Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Final results of a phase 3 trial suggest bortezomib plus rituximab and chemotherapy can significantly improve overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

In the LYM-3002 trial, researchers compared bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

The median OS was significantly longer in patients who received VR-CAP than in those who received R-CHOP—90.7 months and 55.7 months, respectively.

This survival benefit was observed in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease but not high-risk disease.

Tadeusz Robak, MD, of the Medical University of Lodz in Poland, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology alongside a related commentary.

The LYM-3002 trial began more than a decade ago, and initial results were published in 2015. At that time, the VR-CAP group showed a significant increase in progression-free survival compared with the R-CHOP group.

The final analysis of LYM-3002 included 268 of the original 487 MCL patients. Twenty-three percent of patients in the VR-CAP group (n=32) discontinued due to death, as did 40% of patients in the R-CHOP group (n=51). The main cause of death was progression—29% and 14%, respectively.

Among the 268 patients in the final analysis, 140 belonged to the VR-CAP group and 128 to the R-CHOP group. The patients’ median age was 66 (range, 26-83), 71% (n=190) were male, 74% (n=199) had stage IV disease, and 31% were classified as high risk based on the MCL-specific International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

About half of patients received therapies after the trial interventions (n=255, 52%)—43% (n=104) in the VR-CAP group and 62% (n=151) in the R-CHOP group. Most patients received subsequent antineoplastic therapy—77% (n=80) and 81% (n=123), respectively—and more than half received rituximab as second-line therapy—53% (n=55) and 59% (n=89), respectively.

Results

At a median follow-up of 82.0 months, the median OS was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group—90.7 months (95% CI, 71.4 to not estimable) and 55.7 months (95% CI, 47.2 to 68.9), respectively (hazard ratio [HR]=0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]; P=0.001).

The 4-year OS was 67.3% in the VR-CAP group and 54.3% in the R-CHOP group. The 6-year OS was 56.6% and 42.0%, respectively.

The researchers noted that VR-CAP was associated with significantly improved OS among patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk MIPI categories but not in the high-risk category.

In the low-risk cohort, the median OS was 81.7 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.54 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]; P≤0.05).

In the intermediate-risk cohort, the median OS was 62.2 months in the R-CHOP group and not estimable in the VR-CAP group (HR=0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.85]; P≤0.01).

In the high-risk cohort, the median OS was 37.1 months in the R-CHOP group and 30.4 months in the VR-CAP group (HR=1.02 [95% CI, 0.69–1.50]).

The researchers reported three new adverse events in the final analysis—grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group as well as grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group.

The team acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was that rituximab was not given as maintenance since it was not considered standard care at the time of study initiation.

Moving forward, Dr. Robak and his colleagues recommend that bortezomib be investigated in combination with newer targeted therapies in order to establish best practice for treating MCL.

The LYM-3002 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The study authors reported financial ties to Janssen, Celgene, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and other companies.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Micrograph showing WM

NEW YORK—The BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib has demonstrated “robust activity” and “good tolerability” in patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), according to an investigator.

In a phase 1 trial, zanubrutinib produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 92%, and the estimated 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 89%.

Most adverse events (AEs) in this trial were grade 1 or 2 in severity, although the incidence of serious AEs was 42%.

Constantine Tam, MD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Victoria, Australia, presented these results at the 10th International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia.

The trial is sponsored by BeiGene, Ltd., the company developing zanubrutinib.

The trial (NCT02343120) includes patients with WM and other B-cell malignancies. As of July 24, 2018, 77 patients with treatment-naïve or relapsed/refractory WM had been enrolled.

Seventy-three patients were evaluable for efficacy in this analysis, and the median follow-up time was 22.5 months (range, 4.1-43.9).

At the time of the data cutoff, 62 patients remained on study treatment. Four patients (3%) discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and one patient remains on treatment post-progression.

Efficacy

The median time to response was 85 days (range, 55-749).

The ORR was 92% (67/73), and the major response rate (MRR) was 82%. Forty-one percent of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR), defined as a greater than 90% reduction in baseline immunoglobulin M (IgM) levels and improvement of extramedullary disease by computed tomography.

The median IgM decreased from 32.7 g/L (range, 5.3-91.9) at baseline to 8.2 g/L (range, 0.3-57.8). The median hemoglobin increased from 8.85 g/dL (range, 6.3-9.8) to 13.4 g/dL (range, 7.7-17.0) among 32 patients with hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL at baseline.

MYD88 genotype was known in 63 patients. In the subset known to have the MYD88L265P mutation (n=54), the ORR was 94%, the MRR was 89%, and the VGPR rate was 46%.

In the nine patients known to have wild-type MYD88 (a genotype that, historically, has had sub-optimal response to BTK inhibition), the ORR was 89%, the MRR was 67%, and the VGPR rate was 22%.

The 12-month PFS was estimated to be 89%, and the median PFS had not been reached.

Safety

The most frequent AEs of any attribution were petechiae/purpura/contusion (43%), upper respiratory tract infection (42%), cough (17%), diarrhea (17%), constipation (16%), back pain (16%), and headache (16%).

Grade 3-4 AEs of any attribution reported in three or more patients included neutropenia (9%), anemia (7%), hypertension (5%), basal cell carcinoma (5%), renal and urinary disorders (4%), and pneumonia (4%).

Serious AEs were seen in 32 patients (42%). Events in five patients (7%) were considered possibly related to zanubrutinib treatment—febrile neutropenia, colitis, atrial fibrillation, hemothorax, and pneumonia.

Nine patients (12%) discontinued study treatment due to AEs, but all of these events were considered unrelated to treatment. The AEs (n=1 for each) included abdominal sepsis (fatal), gastric adenocarcinoma (fatal), septic shoulder, worsening bronchiectasis, scedosporium infection, prostate adenocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, and breast cancer.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in four patients (5%), and major hemorrhage was observed in two patients (3%).

“We are encouraged that additional data on zanubrutinib in patients with WM confirms the initially reported experience, with consistent demonstration of robust activity and good tolerability,” Dr. Tam said.

“We are hopeful that zanubrutinib, if approved, could potentially provide an important new treatment option to patients with WM and other hematologic malignancies.”

Dr. Tam reported financial relationships with BeiGene and other companies.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for priority review a supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for ibrutinib (Imbruvica®).

With this sNDA, Pharmacyclics LLC (an AbbVie company) and Janssen Biotech, Inc., are seeking approval for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab (Gazyva®) in previously untreated adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The agency intends to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it rather than the standard 10 months.

Ibrutinib is already FDA-approved as monotherapy for adults with CLL/SLL (previously treated or untreated), with and without 17p deletion. Ibrutinib is also approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for adults with previously treated CLL/SLL.

Obinutuzumab is FDA-approved for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat previously untreated CLL.

The sNDA for ibrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 iLLUMINATE trial (NCT02264574).

The trial is a comparison of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL/SLL.

In May, AbbVie announced that the trial’s primary endpoint was met. Specifically, ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab.

Data from the trial have not been released. Pharmacyclics and Janssen said they plan to present the data in a future publication or at a medical congress.

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit-or-miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to a speaker at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, noted that the success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with non-localized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.

State of PTCL treatment

Dr. Bazarbachi began his presentation by pointing out that patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable—localized ENKTL and ALK-positive ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.

HSCT in PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012¹, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival—compared to previous results with CHOP²—in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients—those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study³ showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, as compared to patients who did not receive a transplant.

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.

HSCT in ATLL

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative.^4,5 It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction.

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time—as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014⁵, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died.

HSCT in ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients⁶, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction.

Allo-HSCT is also an option for frontline consolidation in patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, non-localized ENKTL, nasal type should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. d’Amore F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30(25):3093-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.2719

2. AbouYabis AN et al. ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi:  10.5402/2011/623924

3. Park SI et al. Blood 2017 130:342

4. Ishida T et al. Blood 2012 Aug 23;120(8):1734-41. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-03-414490

5. Bazarbachi A et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49(10):1266-8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.143

6. Lee J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14(12):1356-64. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.09.014

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit-or-miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to a speaker at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, noted that the success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with non-localized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.

State of PTCL treatment

Dr. Bazarbachi began his presentation by pointing out that patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable—localized ENKTL and ALK-positive ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.

HSCT in PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012¹, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival—compared to previous results with CHOP²—in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients—those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study³ showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, as compared to patients who did not receive a transplant.

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.

HSCT in ATLL

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative.^4,5 It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction.

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time—as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014⁵, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died.

HSCT in ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients⁶, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction.

Allo-HSCT is also an option for frontline consolidation in patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, non-localized ENKTL, nasal type should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. d’Amore F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30(25):3093-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.2719

2. AbouYabis AN et al. ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi:  10.5402/2011/623924

3. Park SI et al. Blood 2017 130:342

4. Ishida T et al. Blood 2012 Aug 23;120(8):1734-41. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-03-414490

5. Bazarbachi A et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49(10):1266-8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.143

6. Lee J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14(12):1356-64. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.09.014

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be hit-or-miss in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs), according to a speaker at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, noted that the success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant.

For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).

Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with non-localized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.

State of PTCL treatment

Dr. Bazarbachi began his presentation by pointing out that patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired.

He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable—localized ENKTL and ALK-positive ALCL.

Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.

HSCT in PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL

For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

In a study published in 2012¹, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival—compared to previous results with CHOP²—in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.

“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients—those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”

Results from the COMPLETE study³ showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, as compared to patients who did not receive a transplant.

COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL.

However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.

HSCT in ATLL

Dr. Bazarbachi noted that ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative.^4,5 It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction.

However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.

Allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.

Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time—as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.

Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014⁵, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died.

HSCT in ENKTL

Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.

Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients⁶, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction.

Allo-HSCT is also an option for frontline consolidation in patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should only receive auto-HSCT if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.

Patients with refractory, non-localized ENKTL, nasal type should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.

He did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. d’Amore F et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30(25):3093-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.2719

2. AbouYabis AN et al. ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi:  10.5402/2011/623924

3. Park SI et al. Blood 2017 130:342

4. Ishida T et al. Blood 2012 Aug 23;120(8):1734-41. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-03-414490

5. Bazarbachi A et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49(10):1266-8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.143

6. Lee J et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14(12):1356-64. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.09.014

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Photo by Darren Baker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance on the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in trials of patients with hematologic malignancies.

The FDA said it developed this guidance to assist sponsors who are planning to use MRD as a biomarker in clinical trials conducted under an investigational new drug application or to support FDA approval of products intended to treat hematologic malignancies.

“As a result of important workshops where we’ve heard from stakeholders and an analysis of marketing applications showing inconsistent quality of MRD data, the FDA identified a need to provide sponsors with guidance on the use of MRD as a biomarker in regulatory submissions,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD.

The guidance explains how MRD might be used in clinical trials, highlights considerations for MRD assessment that are specific to certain hematologic malignancies, and lists requirements for regulatory submissions that utilize MRD.

The full document, “Hematologic Malignancies: Regulatory Considerations for Use of Minimal Residual Disease in Development of Drug and Biological Products for Treatment,” is available for download from the FDA website.

How MRD can be used

The guidance notes that MRD could potentially be used as a biomarker in clinical trials, specifically, as a diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, efficacy-response, or monitoring biomarker.

MRD could also be used as a surrogate endpoint, and there are two mechanisms for obtaining FDA feedback on the use of a novel surrogate endpoint to support approval of a product:

1. The drug development tool qualification process
2. Discussions with the specific Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research review division.

Furthermore, a sponsor can use MRD “to select patients at high risk or to enrich the trial population,” according to the guidance.

Disease specifics

The guidance also details specific considerations for MRD assessment in individual hematologic malignancies. For example:

• In acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a patient with an MRD level of 0.1% or more in first or second complete remission has a high risk of relapse.
• In trials of acute myeloid leukemia, the sponsor should provide data showing that the marker selected to assess MRD “reflects the leukemia and not underlying clonal hematopoiesis.”
• Patients with low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia who achieve MRD negativity after arsenic/tretinoin-based therapy are generally considered cured.
• In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, MRD can be assessed in the peripheral blood or bone marrow, but the sample source should remain the same throughout a trial.
• In chronic myeloid leukemia, MRD can be used to select and monitor patients who are eligible to discontinue treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• In multiple myeloma, imaging techniques may be combined with MRD assessment of the bone marrow to assess patient response to treatment.

Types of technology

The guidance lists the four general technologies used for MRD assessment in hematologic malignancies:

• Multiparametric flow cytometry
• Next-generation sequencing
• Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of specific gene fusions
• Allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction.

The FDA said it does not have a preference as to which technology is used in a trial. However, the sponsor must pre-specify the technology used and should utilize the same technology throughout a trial.

The FDA also said it “does not foresee the need for co-development of an MRD assay with a drug product.” However, the assay must be analytically valid for results important to the trial, and MRD assessment must be a clinically valid biomarker in the context in which it’s used.

If the MRD assay used is not FDA-cleared or -approved, additional information about the assay must be provided to the FDA.

Image by Michael Bonert

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to cerdulatinib for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Cerdulatinib is an oral Syk/JAK inhibitor being developed by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Preclinical data have suggested an important role for Syk and JAK in PTCL tumor survival, and cerdulatinib is currently under evaluation in a phase 2a study of patients with PTCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Results from this trial were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) earlier this year.

At that time, the trial had enrolled 114 patients, 25 of them with PTCL. The patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily.

The objective response rate was 35% among the PTCL patients. All seven responders had a complete response, and 11 PTCL patients were still on cerdulatinib at the time of the presentation.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events observed in all evaluable patients included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

There were five deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (three of which were concomitant with pneumonia) that were considered related to cerdulatinib.

Three of the deaths occurred in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, one in a patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and one in a patient with follicular lymphoma.

The deaths occurred early on in the trial, and researchers have since taken steps—dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis—to prevent additional deaths.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The 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.

Image by Michael Bonert

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to cerdulatinib for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Cerdulatinib is an oral Syk/JAK inhibitor being developed by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Preclinical data have suggested an important role for Syk and JAK in PTCL tumor survival, and cerdulatinib is currently under evaluation in a phase 2a study of patients with PTCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Results from this trial were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) earlier this year.

At that time, the trial had enrolled 114 patients, 25 of them with PTCL. The patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily.

The objective response rate was 35% among the PTCL patients. All seven responders had a complete response, and 11 PTCL patients were still on cerdulatinib at the time of the presentation.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events observed in all evaluable patients included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

There were five deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (three of which were concomitant with pneumonia) that were considered related to cerdulatinib.

Three of the deaths occurred in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, one in a patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and one in a patient with follicular lymphoma.

The deaths occurred early on in the trial, and researchers have since taken steps—dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis—to prevent additional deaths.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The 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.

Image by Michael Bonert

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to cerdulatinib for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Cerdulatinib is an oral Syk/JAK inhibitor being developed by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Preclinical data have suggested an important role for Syk and JAK in PTCL tumor survival, and cerdulatinib is currently under evaluation in a phase 2a study of patients with PTCL and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Results from this trial were presented at the 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) earlier this year.

At that time, the trial had enrolled 114 patients, 25 of them with PTCL. The patients received cerdulatinib at 25, 30, or 35 mg twice daily.

The objective response rate was 35% among the PTCL patients. All seven responders had a complete response, and 11 PTCL patients were still on cerdulatinib at the time of the presentation.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events observed in all evaluable patients included lipase increase (18%), neutropenia (17%), pneumonia/lung infection (11%), diarrhea (8%), fatigue (6%), amylase increase (5%), sepsis/septic shock (4%), hypertension (4%), anemia (4%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%).

There were five deaths due to sepsis or septic shock (three of which were concomitant with pneumonia) that were considered related to cerdulatinib.

Three of the deaths occurred in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, one in a patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and one in a patient with follicular lymphoma.

The deaths occurred early on in the trial, and researchers have since taken steps—dose reductions, monitoring, and antibiotic prophylaxis—to prevent additional deaths.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The 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.

Image from NIAID

Update: On October 12, 2018, Affimed N.V. received a notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying the agency concurred with Affimed’s decision and formally placed the investigational new drug application for AFM11 on full clinical hold. Affimed said it will comply with the FDA and other global health authorities’ requests for information to resolve the clinical hold.

Affimed N.V. has placed trials of AFM11 on clinical hold and notified the global health authorities of its decision.

AFM11 is a CD19/CD3-targeting T-cell engager being evaluated in two phase 1 trials—one in patients with relapsed or refractory, CD19-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one in adults with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Affimed initiated the clinical hold on these trials after serious adverse events occurred in three patients treated with AFM11.

This included a death in the ALL study and two life-threatening events in the NHL study.

The serious adverse events occurred in patients enrolled in the highest dose cohorts of each study.

A total of 33 patients have been treated in the two studies (NCT02848911 and NCT02106091), and preliminary signs of clinical activity have been observed in several patients.

Affimed said it will be working closely with the global health authorities, safety monitoring committees, and the studies’ clinical investigators to review the adverse events, assess all the data, and determine next steps for the AFM11 program.

Affimed intends to provide an update on AFM11 upon completing the evaluation.

Image from NIAID

Update: On October 12, 2018, Affimed N.V. received a notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying the agency concurred with Affimed’s decision and formally placed the investigational new drug application for AFM11 on full clinical hold. Affimed said it will comply with the FDA and other global health authorities’ requests for information to resolve the clinical hold.

Affimed N.V. has placed trials of AFM11 on clinical hold and notified the global health authorities of its decision.

AFM11 is a CD19/CD3-targeting T-cell engager being evaluated in two phase 1 trials—one in patients with relapsed or refractory, CD19-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one in adults with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Affimed initiated the clinical hold on these trials after serious adverse events occurred in three patients treated with AFM11.

This included a death in the ALL study and two life-threatening events in the NHL study.

The serious adverse events occurred in patients enrolled in the highest dose cohorts of each study.

A total of 33 patients have been treated in the two studies (NCT02848911 and NCT02106091), and preliminary signs of clinical activity have been observed in several patients.

Affimed said it will be working closely with the global health authorities, safety monitoring committees, and the studies’ clinical investigators to review the adverse events, assess all the data, and determine next steps for the AFM11 program.

Affimed intends to provide an update on AFM11 upon completing the evaluation.

Image from NIAID

Update: On October 12, 2018, Affimed N.V. received a notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying the agency concurred with Affimed’s decision and formally placed the investigational new drug application for AFM11 on full clinical hold. Affimed said it will comply with the FDA and other global health authorities’ requests for information to resolve the clinical hold.

Affimed N.V. has placed trials of AFM11 on clinical hold and notified the global health authorities of its decision.

AFM11 is a CD19/CD3-targeting T-cell engager being evaluated in two phase 1 trials—one in patients with relapsed or refractory, CD19-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one in adults with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Affimed initiated the clinical hold on these trials after serious adverse events occurred in three patients treated with AFM11.

This included a death in the ALL study and two life-threatening events in the NHL study.

The serious adverse events occurred in patients enrolled in the highest dose cohorts of each study.

A total of 33 patients have been treated in the two studies (NCT02848911 and NCT02106091), and preliminary signs of clinical activity have been observed in several patients.

Affimed said it will be working closely with the global health authorities, safety monitoring committees, and the studies’ clinical investigators to review the adverse events, assess all the data, and determine next steps for the AFM11 program.

Affimed intends to provide an update on AFM11 upon completing the evaluation.

Image by Spencer Phillips

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.

Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL¹ and autoimmune diseases² in patients from Northwest Europe.

However, a study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.

Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.

Therefore, she and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.

The researchers evaluated 320 patients—168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP—and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.

The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.

She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. Hebbring S et al. Blood. 2013 121:237-238; doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-08-450221

2. Burb GL et al. FEBS Lett. 2011 Dec 1;585(23):3689-98. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.04.032

Image by Spencer Phillips

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.

Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL¹ and autoimmune diseases² in patients from Northwest Europe.

However, a study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.

Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.

Therefore, she and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.

The researchers evaluated 320 patients—168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP—and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.

The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.

She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. Hebbring S et al. Blood. 2013 121:237-238; doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-08-450221

2. Burb GL et al. FEBS Lett. 2011 Dec 1;585(23):3689-98. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.04.032

Image by Spencer Phillips

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.

Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL¹ and autoimmune diseases² in patients from Northwest Europe.

However, a study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.

Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.

Therefore, she and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.

The researchers evaluated 320 patients—168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP—and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.

The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.

She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.

Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.

1. Hebbring S et al. Blood. 2013 121:237-238; doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-08-450221

2. Burb GL et al. FEBS Lett. 2011 Dec 1;585(23):3689-98. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.04.032