User login
Intensive chemo upfront means DHL patients can skip HSCT
A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.
Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.
However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.
This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.
Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.
Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.
Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).
The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:
- 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
- 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
- 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).
Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.
“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”
Relapse and survival
For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.
There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.
The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).
“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”
Impact of frontline therapy
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.
RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).
OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).
When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).
Frontline therapy and HSCT
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.
The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).
“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).
Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse. 
A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.
Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.
However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.
This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.
Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.
Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.
Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).
The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:
- 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
- 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
- 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).
Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.
“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”
Relapse and survival
For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.
There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.
The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).
“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”
Impact of frontline therapy
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.
RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).
OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).
When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).
Frontline therapy and HSCT
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.
The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).
“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).
Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse.
A new study suggests that patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) in first remission only benefit from an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) if they received standard frontline chemotherapy.
Researchers looked at long-term outcomes for DHL patients who achieved remission and, overall, found that auto-HSCT did not significantly prolong remission or survival.
However, patients who received standard chemotherapy as frontline treatment did appear to benefit from auto-HSCT, as these patients had worse outcomes than patients who received intensive frontline chemotherapy.
This finding led the researchers to recommend that DHL patients receive intensive chemotherapy upfront and forgo subsequent auto-HSCT.
Daniel J. Landsburg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and his colleagues made these recommendations in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“A major dilemma for oncologists who treat [DHL] was whether or not to recommend the potentially harmful therapy of auto-[H]SCT to patients with this disease as a strategy to help keep them in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
To gain some insight into the issue, Dr Landsburg and his colleagues looked at data on 159 patients from 19 academic medical centers across the US.
Patients were diagnosed with DHL between 2006 and 2015, and all achieved remission following frontline chemotherapy.
Thirty-five patients received standard frontline therapy—R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).
The remaining patients received intensive frontline chemotherapy:
- 81 received DA-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab)
- 32 received R-hyperCVAD (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, methotrexate, and cytarabine)
- 11 received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high-dose cytarabine).
Sixty-two patients underwent auto-HSCT, and 97 patients did not. There were no significant differences between these 2 patient groups at baseline.
“Our result is not explained by differences in patients’ overall health or disease features,” Dr Landsburg said. “The transplant and non-transplant arms of this study were very well-matched.”
Relapse and survival
For the entire patient cohort, the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 80%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 87%.
There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between patients who underwent auto-HSCT and those who did not.
The RFS rate was 89% in patients who underwent auto-HSCT and 75% in patients who did not (P=0.12). The OS rate was 91% and 85%, respectively (P=0.74).
“Once these patients achieve remission, the data show they are likely to stay in remission,” Dr Landsburg said.
“In the absence of a large, randomized, controlled trial, which would be very challenging to carry out in this case, this is the best evidence we have, and it shows there’s no clear benefit to these patients undergoing auto-[H]SCT.”
Impact of frontline therapy
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront had worse RFS and OS than those who received intensive chemotherapy, although the OS difference was not significant.
RFS rates were 56% in patients who received R-CHOP, 88% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 87% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 91% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC (P=0.003).
OS rates were 77% in patients who received R-CHOP, 87% in those who received DA-EPOCH-R, 90% in those who received R-hyperCVAD, and 100% in those who received R-CODOX-M/IVAC, respectively (P=0.36).
When the 3 intensive regimens were combined, the RFS rate was 88% (vs 56% for R-CHOP, P=0.002), and the OS rate was 90% (vs 77% for R-CHOP, P=0.13).
Frontline therapy and HSCT
Patients who received R-CHOP upfront benefited from auto-HSCT, but patients who received intensive chemotherapy did not.
The RFS was 51% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 75% for patients who received R-CHOP and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 83% for patients who received R-CHOP followed by auto-HSCT.
The RFS was 86% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 91% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
The OS was 89% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy and did not undergo auto-HSCT, and it was 92% for patients who received intensive chemotherapy followed by auto-HSCT.
An intergroup comparison showed a significant difference in RFS (P=0.003), which was driven by a significantly lower rate of RFS for patients who received R-CHOP without auto-HSCT, compared with patients who received intensive chemotherapy without auto-HSCT (P=0.003) or intensive chemotherapy with auto-HSCT (P=0.001).
“[I]f patients do go into remission with R-CHOP, it appears to be less durable, so, in these cases, going forward with auto-[H]SCT may still make sense,” Dr Landsburg said.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to OS (P=0.50).
Dr Landsburg said the next step for this research will be to study features of patients who don’t go into remission in order to understand why their disease is resistant to therapy and if that can be overcome with different treatment strategies. He also said it’s important to try to find more effective therapies for DHL patients who relapse.
Novel inhibitor proves ‘potent’ in hematologic malignancies
BOSTON—A pair of preclinical studies suggest the FLT3/BTK inhibitor CG’806 is active in a range of hematologic malignancies.
In one of the studies, CG’806 proved particularly effective against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells harboring mutant forms of FLT3, and the compound was able to eradicate AML in mice.
In another study, researchers found CG’806 exhibited “broad potency” against leukemias, lymphomas, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).
Both studies were presented as posters at Hematologic Malignancies: Translating Discoveries to Novel Therapies (poster 25 and poster 44).
Both studies involved researchers from Aptose Biosciences, the company developing CG’806.
Poster 25
Weiguo Zhang, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues presented poster 25, “CG’806, a first-in-class FLT3/BTK inhibitor, exerts superior potency against AML cells harboring ITD, TKD and gatekeeper mutated FLT3 or wild-type FLT3.”
The researchers tested CG’806 and other FLT3 inhibitors in human or murine leukemia cell lines with wild-type (WT) FLT3, FLT3-ITD mutations, FLT3 TKD domain mutations, or ITD plus TKD mutations.
Compared to second-generation FLT3 inhibitors (quizartinib, gilteritinib, or crenolanib), CG’806 showed more pronounced anti-proliferative effects in leukemia cells with ITD mutations, D835 mutations, ITD plus F691I/Y842D/D835 mutations, or in FLT3 WT cells.
With CG’086, the IC50s in human AML cell lines were 0.17 nM for MV4-11 (FLT3-ITD) and 0.82 nM for MOLM13 (FLT3-ITD).
The IC50s in the murine leukemia cell lines were 9.49 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-WT), 0.30 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD), 8.26 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-D835Y), 9.72 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+D835Y), and 0.43 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+F691L).
The researchers also found that CG’806 “triggers marked apoptosis” in FLT3-ITD-mutated primary AML samples but minimal apoptosis in normal bone marrow cells.
Another finding was that once-daily oral dosing of CG’806 in a murine model of AML (MV4-11) resulted in sustained micromolar plasma concentration over a 24-hour period.
This was accompanied by complete elimination of AML FLT3-ITD tumors without toxicity, the researchers said.
Poster 44
Stephen E. Kurtz, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and his colleagues presented poster 44, “CG’806, a First-in-Class FLT3/BTK Inhibitor, Exhibits Potent Activity against AML Patient Samples with Mutant or Wild-Type FLT3, as well as Other Hematologic Malignancy Subtypes.”
The researchers tested CG’806 in samples from patients with AML (n=82), MDS/MPNs (n=15), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL, n=17), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, n=58), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML, n=4).
The team observed “broad sensitivity” to CG’806, with 59% (48/82) of AML, 53% (8/15) of MDS/MPN, 40% (23/58) of CLL, 29% (5/17) of ALL, and 25% (1/4) of CML cases exhibiting an IC50 of less than 100 nM.
Among the 38 tested AML samples with known FLT3 mutational status, the FLT3-ITD+ AML samples tended to have enhanced sensitivity to CG’806 (median IC50 = 20 nM, n=8) relative to the FLT3-WT samples (median IC50 = 120 nM, n=30).
The researchers also found that CG’806 exerted potent anti-proliferative activity against human AML, B-ALL, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cell lines.
“The analyses of CG’806 against primary hematologic malignancy patient samples and cultured cell lines show evidence of potent and broad drug activity in AML and other disease subtypes and support further development of this agent for hematologic malignancies,” Dr Kurtz said.
BOSTON—A pair of preclinical studies suggest the FLT3/BTK inhibitor CG’806 is active in a range of hematologic malignancies.
In one of the studies, CG’806 proved particularly effective against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells harboring mutant forms of FLT3, and the compound was able to eradicate AML in mice.
In another study, researchers found CG’806 exhibited “broad potency” against leukemias, lymphomas, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).
Both studies were presented as posters at Hematologic Malignancies: Translating Discoveries to Novel Therapies (poster 25 and poster 44).
Both studies involved researchers from Aptose Biosciences, the company developing CG’806.
Poster 25
Weiguo Zhang, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues presented poster 25, “CG’806, a first-in-class FLT3/BTK inhibitor, exerts superior potency against AML cells harboring ITD, TKD and gatekeeper mutated FLT3 or wild-type FLT3.”
The researchers tested CG’806 and other FLT3 inhibitors in human or murine leukemia cell lines with wild-type (WT) FLT3, FLT3-ITD mutations, FLT3 TKD domain mutations, or ITD plus TKD mutations.
Compared to second-generation FLT3 inhibitors (quizartinib, gilteritinib, or crenolanib), CG’806 showed more pronounced anti-proliferative effects in leukemia cells with ITD mutations, D835 mutations, ITD plus F691I/Y842D/D835 mutations, or in FLT3 WT cells.
With CG’086, the IC50s in human AML cell lines were 0.17 nM for MV4-11 (FLT3-ITD) and 0.82 nM for MOLM13 (FLT3-ITD).
The IC50s in the murine leukemia cell lines were 9.49 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-WT), 0.30 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD), 8.26 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-D835Y), 9.72 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+D835Y), and 0.43 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+F691L).
The researchers also found that CG’806 “triggers marked apoptosis” in FLT3-ITD-mutated primary AML samples but minimal apoptosis in normal bone marrow cells.
Another finding was that once-daily oral dosing of CG’806 in a murine model of AML (MV4-11) resulted in sustained micromolar plasma concentration over a 24-hour period.
This was accompanied by complete elimination of AML FLT3-ITD tumors without toxicity, the researchers said.
Poster 44
Stephen E. Kurtz, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and his colleagues presented poster 44, “CG’806, a First-in-Class FLT3/BTK Inhibitor, Exhibits Potent Activity against AML Patient Samples with Mutant or Wild-Type FLT3, as well as Other Hematologic Malignancy Subtypes.”
The researchers tested CG’806 in samples from patients with AML (n=82), MDS/MPNs (n=15), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL, n=17), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, n=58), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML, n=4).
The team observed “broad sensitivity” to CG’806, with 59% (48/82) of AML, 53% (8/15) of MDS/MPN, 40% (23/58) of CLL, 29% (5/17) of ALL, and 25% (1/4) of CML cases exhibiting an IC50 of less than 100 nM.
Among the 38 tested AML samples with known FLT3 mutational status, the FLT3-ITD+ AML samples tended to have enhanced sensitivity to CG’806 (median IC50 = 20 nM, n=8) relative to the FLT3-WT samples (median IC50 = 120 nM, n=30).
The researchers also found that CG’806 exerted potent anti-proliferative activity against human AML, B-ALL, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cell lines.
“The analyses of CG’806 against primary hematologic malignancy patient samples and cultured cell lines show evidence of potent and broad drug activity in AML and other disease subtypes and support further development of this agent for hematologic malignancies,” Dr Kurtz said.
BOSTON—A pair of preclinical studies suggest the FLT3/BTK inhibitor CG’806 is active in a range of hematologic malignancies.
In one of the studies, CG’806 proved particularly effective against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells harboring mutant forms of FLT3, and the compound was able to eradicate AML in mice.
In another study, researchers found CG’806 exhibited “broad potency” against leukemias, lymphomas, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).
Both studies were presented as posters at Hematologic Malignancies: Translating Discoveries to Novel Therapies (poster 25 and poster 44).
Both studies involved researchers from Aptose Biosciences, the company developing CG’806.
Poster 25
Weiguo Zhang, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues presented poster 25, “CG’806, a first-in-class FLT3/BTK inhibitor, exerts superior potency against AML cells harboring ITD, TKD and gatekeeper mutated FLT3 or wild-type FLT3.”
The researchers tested CG’806 and other FLT3 inhibitors in human or murine leukemia cell lines with wild-type (WT) FLT3, FLT3-ITD mutations, FLT3 TKD domain mutations, or ITD plus TKD mutations.
Compared to second-generation FLT3 inhibitors (quizartinib, gilteritinib, or crenolanib), CG’806 showed more pronounced anti-proliferative effects in leukemia cells with ITD mutations, D835 mutations, ITD plus F691I/Y842D/D835 mutations, or in FLT3 WT cells.
With CG’086, the IC50s in human AML cell lines were 0.17 nM for MV4-11 (FLT3-ITD) and 0.82 nM for MOLM13 (FLT3-ITD).
The IC50s in the murine leukemia cell lines were 9.49 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-WT), 0.30 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD), 8.26 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-D835Y), 9.72 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+D835Y), and 0.43 nM for Ba/F3 (FLT3-ITD+F691L).
The researchers also found that CG’806 “triggers marked apoptosis” in FLT3-ITD-mutated primary AML samples but minimal apoptosis in normal bone marrow cells.
Another finding was that once-daily oral dosing of CG’806 in a murine model of AML (MV4-11) resulted in sustained micromolar plasma concentration over a 24-hour period.
This was accompanied by complete elimination of AML FLT3-ITD tumors without toxicity, the researchers said.
Poster 44
Stephen E. Kurtz, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and his colleagues presented poster 44, “CG’806, a First-in-Class FLT3/BTK Inhibitor, Exhibits Potent Activity against AML Patient Samples with Mutant or Wild-Type FLT3, as well as Other Hematologic Malignancy Subtypes.”
The researchers tested CG’806 in samples from patients with AML (n=82), MDS/MPNs (n=15), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL, n=17), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL, n=58), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML, n=4).
The team observed “broad sensitivity” to CG’806, with 59% (48/82) of AML, 53% (8/15) of MDS/MPN, 40% (23/58) of CLL, 29% (5/17) of ALL, and 25% (1/4) of CML cases exhibiting an IC50 of less than 100 nM.
Among the 38 tested AML samples with known FLT3 mutational status, the FLT3-ITD+ AML samples tended to have enhanced sensitivity to CG’806 (median IC50 = 20 nM, n=8) relative to the FLT3-WT samples (median IC50 = 120 nM, n=30).
The researchers also found that CG’806 exerted potent anti-proliferative activity against human AML, B-ALL, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cell lines.
“The analyses of CG’806 against primary hematologic malignancy patient samples and cultured cell lines show evidence of potent and broad drug activity in AML and other disease subtypes and support further development of this agent for hematologic malignancies,” Dr Kurtz said.
IV and SC rituximab produce similar results in FL
In a phase 3 trial, subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) rituximab produced comparable results as part of a first-line treatment regimen for follicular lymphoma (FL).
Overall response rates (ORR) were similar in patients who received SC rituximab and those who received IV rituximab, first in combination with chemotherapy and then alone as maintenance therapy.
Although patients who received SC rituximab had administration-related reactions that weren’t observed in the IV rituximab group, these events were largely mild-to-moderate local injection-site reactions.
Andrew Davies, PhD, of the University of Southampton in the UK, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.
Data from stage 1 of this study, known as SABRINA, were previously published in The Lancet Oncology. The current publication includes stage 2 data.
The study was funded by Roche, which markets rituximab as Rituxan and MabThera.
The trial enrolled 410 patients with previously untreated, grade 1-3a, CD20-positive FL.
Patients were randomized to receive IV rituximab at 375 mg/m2 (n=205) or SC rituximab at 1400 mg (n=205) plus chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy consisted of 6 to 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) every 3 weeks during induction.
Patients then received rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks.
The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms, although there were more females in the SC arm than the IV arm—120 (59%) and 99 (48%), respectively.
Efficacy
In stage 1 of this study, the primary endpoint was the ratio of observed rituximab serum trough concentrations (Ctrough) between the treatment arms at cycle 7.
The results suggested SC rituximab was non-inferior to the IV formulation. The geometric mean Ctrough was 83.13 μg/mL in the IV arm and 134.58 μg/mL in the SC arm (ratio=1.62).
In stage 2, the primary endpoint was efficacy, or ORR, at the end of induction based on the researchers’ assessments and confirmed by an independent review panel of radiologists.
At the end of induction, the ORR was 84.9% (174/205) in the IV arm and 84.4% (173/205) in the SC arm. The complete response rate was 32.2% (n=66) in both arms.
At the end of maintenance therapy, the ORR was 78.1% (139/178) in the IV arm and 77.9% (134/172) in the SC arm. The complete response rates were 56.2% (n=100) and 50.6% (n=87), respectively.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, there was no significant difference between the arms with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio[HR]=0.84), event-free survival (HR=0.91), or overall survival (HR=0.81).
Safety
The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the treatment arms—95% in the IV arm and 96% in the SC arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 55% and 56%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 34% and 37%, respectively.
Overall, the most common AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (60% in the IV arm and 66% in the SC arm), infections and infestations (64% and 67%, respectively), and general or administration site conditions (50% and 60%, respectively).
Administration-related reactions were more common in the SC arm than the IV arm—48% and 35%, respectively. The most common of these reactions were chills (7%) and pruritus (6%) in the IV arm and injection-site erythema (11%), pruritus (6%), rash (5%), and injection-site pain (5%) in the SC arm.
Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or higher AE, occurring in 34% of patients in the IV arm and 37% in the SC arm. Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent serious AE, occurring in 5% and 6%, respectively.
The researchers said these results suggest the SC formulation of rituximab has similar efficacy and a similar safety profile as IV rituximab in the first-line treatment of FL.
In a phase 3 trial, subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) rituximab produced comparable results as part of a first-line treatment regimen for follicular lymphoma (FL).
Overall response rates (ORR) were similar in patients who received SC rituximab and those who received IV rituximab, first in combination with chemotherapy and then alone as maintenance therapy.
Although patients who received SC rituximab had administration-related reactions that weren’t observed in the IV rituximab group, these events were largely mild-to-moderate local injection-site reactions.
Andrew Davies, PhD, of the University of Southampton in the UK, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.
Data from stage 1 of this study, known as SABRINA, were previously published in The Lancet Oncology. The current publication includes stage 2 data.
The study was funded by Roche, which markets rituximab as Rituxan and MabThera.
The trial enrolled 410 patients with previously untreated, grade 1-3a, CD20-positive FL.
Patients were randomized to receive IV rituximab at 375 mg/m2 (n=205) or SC rituximab at 1400 mg (n=205) plus chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy consisted of 6 to 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) every 3 weeks during induction.
Patients then received rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks.
The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms, although there were more females in the SC arm than the IV arm—120 (59%) and 99 (48%), respectively.
Efficacy
In stage 1 of this study, the primary endpoint was the ratio of observed rituximab serum trough concentrations (Ctrough) between the treatment arms at cycle 7.
The results suggested SC rituximab was non-inferior to the IV formulation. The geometric mean Ctrough was 83.13 μg/mL in the IV arm and 134.58 μg/mL in the SC arm (ratio=1.62).
In stage 2, the primary endpoint was efficacy, or ORR, at the end of induction based on the researchers’ assessments and confirmed by an independent review panel of radiologists.
At the end of induction, the ORR was 84.9% (174/205) in the IV arm and 84.4% (173/205) in the SC arm. The complete response rate was 32.2% (n=66) in both arms.
At the end of maintenance therapy, the ORR was 78.1% (139/178) in the IV arm and 77.9% (134/172) in the SC arm. The complete response rates were 56.2% (n=100) and 50.6% (n=87), respectively.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, there was no significant difference between the arms with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio[HR]=0.84), event-free survival (HR=0.91), or overall survival (HR=0.81).
Safety
The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the treatment arms—95% in the IV arm and 96% in the SC arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 55% and 56%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 34% and 37%, respectively.
Overall, the most common AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (60% in the IV arm and 66% in the SC arm), infections and infestations (64% and 67%, respectively), and general or administration site conditions (50% and 60%, respectively).
Administration-related reactions were more common in the SC arm than the IV arm—48% and 35%, respectively. The most common of these reactions were chills (7%) and pruritus (6%) in the IV arm and injection-site erythema (11%), pruritus (6%), rash (5%), and injection-site pain (5%) in the SC arm.
Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or higher AE, occurring in 34% of patients in the IV arm and 37% in the SC arm. Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent serious AE, occurring in 5% and 6%, respectively.
The researchers said these results suggest the SC formulation of rituximab has similar efficacy and a similar safety profile as IV rituximab in the first-line treatment of FL.
In a phase 3 trial, subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) rituximab produced comparable results as part of a first-line treatment regimen for follicular lymphoma (FL).
Overall response rates (ORR) were similar in patients who received SC rituximab and those who received IV rituximab, first in combination with chemotherapy and then alone as maintenance therapy.
Although patients who received SC rituximab had administration-related reactions that weren’t observed in the IV rituximab group, these events were largely mild-to-moderate local injection-site reactions.
Andrew Davies, PhD, of the University of Southampton in the UK, and his colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Haematology.
Data from stage 1 of this study, known as SABRINA, were previously published in The Lancet Oncology. The current publication includes stage 2 data.
The study was funded by Roche, which markets rituximab as Rituxan and MabThera.
The trial enrolled 410 patients with previously untreated, grade 1-3a, CD20-positive FL.
Patients were randomized to receive IV rituximab at 375 mg/m2 (n=205) or SC rituximab at 1400 mg (n=205) plus chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy consisted of 6 to 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) every 3 weeks during induction.
Patients then received rituximab maintenance every 8 weeks.
The researchers said baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms, although there were more females in the SC arm than the IV arm—120 (59%) and 99 (48%), respectively.
Efficacy
In stage 1 of this study, the primary endpoint was the ratio of observed rituximab serum trough concentrations (Ctrough) between the treatment arms at cycle 7.
The results suggested SC rituximab was non-inferior to the IV formulation. The geometric mean Ctrough was 83.13 μg/mL in the IV arm and 134.58 μg/mL in the SC arm (ratio=1.62).
In stage 2, the primary endpoint was efficacy, or ORR, at the end of induction based on the researchers’ assessments and confirmed by an independent review panel of radiologists.
At the end of induction, the ORR was 84.9% (174/205) in the IV arm and 84.4% (173/205) in the SC arm. The complete response rate was 32.2% (n=66) in both arms.
At the end of maintenance therapy, the ORR was 78.1% (139/178) in the IV arm and 77.9% (134/172) in the SC arm. The complete response rates were 56.2% (n=100) and 50.6% (n=87), respectively.
At a median follow-up of 37 months, there was no significant difference between the arms with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio[HR]=0.84), event-free survival (HR=0.91), or overall survival (HR=0.81).
Safety
The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the treatment arms—95% in the IV arm and 96% in the SC arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 55% and 56%, respectively, and the incidence of serious AEs was 34% and 37%, respectively.
Overall, the most common AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (60% in the IV arm and 66% in the SC arm), infections and infestations (64% and 67%, respectively), and general or administration site conditions (50% and 60%, respectively).
Administration-related reactions were more common in the SC arm than the IV arm—48% and 35%, respectively. The most common of these reactions were chills (7%) and pruritus (6%) in the IV arm and injection-site erythema (11%), pruritus (6%), rash (5%), and injection-site pain (5%) in the SC arm.
Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or higher AE, occurring in 34% of patients in the IV arm and 37% in the SC arm. Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent serious AE, occurring in 5% and 6%, respectively.
The researchers said these results suggest the SC formulation of rituximab has similar efficacy and a similar safety profile as IV rituximab in the first-line treatment of FL.
EMA recommends orphan status for drug for DLBCL
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that PQR309 receive orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
PQR309, is an oral, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the PI3K/mTOR pathway being developed by PIQUR Therapeutics AG.
PQR309 is currently being investigated in phase 1 and 2 studies in relapsed or refractory lymphoma (NCT02249429), relapsed or refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (NCT02669511), and other malignancies.
Preclinical research of PQR309 in lymphomas was presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 2652).
Researchers tested the drug in 40 cell lines—27 DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma, and 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma.
The researchers reported that PQR309 had “potent antiproliferative activity” in most of the cell lines.
The median IC50 was 166 nM in DLBCL cell lines, 235 nM in mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, and 214 nM in splenic marginal zone lymphoma cell lines.
In addition, PQR309 demonstrated similar activity in activated B-cell like DLBCL and germinal center B-cell like DLBCL.
About orphan designation
Orphan designation provides regulatory and financial incentives for companies to develop and market therapies that treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides a 10-year period of marketing exclusivity if the drug receives regulatory approval. The designation also provides incentives for companies seeking protocol assistance from the EMA during the product development phase and direct access to the centralized authorization procedure.
The EMA adopts an opinion on the granting of orphan drug designation, and that opinion is submitted to the European Commission for a final decision. The European Commission typically makes a decision within 30 days.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that PQR309 receive orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
PQR309, is an oral, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the PI3K/mTOR pathway being developed by PIQUR Therapeutics AG.
PQR309 is currently being investigated in phase 1 and 2 studies in relapsed or refractory lymphoma (NCT02249429), relapsed or refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (NCT02669511), and other malignancies.
Preclinical research of PQR309 in lymphomas was presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 2652).
Researchers tested the drug in 40 cell lines—27 DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma, and 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma.
The researchers reported that PQR309 had “potent antiproliferative activity” in most of the cell lines.
The median IC50 was 166 nM in DLBCL cell lines, 235 nM in mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, and 214 nM in splenic marginal zone lymphoma cell lines.
In addition, PQR309 demonstrated similar activity in activated B-cell like DLBCL and germinal center B-cell like DLBCL.
About orphan designation
Orphan designation provides regulatory and financial incentives for companies to develop and market therapies that treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides a 10-year period of marketing exclusivity if the drug receives regulatory approval. The designation also provides incentives for companies seeking protocol assistance from the EMA during the product development phase and direct access to the centralized authorization procedure.
The EMA adopts an opinion on the granting of orphan drug designation, and that opinion is submitted to the European Commission for a final decision. The European Commission typically makes a decision within 30 days.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that PQR309 receive orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
PQR309, is an oral, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the PI3K/mTOR pathway being developed by PIQUR Therapeutics AG.
PQR309 is currently being investigated in phase 1 and 2 studies in relapsed or refractory lymphoma (NCT02249429), relapsed or refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (NCT02669511), and other malignancies.
Preclinical research of PQR309 in lymphomas was presented at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 2652).
Researchers tested the drug in 40 cell lines—27 DLBCL, 10 mantle cell lymphoma, and 3 splenic marginal zone lymphoma.
The researchers reported that PQR309 had “potent antiproliferative activity” in most of the cell lines.
The median IC50 was 166 nM in DLBCL cell lines, 235 nM in mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, and 214 nM in splenic marginal zone lymphoma cell lines.
In addition, PQR309 demonstrated similar activity in activated B-cell like DLBCL and germinal center B-cell like DLBCL.
About orphan designation
Orphan designation provides regulatory and financial incentives for companies to develop and market therapies that treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides a 10-year period of marketing exclusivity if the drug receives regulatory approval. The designation also provides incentives for companies seeking protocol assistance from the EMA during the product development phase and direct access to the centralized authorization procedure.
The EMA adopts an opinion on the granting of orphan drug designation, and that opinion is submitted to the European Commission for a final decision. The European Commission typically makes a decision within 30 days.
Program allows select Europeans access to belinostat
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing [email protected].
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing [email protected].
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing [email protected].
Drug receives fast track designation for follicular lymphoma
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast track designation to the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat as a treatment for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, with or without EZH2-activating mutations.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of products intended to treat or prevent serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need.
Through the fast track program, a product may be eligible for priority review.
In addition, the company developing the product may be allowed to submit sections of the new drug application or biologic license application on a rolling basis as data become available.
Fast track designation also provides the company with opportunities for more frequent meetings and written communications with the FDA.
Tazemetostat also has fast track designation from the FDA as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with EZH2-activating mutations.
Tazemetostat is under investigation as monotherapy and in combination with other agents as a treatment for multiple cancers.
Results from a phase 1 study suggested tazemetostat can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and DLBCL. The study was presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
Tazemetostat is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial of adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL or follicular lymphoma.
Interim efficacy and safety data from this study are scheduled to be presented at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland, on June 14, 2017, at 2:00 pm CET.
Tazemetostat is being developed by Epizyme, Inc.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast track designation to the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat as a treatment for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, with or without EZH2-activating mutations.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of products intended to treat or prevent serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need.
Through the fast track program, a product may be eligible for priority review.
In addition, the company developing the product may be allowed to submit sections of the new drug application or biologic license application on a rolling basis as data become available.
Fast track designation also provides the company with opportunities for more frequent meetings and written communications with the FDA.
Tazemetostat also has fast track designation from the FDA as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with EZH2-activating mutations.
Tazemetostat is under investigation as monotherapy and in combination with other agents as a treatment for multiple cancers.
Results from a phase 1 study suggested tazemetostat can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and DLBCL. The study was presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
Tazemetostat is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial of adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL or follicular lymphoma.
Interim efficacy and safety data from this study are scheduled to be presented at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland, on June 14, 2017, at 2:00 pm CET.
Tazemetostat is being developed by Epizyme, Inc.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast track designation to the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat as a treatment for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, with or without EZH2-activating mutations.
The FDA’s fast track program is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of products intended to treat or prevent serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical need.
Through the fast track program, a product may be eligible for priority review.
In addition, the company developing the product may be allowed to submit sections of the new drug application or biologic license application on a rolling basis as data become available.
Fast track designation also provides the company with opportunities for more frequent meetings and written communications with the FDA.
Tazemetostat also has fast track designation from the FDA as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with EZH2-activating mutations.
Tazemetostat is under investigation as monotherapy and in combination with other agents as a treatment for multiple cancers.
Results from a phase 1 study suggested tazemetostat can produce durable responses in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and DLBCL. The study was presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
Tazemetostat is currently under investigation in a phase 2 trial of adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL or follicular lymphoma.
Interim efficacy and safety data from this study are scheduled to be presented at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland, on June 14, 2017, at 2:00 pm CET.
Tazemetostat is being developed by Epizyme, Inc.
CHMP recommends approval for rituximab biosimilar
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for a biosimilar rituximab product called Rixathon.
The recommended authorization for Rixathon encompasses all the same indications as the reference medicine, MabThera, which includes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).
The CHMP’s recommendation for Rixathon has been forwarded to the European Commission, which normally decides whether it will grant marketing authorization for a product within 67 days from the time the CHMP adopts its opinion.
The active substance of Rixathon is rituximab, a monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the transmembrane protein CD20, which is found on both malignant and normal B cells.
In NHL and CLL, this promotes destruction of malignant B cells and controls tumor growth. In RA, GPA, and MPA, it reduces B cells involved in their pathogenesis.
The reference product for Rixathon is Mabthera, which was authorized for use in the European Union in June 1998.
The CHMP says studies have shown Rixathon to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Mabthera.1, 2, 3
The applicant for Rixathon is Sandoz GmbH.
If authorized by the European Commission, Rixathon will be available for the following indications.
NHL
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat previously untreated patients with stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (FL).
Rixathon maintenance therapy is indicated for the treatment of FL patients responding to induction therapy.
Rixathon monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with stage III-IV FL who are chemo-resistant or are in their second or subsequent relapse after chemotherapy.
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) for the treatment of patients with CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
CLL
Rixathon in combination with chemotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory CLL.
The CHMP noted that limited efficacy and safety data are available for patients previously treated with monoclonal antibodies, including rituximab, or patients who are refractory to previous rituximab plus chemotherapy.
RA, GPA, and MPA
Rixathon in combination with methotrexate is indicated for the treatment of adults with severe, active RA who have had an inadequate response to or cannot tolerate other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies.
Rixathon in combination with glucocorticoids is indicated for the induction of remission in adults with severe, active GPA or MPA.
1. Visser J et al. Physicochemical and Functional Comparability Between the Proposed Biosimilar Rituximab GP2013 and Originator Rituximab. BioDrugs. 2013;27:495-507.
2. Da Silva A et al. Target-directed development and preclinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:1609-1617.
3. Jurczak W et al. A Phase III Efficacy and Safety Study of the Proposed Rituximab Biosimilar GP2013 Versus Rituximab in Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Follicular Lymphoma. ASH Annual Meeting 2016.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for a biosimilar rituximab product called Rixathon.
The recommended authorization for Rixathon encompasses all the same indications as the reference medicine, MabThera, which includes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).
The CHMP’s recommendation for Rixathon has been forwarded to the European Commission, which normally decides whether it will grant marketing authorization for a product within 67 days from the time the CHMP adopts its opinion.
The active substance of Rixathon is rituximab, a monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the transmembrane protein CD20, which is found on both malignant and normal B cells.
In NHL and CLL, this promotes destruction of malignant B cells and controls tumor growth. In RA, GPA, and MPA, it reduces B cells involved in their pathogenesis.
The reference product for Rixathon is Mabthera, which was authorized for use in the European Union in June 1998.
The CHMP says studies have shown Rixathon to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Mabthera.1, 2, 3
The applicant for Rixathon is Sandoz GmbH.
If authorized by the European Commission, Rixathon will be available for the following indications.
NHL
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat previously untreated patients with stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (FL).
Rixathon maintenance therapy is indicated for the treatment of FL patients responding to induction therapy.
Rixathon monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with stage III-IV FL who are chemo-resistant or are in their second or subsequent relapse after chemotherapy.
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) for the treatment of patients with CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
CLL
Rixathon in combination with chemotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory CLL.
The CHMP noted that limited efficacy and safety data are available for patients previously treated with monoclonal antibodies, including rituximab, or patients who are refractory to previous rituximab plus chemotherapy.
RA, GPA, and MPA
Rixathon in combination with methotrexate is indicated for the treatment of adults with severe, active RA who have had an inadequate response to or cannot tolerate other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies.
Rixathon in combination with glucocorticoids is indicated for the induction of remission in adults with severe, active GPA or MPA.
1. Visser J et al. Physicochemical and Functional Comparability Between the Proposed Biosimilar Rituximab GP2013 and Originator Rituximab. BioDrugs. 2013;27:495-507.
2. Da Silva A et al. Target-directed development and preclinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:1609-1617.
3. Jurczak W et al. A Phase III Efficacy and Safety Study of the Proposed Rituximab Biosimilar GP2013 Versus Rituximab in Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Follicular Lymphoma. ASH Annual Meeting 2016.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended marketing authorization for a biosimilar rituximab product called Rixathon.
The recommended authorization for Rixathon encompasses all the same indications as the reference medicine, MabThera, which includes non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).
The CHMP’s recommendation for Rixathon has been forwarded to the European Commission, which normally decides whether it will grant marketing authorization for a product within 67 days from the time the CHMP adopts its opinion.
The active substance of Rixathon is rituximab, a monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the transmembrane protein CD20, which is found on both malignant and normal B cells.
In NHL and CLL, this promotes destruction of malignant B cells and controls tumor growth. In RA, GPA, and MPA, it reduces B cells involved in their pathogenesis.
The reference product for Rixathon is Mabthera, which was authorized for use in the European Union in June 1998.
The CHMP says studies have shown Rixathon to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Mabthera.1, 2, 3
The applicant for Rixathon is Sandoz GmbH.
If authorized by the European Commission, Rixathon will be available for the following indications.
NHL
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat previously untreated patients with stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (FL).
Rixathon maintenance therapy is indicated for the treatment of FL patients responding to induction therapy.
Rixathon monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with stage III-IV FL who are chemo-resistant or are in their second or subsequent relapse after chemotherapy.
Rixathon is indicated for use in combination with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) for the treatment of patients with CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
CLL
Rixathon in combination with chemotherapy is indicated for the treatment of patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory CLL.
The CHMP noted that limited efficacy and safety data are available for patients previously treated with monoclonal antibodies, including rituximab, or patients who are refractory to previous rituximab plus chemotherapy.
RA, GPA, and MPA
Rixathon in combination with methotrexate is indicated for the treatment of adults with severe, active RA who have had an inadequate response to or cannot tolerate other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies.
Rixathon in combination with glucocorticoids is indicated for the induction of remission in adults with severe, active GPA or MPA.
1. Visser J et al. Physicochemical and Functional Comparability Between the Proposed Biosimilar Rituximab GP2013 and Originator Rituximab. BioDrugs. 2013;27:495-507.
2. Da Silva A et al. Target-directed development and preclinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar rituximab GP2013. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:1609-1617.
3. Jurczak W et al. A Phase III Efficacy and Safety Study of the Proposed Rituximab Biosimilar GP2013 Versus Rituximab in Patients with Previously Untreated Advanced Follicular Lymphoma. ASH Annual Meeting 2016.
Second cancers take greater toll on younger patients
Second cancers take a greater toll on patients under the age of 40, according to research published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers studied 14 types of cancer occurring in more than 1 million patients.
For nearly all of the cancers studied, 5-year survival rates were much higher if the cancer occurred as a first malignancy rather than a second cancer.
These survival differences were more pronounced in pediatric patients and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) than they were in patients age 40 and older.
Researchers hope these findings will help guide clinicians in providing age-specific recommendations on cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship, especially among the AYA population.
“Although the increased incidence of second cancers is well known among cancer survivors, less is known about outcomes of these cancers or the influence of age,” said Theresa Keegan, PhD, of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento, California.
With this in mind, Dr Keegan and her colleagues analyzed data on patients diagnosed with either a single cancer or a first and second malignancy during 1992 through 2008. The researchers used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program data collected from 13 cancer registries.
The team collected data on the 14 most common cancer types that affect AYAs: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, as well as female breast, thyroid, testicular, colorectal, central nervous system, cervical, and ovarian cancers.
There were a total of 15,954 pediatric patients (younger than 15 years at diagnosis), 125,750 AYAs (ages 15 to 39), and 878,370 older adult patients (age 40 and older).
Survival rates
For pediatric patients, the 5-year relative survival was 80% for a first cancer and 47% for a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 81% for a first cancer and 60% for a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 70% for a first cancer and 61% for a second primary malignancy.
When the researchers looked at 5-year survival by age and individual cancer types, they found striking differences depending on whether it was a first or second malignancy in all but 2 of the 14 cancer types, testicular cancer and melanoma.
“For almost every type of cancer, the AYA population did worse with a secondary cancer,” said study author Melanie Goldfarb, MD, of John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California.
“What struck us was that the second cancer caused such an increased risk of death.”
Lymphomas
For pediatric patients with HL, the 5-year relative survival was 95% when patients had HL as a first cancer. There were no data on HL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 93% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 72% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 69% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 54% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with NHL, the 5-year relative survival was 84% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 63% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 64% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 22% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 54% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
Leukemias
For pediatric patients with ALL, the 5-year relative survival was 87% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 63% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 48% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 26% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 17% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 11% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with AML, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 29% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 46% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 23% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 12% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 10% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
Why younger patients tend to fare worse after a second cancer than older patients is not fully understood or specifically addressed in the current study, the researchers noted.
Now, the team plans to examine how the time between getting a first and second cancer affects survival and whether the type of treatment for the first cancer influences the outcome of a second cancer.
Second cancers take a greater toll on patients under the age of 40, according to research published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers studied 14 types of cancer occurring in more than 1 million patients.
For nearly all of the cancers studied, 5-year survival rates were much higher if the cancer occurred as a first malignancy rather than a second cancer.
These survival differences were more pronounced in pediatric patients and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) than they were in patients age 40 and older.
Researchers hope these findings will help guide clinicians in providing age-specific recommendations on cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship, especially among the AYA population.
“Although the increased incidence of second cancers is well known among cancer survivors, less is known about outcomes of these cancers or the influence of age,” said Theresa Keegan, PhD, of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento, California.
With this in mind, Dr Keegan and her colleagues analyzed data on patients diagnosed with either a single cancer or a first and second malignancy during 1992 through 2008. The researchers used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program data collected from 13 cancer registries.
The team collected data on the 14 most common cancer types that affect AYAs: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, as well as female breast, thyroid, testicular, colorectal, central nervous system, cervical, and ovarian cancers.
There were a total of 15,954 pediatric patients (younger than 15 years at diagnosis), 125,750 AYAs (ages 15 to 39), and 878,370 older adult patients (age 40 and older).
Survival rates
For pediatric patients, the 5-year relative survival was 80% for a first cancer and 47% for a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 81% for a first cancer and 60% for a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 70% for a first cancer and 61% for a second primary malignancy.
When the researchers looked at 5-year survival by age and individual cancer types, they found striking differences depending on whether it was a first or second malignancy in all but 2 of the 14 cancer types, testicular cancer and melanoma.
“For almost every type of cancer, the AYA population did worse with a secondary cancer,” said study author Melanie Goldfarb, MD, of John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California.
“What struck us was that the second cancer caused such an increased risk of death.”
Lymphomas
For pediatric patients with HL, the 5-year relative survival was 95% when patients had HL as a first cancer. There were no data on HL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 93% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 72% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 69% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 54% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with NHL, the 5-year relative survival was 84% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 63% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 64% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 22% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 54% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
Leukemias
For pediatric patients with ALL, the 5-year relative survival was 87% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 63% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 48% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 26% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 17% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 11% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with AML, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 29% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 46% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 23% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 12% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 10% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
Why younger patients tend to fare worse after a second cancer than older patients is not fully understood or specifically addressed in the current study, the researchers noted.
Now, the team plans to examine how the time between getting a first and second cancer affects survival and whether the type of treatment for the first cancer influences the outcome of a second cancer.
Second cancers take a greater toll on patients under the age of 40, according to research published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers studied 14 types of cancer occurring in more than 1 million patients.
For nearly all of the cancers studied, 5-year survival rates were much higher if the cancer occurred as a first malignancy rather than a second cancer.
These survival differences were more pronounced in pediatric patients and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) than they were in patients age 40 and older.
Researchers hope these findings will help guide clinicians in providing age-specific recommendations on cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship, especially among the AYA population.
“Although the increased incidence of second cancers is well known among cancer survivors, less is known about outcomes of these cancers or the influence of age,” said Theresa Keegan, PhD, of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento, California.
With this in mind, Dr Keegan and her colleagues analyzed data on patients diagnosed with either a single cancer or a first and second malignancy during 1992 through 2008. The researchers used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program data collected from 13 cancer registries.
The team collected data on the 14 most common cancer types that affect AYAs: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, as well as female breast, thyroid, testicular, colorectal, central nervous system, cervical, and ovarian cancers.
There were a total of 15,954 pediatric patients (younger than 15 years at diagnosis), 125,750 AYAs (ages 15 to 39), and 878,370 older adult patients (age 40 and older).
Survival rates
For pediatric patients, the 5-year relative survival was 80% for a first cancer and 47% for a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 81% for a first cancer and 60% for a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 70% for a first cancer and 61% for a second primary malignancy.
When the researchers looked at 5-year survival by age and individual cancer types, they found striking differences depending on whether it was a first or second malignancy in all but 2 of the 14 cancer types, testicular cancer and melanoma.
“For almost every type of cancer, the AYA population did worse with a secondary cancer,” said study author Melanie Goldfarb, MD, of John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California.
“What struck us was that the second cancer caused such an increased risk of death.”
Lymphomas
For pediatric patients with HL, the 5-year relative survival was 95% when patients had HL as a first cancer. There were no data on HL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 93% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 72% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 69% when patients had HL as a first cancer and 54% when they had HL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with NHL, the 5-year relative survival was 84% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 63% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 64% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 22% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had NHL as a first cancer and 54% when they had NHL as a second primary malignancy.
Leukemias
For pediatric patients with ALL, the 5-year relative survival was 87% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 63% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 48% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 26% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 17% when patients had ALL as a first cancer and 11% when they had ALL as a second primary malignancy.
For pediatric patients with AML, the 5-year relative survival was 57% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 29% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For AYAs, the 5-year relative survival was 46% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 23% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
For older adults, the 5-year relative survival was 12% when patients had AML as a first cancer and 10% when they had AML as a second primary malignancy.
Why younger patients tend to fare worse after a second cancer than older patients is not fully understood or specifically addressed in the current study, the researchers noted.
Now, the team plans to examine how the time between getting a first and second cancer affects survival and whether the type of treatment for the first cancer influences the outcome of a second cancer.
CAR T-cell therapy receives breakthrough designation
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted another breakthrough therapy designation to CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel-T), an investigational chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
CTL019 now has breakthrough designation as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have failed 2 or more prior therapies.
The FDA previously granted CTL019 breakthrough designation as a treatment for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in pediatric and young adult patients.
Breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new medicines that treat serious or life-threatening conditions, if those medicines have demonstrated substantial improvement over available therapies.
The breakthrough designation for CTL019 in DLBCL is based on data from the phase 2 JULIET trial (NCT02445248), in which researchers are evaluating the efficacy and safety of CTL019 in adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.
Findings from JULIET are expected to be presented at an upcoming medical meeting.
About CTL019
CTL019 consists of autologous T cells expressing a CD19-specific CAR. The therapy was first developed by the University of Pennsylvania.
In 2012, the university and Novartis entered into a global collaboration to further research, develop, and commercialize CAR-T cell therapies, including CTL019. Novartis holds the worldwide rights to CARs developed through the collaboration.
According to Novartis, regulatory submissions for CTL019 in the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL are expected to be filed by the end of the year.
The company has already filed a biologics license application with the FDA for CTL019 as a treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL. The FDA granted that application priority review.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted another breakthrough therapy designation to CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel-T), an investigational chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
CTL019 now has breakthrough designation as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have failed 2 or more prior therapies.
The FDA previously granted CTL019 breakthrough designation as a treatment for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in pediatric and young adult patients.
Breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new medicines that treat serious or life-threatening conditions, if those medicines have demonstrated substantial improvement over available therapies.
The breakthrough designation for CTL019 in DLBCL is based on data from the phase 2 JULIET trial (NCT02445248), in which researchers are evaluating the efficacy and safety of CTL019 in adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.
Findings from JULIET are expected to be presented at an upcoming medical meeting.
About CTL019
CTL019 consists of autologous T cells expressing a CD19-specific CAR. The therapy was first developed by the University of Pennsylvania.
In 2012, the university and Novartis entered into a global collaboration to further research, develop, and commercialize CAR-T cell therapies, including CTL019. Novartis holds the worldwide rights to CARs developed through the collaboration.
According to Novartis, regulatory submissions for CTL019 in the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL are expected to be filed by the end of the year.
The company has already filed a biologics license application with the FDA for CTL019 as a treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL. The FDA granted that application priority review.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted another breakthrough therapy designation to CTL019 (tisagenlecleucel-T), an investigational chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.
CTL019 now has breakthrough designation as a treatment for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who have failed 2 or more prior therapies.
The FDA previously granted CTL019 breakthrough designation as a treatment for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in pediatric and young adult patients.
Breakthrough designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new medicines that treat serious or life-threatening conditions, if those medicines have demonstrated substantial improvement over available therapies.
The breakthrough designation for CTL019 in DLBCL is based on data from the phase 2 JULIET trial (NCT02445248), in which researchers are evaluating the efficacy and safety of CTL019 in adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.
Findings from JULIET are expected to be presented at an upcoming medical meeting.
About CTL019
CTL019 consists of autologous T cells expressing a CD19-specific CAR. The therapy was first developed by the University of Pennsylvania.
In 2012, the university and Novartis entered into a global collaboration to further research, develop, and commercialize CAR-T cell therapies, including CTL019. Novartis holds the worldwide rights to CARs developed through the collaboration.
According to Novartis, regulatory submissions for CTL019 in the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL are expected to be filed by the end of the year.
The company has already filed a biologics license application with the FDA for CTL019 as a treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL. The FDA granted that application priority review.
Inhibitor exhibits activity against hematologic malignancies
A dual kinase inhibitor is active against a range of hematologic malignancies, according to preclinical research.
Investigators found that ASN002, a SYK/JAK inhibitor, exhibited “potent” antiproliferative activity in leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma cell lines.
ASN002 also inhibited tumor growth in mouse models of these malignancies and proved active against ibrutinib-resistant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The investigators presented these results at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 4204).
The work was conducted by employees of Asana BioSciences, the company developing ASN002.
The investigators tested ASN002 in 178 cell lines and found the drug exhibited “strong antiproliferative activity” in a range of hematologic cancer cell lines, including:
- Leukemia—HEL31, HL60, Jurkat, MOLM-13, and MOLM-16
- Lymphoma—KARPAS-299, OCI-LY10, OCI-LY-19, Pfeiffer, Raji, Ramos, SU-DHL-1, SU-DHL-6, and SU-DHL-10
- Myeloma—H929, JJN3, OPM2, and U266.
In addition, ASN002 was active against ibrutinib-resistant clones derived from the DLBCL cell line SU-DHL-6.
In a SU-DHL-6 xenograft model, the combination of ASN002 and ibrutinib was more effective than either compound alone.
The investigators also found that ASN002 alone demonstrated “strong tumor growth inhibition” in mouse models of DLBCL (Pfeiffer and SU-DHL-6), myeloma (H929), and erythroleukemia (HEL).
The team pointed out that ASN002 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma) as well as solid tumors.
The investigators said that, to date, ASN002 has been well tolerated and has shown encouraging early evidence of clinical activity and symptomatic benefit in the lymphoma patients.
A dual kinase inhibitor is active against a range of hematologic malignancies, according to preclinical research.
Investigators found that ASN002, a SYK/JAK inhibitor, exhibited “potent” antiproliferative activity in leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma cell lines.
ASN002 also inhibited tumor growth in mouse models of these malignancies and proved active against ibrutinib-resistant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The investigators presented these results at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 4204).
The work was conducted by employees of Asana BioSciences, the company developing ASN002.
The investigators tested ASN002 in 178 cell lines and found the drug exhibited “strong antiproliferative activity” in a range of hematologic cancer cell lines, including:
- Leukemia—HEL31, HL60, Jurkat, MOLM-13, and MOLM-16
- Lymphoma—KARPAS-299, OCI-LY10, OCI-LY-19, Pfeiffer, Raji, Ramos, SU-DHL-1, SU-DHL-6, and SU-DHL-10
- Myeloma—H929, JJN3, OPM2, and U266.
In addition, ASN002 was active against ibrutinib-resistant clones derived from the DLBCL cell line SU-DHL-6.
In a SU-DHL-6 xenograft model, the combination of ASN002 and ibrutinib was more effective than either compound alone.
The investigators also found that ASN002 alone demonstrated “strong tumor growth inhibition” in mouse models of DLBCL (Pfeiffer and SU-DHL-6), myeloma (H929), and erythroleukemia (HEL).
The team pointed out that ASN002 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma) as well as solid tumors.
The investigators said that, to date, ASN002 has been well tolerated and has shown encouraging early evidence of clinical activity and symptomatic benefit in the lymphoma patients.
A dual kinase inhibitor is active against a range of hematologic malignancies, according to preclinical research.
Investigators found that ASN002, a SYK/JAK inhibitor, exhibited “potent” antiproliferative activity in leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma cell lines.
ASN002 also inhibited tumor growth in mouse models of these malignancies and proved active against ibrutinib-resistant diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The investigators presented these results at the AACR Annual Meeting 2017 (abstract 4204).
The work was conducted by employees of Asana BioSciences, the company developing ASN002.
The investigators tested ASN002 in 178 cell lines and found the drug exhibited “strong antiproliferative activity” in a range of hematologic cancer cell lines, including:
- Leukemia—HEL31, HL60, Jurkat, MOLM-13, and MOLM-16
- Lymphoma—KARPAS-299, OCI-LY10, OCI-LY-19, Pfeiffer, Raji, Ramos, SU-DHL-1, SU-DHL-6, and SU-DHL-10
- Myeloma—H929, JJN3, OPM2, and U266.
In addition, ASN002 was active against ibrutinib-resistant clones derived from the DLBCL cell line SU-DHL-6.
In a SU-DHL-6 xenograft model, the combination of ASN002 and ibrutinib was more effective than either compound alone.
The investigators also found that ASN002 alone demonstrated “strong tumor growth inhibition” in mouse models of DLBCL (Pfeiffer and SU-DHL-6), myeloma (H929), and erythroleukemia (HEL).
The team pointed out that ASN002 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma) as well as solid tumors.
The investigators said that, to date, ASN002 has been well tolerated and has shown encouraging early evidence of clinical activity and symptomatic benefit in the lymphoma patients.