplinary team should review the clinical presentation, pathology, and management plan, according to the good practice paper authors. This was a strong recommendation backed by a high level of evidence.
In addition, patients should receive positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) at diagnosis, before steroids are administered, if possible, as standard of care. Results from the PET/CT should be reported in accordance with international guidelines. These strong recommendations are backed by high-quality evidence.
If PET/CT is performed, then “a bone marrow biopsy is not considered essential,” said Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors. However, if the findings would influence management, such as when there is extranodal disease that presents central nervous system opportunities, then bone marrow biopsy should be performed. It should also be performed when cytotoxic therapy was initiated before PET/CT could be done. This is a weak recommendation supported by moderate evidence.
Since patients with PMBCL are usually young adults at presentation, it’s important to consider fertility preservation in the face of chemotherapy. For males, semen preservation should be offered. Female patients may not be able to postpone treatment long enough to accomplish egg harvesting. The risk of infertility and premature ovarian failure will depend on the treatment regimen, so “the risks of each individual therapeutic regimen should be discussed with the patient,” Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said.
If a patient is diagnosed with PMBCL while pregnant, treatment should be managed in conjunction with high-risk obstetrics and anesthesia specialists. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has been used in pregnancy, and immunotherapy without antimetabolites can be considered in the second and third trimesters, according to the good practice paper. These are strong fertility and pregnancy recommendations, backed by moderate to low-quality evidence.
If superior vena cava obstruction causes thrombosis, local standard of care for anticoagulation should be used, but therapy-induced thrombocytopenia should be taken into consideration.
There is a lack of prospective, randomized studies to guide treatment decisions in PMBCL, according to the paper. Still, adding rituximab improves both response rates and duration of remission, they noted.
The standard of care for treatment is six cycles of R-CHOP and involved site radiotherapy (ISRT). If the patient is being cared for at a site that can manage the complexities of dose adjustment and monitoring, dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) without ISRT is an alternative, according to the good practice paper.
All patients should be offered clinical trial participation when feasible, a strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence.
To assess the response to therapy, R-CHOP and ISRT recipients not participating in a clinical trial should receive a PET-CT scan 2-3 months after treatment is completed, and DA-EPOCH-R patients should receive their scan 6 weeks after the end of therapy. For all patients, Deauville criteria should be used in reporting response scan results. These strong recommendations about posttherapy imaging are based on moderate-quality evidence.
The rate of relapse and refractory disease is relatively low at about 10%-30%, Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues said. Relapse usually happens within the first year and is rare after 2 years; extranodal disease is common, but usually spares the central nervous system and bone marrow. The good practice paper authors strongly recommend, based on high-quality evidence, that biopsy and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT should be performed with relapse.
Radiotherapy can be considered if the relapse is localized and the patient didn’t receive initial radiotherapy, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence to support it.
Salvage regimens for patients who have not previously achieved complete metabolic response lack a disease-specific evidence base, noted Dr. Cwynarski and her colleagues. Taking this into consideration, a PMBCL salvage regimen should be the same as that offered to patients with relapsed diffused large B-cell lymphoma. High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation is appropriate for responsive disease.
If radiotherapy had not been given previously, it should be considered either pre- or post transplant. This, along with the other salvage therapy guidance, is a weak recommendation, backed by moderate evidence.
For longer-term follow-up, asymptomatic patients should not have routine imaging, a strong recommendation with moderate evidence. “[P]atients who remain in remission may be considered for discharge back to primary care,” Dr. Cwynarski and her coauthors said, making a weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence. Patients and their primary care providers should know about the potential for such long-term complications as cardiac toxicities and second malignancies.
SOURCE: Cwynarski K et al. Br J Haematol. 2019 Jan 4. doi:10.1111/bjh.15731
FROM BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY