PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

Download Full-text

A Phase 1/2 Study of G-CSF, Cladribine, Cytarabine, and Dose-Escalated Mitoxantrone (G-CLAM) in Adults with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1068.1068 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1068-1068 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anna B. Halpern ◽

Megan Othus ◽

Emily M Huebner ◽

Kaysey F. Orlowski ◽

Bart L. Scott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Chemotherapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Dose Levels

Abstract Introduction:"7+3" with standard doses of cytarabine and an anthracycline has remained the mainstay of induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Since some studies have shown improved outcomes with high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, or escalated doses of anthracyclines, we conducted a phase 1/2 study (NCT02044796) of G-CLAM using escalated doses of mitoxantrone for newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS (>10% blasts). Methods: Patients≥18 years were eligible if they had treatment-related mortality (TRM) scores of ≤6.9 (corresponding to a predicted risk of early death with standard induction chemotherapy of ≤6.9%) and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, bilirubin ≤2.5 times upper limit of normal). Excluded were patients with uncontrolled infection or concomitant illness with expected survival <1 year. In phase 1, cohorts of 6-12 patients were assigned to 1 of 4 total dose levels of mitoxantrone (12, 14, 16, or 18 mg/m2/day, days 1-3, compared to 10 mg/m2/day used in standard dose G-CLAM previously established in relapsed/refractory AML). Other drug doses were G-CSF 300 or 480 μg/day (for weight </≥76 kg; days 0-5), cladribine 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), and cytarabine 2 g/m2/day (days 1-5). In phase 2, patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of mitoxantrone. A second identical course of G-CLAM was given if complete remission (CR) was not achieved with cycle 1. Up to 4 cycles of consolidation with G-CLA (mitoxantrone omitted) were allowed if CR or CR with incomplete platelet or blood count recovery (CRp/i) was achieved with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were: 1) grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity lasting >48 hours that resulted in >7-day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle; 2) grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days, both excluding febrile neutropenia, infection or constitutional symptoms. Results: Among 33 patients (median age of 57.3 [range: 26-77], median TRM score 2.31 [0.16-5.90]) treated in phase 1, one DLT occurred at dose levels 3 and 4 (respiratory failure in both cases), establishing G-CLAM with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2/day as the MTD. Sixty-two patients, including 6 treated in phase 1, received G-CLAM at MTD. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age 58 (21-81) years, median TRM score 2.85 (0.06-6.73), with AML (n=52) or high-risk MDS (n=10). Cytogenetics were favorable in 6, intermediate in 44, and adverse in 12 (MRC criteria); 11 patients had NPM1 and 6 had FLT3 mutations. Fifty-two patients (83.9%, 95% confidence interval: 72.3-92.0%) achieved a CR (n=48 [77.4%: 65.0-87.1%]), or CRp/i (n=4 [6.5%: 1.8-15.7%]) with 1-2 cycles of therapy. Only 3 patients required 2 cycles to best response. Among the 48 CR patients, 43 (89.6%) were negative for measurable residual disease (MRDneg) by flow cytometry. Four patients had morphologic leukemia free state, 1 patient with myeloid sarcoma had a partial remission, 4 had resistant disease, and 1 died from indeterminate cause. One patient died within 28 days of treatment initiation (septic shock). Median times to an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/μL and a platelet count of ≥50,000/μL were 26 and 23 days. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, maculopapular rash, and hypoxia (fluid overload/infection-related) were the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. In addition to the phase 1/2 MTD cohort, there were 15 patients treated in an expansion cohort and 3 eligible patients treated off protocol with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2. For these 80 patients combined treated at MTD, the CR and CR/CRp/i rates were 76.3% and 81.2%. After multivariable adjustment, compared to 300 patients treated with 7+3 on the SWOG S0106 trial, G-CLAM with mitoxantrone 18mg/ m2 was associated with an increased probability of CR (odds ratio [OR]= 3.08, p=.02), CR/CRp/i (OR=2.96, p=.03), a trend towards improved MRDnegCR (OR= 3.70, p=.06), and a trend towards improved overall survival ([OS]; hazard ratio=0.34, p=.07). For the entire study cohort, the 6 and 12-month relapse-free survival were 73% (64-83%) and 62% (42-74%) and the 6 and 12-month OS were 89% (82- 96%) and 77% (67-88%). Conclusions: G-CLAM with mitoxantrone up to 18 mg/m2/day is well tolerated and has potent anti-leukemia activity. This regimen may warrant further randomized comparison with 7+3. We also plan to examine the addition of sorafenib to G-CLAM in newly diagnosed AML patients regardless of FLT3 status. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Phase I/II Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Lenalidomide/Bortezomib/Dexamethasone (RVD) and Panobinostat in Transplant-Eligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.187.187 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 187-187 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Lei Feng ◽

Elisabet E. Manasanch ◽

Donna Weber ◽

Sheeba K Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Depth Of Response ◽

High Risk Disease ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Induction therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) continues to improve with the use of multi-drug combination regimens. Panobinostat (pano), a deacetylase inhibitor, was recently approved in combination with bortezomib/dexamethasone for relapsed myeloma based on the phase III PANORMA I trial for RRMM. The addition of pano in PANORAMA demonstrated a near doubling in CR rate from 15 to 27%. We previously reported phase I trial data of RVD + pano in newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) and demonstrated the pano can be safely combined with RVD. Based on the encouraging preliminary data we pursued a phase II dose expansion to further explore the potential improvement in depth of response with RVD + pano in NDMM. Methods: The primary objective was to determine the safety/tolerability of pano and RVD in NDMM. Secondary objectives were to determine efficacy as measured by the CR/nCR rate after 4 cycles, ORR, tolerability/toxicity, and progression free survival. Patients had to have NDMM with indication for therapy and be eligible for ASCT with adequate organ function. Panobinostat 10 mg was administered on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-14; dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on a 21 day cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4 and responses were assessed by the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: 42 patients (pts) were enrolled; 12 in the dose escalation and 30 in the dose expansion. The median age was 60 (range 44-79); male (n=30); ISS stage I (n=28); ISS stage II (n=10); ISS stage III (n=4); 14/42 pts had high risk myeloma (1 pt with t(4:14) and del17p; 1 pt with del 17p and 1q21; and 12 pts with only 1q21 amplification). Among 42 pts, 2 completed only 1-2 cycles and 1 pt was inevaluable for response. Among the 39 pts who completed 4 cycles and were evaluable for efficacy the ORR (≥PR) after 4 cycles was 93% (36/39) including nCR/CR in 17/39 (44%), VGPR in 10/39 (26%), PR in 9/39 (23%), and SD in 3/39 (8%) pts. In 12 of 14 pts with high risk disease, who were evaluable for response, the ORR was 100% (12/12); the nCR/CR in 6/12 pts; VGPR in 4/12 pts; and 2/12 pts achieved a PR. 25/42 (59%) pts completed induction therapy and underwent consolidation with ASCT; 5 pts completed induction therapy, came off study and did not proceed to ASCT. 8 pts choose a delayed transplant approach, completed induction therapy and stem cell collection. 6 of those 8 pts remain on trial with maintenance therapy (len/dex/pano) per protocol. 2 pts, neither with high risk disease, progressed after cycles 10 and 11 with extramedullary disease and plasma cell leukemia/central nervous system involvement, respectively. 4 additional patients have completed 2, 3, and 5 cycles of therapy and are pending ASCT. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events included anemia (5); neutropenia (10); thrombocytopenia (16). Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicities included ALT elevation (1); AST elevation (1); constipation (2); diarrhea (4); dyspnea (2); fatigue/muscle weakness (5); syncope (2); MI (1); nausea (3); peripheral neuropathy (2); rash (1); DVT/VTE (3). Infectious complications included grade 2 (G2) urinary tract infection (2); G2 upper respiratory tract infection (5); pneumonia (5); osteomyelitis/musculoskeletal (3); infection (3). Treatment emergent serious adverse events related to therapy observed were: G3 pneumonia (9); G2 fever (5), G3-4 venous thromboembolic events (2); G3 diarrhea (2); atrial fibrillation (2). Other events included 1 pt each with G3 cellulitis, G3 myocardial infarction (MI), G3 febrile neutropenia, G2 diarrhea, G2 seizure, G3 hypotension and G3 sinusitis. 1 pt had a second primary malignancy - a newly diagnosed breast cancer during cycle 9 of therapy. Conclusions: Panobinostat 10 mg can be safely combined with full dose RVD in NDMM. The side effect profile with use of subcutaneous bortezomib demonstrated minimal gastrointestinal toxicity/diarrhea and was a well-tolerated combination. The combination of RVD+ pano lead to rapid disease control with high response rate after 4 cycles of therapy and ORR of 93% and significant depth of response with a 4 cycle nCR/CR rate of 44%. Enrollment in dose expansion is near completion and full data will be presented at ASH and supports the study of panobinostat in a randomized trial for NDMM. Disclosures Shah: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Orlowski:Genentech: Consultancy; Acetylon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioTheryX, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide, Subcutaneous Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (RVD) Combination Therapy for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Promising Activity and Manageable Toxicity, Including in High Risk Disease

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116280 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1981-1981

Author(s):

Jacob Laubach ◽

Andrew J Yee ◽

Jacalyn Rosenblatt ◽

Jeffrey V Matous ◽

Charles M. Farber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Median Number ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Induction Cycle

Abstract Introduction: Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) are commonly treated with the standard of care combination of lenalidomide (Len), bortezomib (Bz), and dexamethasone (Dex), also known as RVD. A recent randomized phase 3 study found that the addition of Bz to Len and Dex significantly increased median overall and progression free survival as well as response rate (Durie et al. Lancet 2017). Mild to moderate peripheral neuropathy (PN) is commonly reported with Bz use, although lower rates of PN have been reported with subcutaneous (SC) administration of single agent Bz compared with IV Bz (Moreau et al. Lancet Oncol 2011). Here we present preliminary results of a multi-center, open-label, single arm phase II trial of Len, SC Bz, and Dex in pts with newly diagnosed MM. Maintenance was risk-stratified, with high risk patients (defined as those with high risk cytogenetics (del17p, t(4:14), t(14;16)) or ISS stage II or III) receiving Bz in addition to Len. Primary endpoints included 1) overall response rate (ORR) after 4 induction cycles, 2) best response to induction therapy, and 3) rate and severity of PN during induction therapy. Methods: Patients enrolled in this study were newly diagnosed with active MM as defined by the revised IMWG criteria (Rajkumar et al. Lancet Oncol 2014). Protocol specified induction treatment consisted of 21-day cycles with Len 25 mg on days 1-14, SQ Bz 1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, and 11, and Dex 20 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Stem cell mobilization followed induction cycle 4 and patients subsequently proceeded to either high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or 4 additional cycles of induction therapy based on patient preference with provider input. Following ASCT or completion of the 8th induction cycle pts proceeded to risk-stratified maintenance therapy. Maintenance consisted of 28-day cycles of therapy with Len on days 1-21 for all patients, while those pts defined as high-risk also received SC bortezomib Bz on days 1 and 15. Patients remained on maintenance therapy until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from protocol-directed treatment. Response was based on the IMWG uniform criteria (Rajkumar et al. Lancet Oncol 2011) and toxicities were graded based on the NCI-CTCAE V4. Correlative samples of blood and bone marrow for genomics and proteomics were collected from baseline and then throughout the study, and are currently being analyzed. Results: Forty-five pts were enrolled across 8 US sites between December 2015 and June 2017. Median age at enrollment was 61 years (range: 43 to 79) and 60% of the patients were male, 40% female. FISH cytogenetics found del 17p in 8% of pts tested, t(14;16) in 9%, and t(4;14) in 14%. At baseline, 60% of pts were ISS II/III. High risk pts comprised 62% of the study population overall. 80% of pts (36/45) collected stem cells and 31% of pts (14/45) continued to ASCT. The median number of CD34+ stem cells collected was 9.67 x 10^6. The median number of induction cycles completed was 8 (1 to 8 cycles) and 43 of 45 pts were evaluable for the primary endpoint of response after 4 induction cycles, with preliminary results indicating an ORR of 91% (39/43). Three pts did not reach the end of cycle 4 and 1 patient had stable disease. ORR at any point up to the beginning of maintenance was 98% (42/43). Any grade PN was reported by 80% of patients, including 38% with grade 1 and 36% with grade 2 PN. There were two cases of Grade 3 PN and one case of Grade 4 PN. Among the three patients with Grade ≥ 3 PN, symptoms improved to Grade ≤ 2 with dose reduction, modification of treatment schedule, or discontinuation of Bz. Importantly, given the higher than expected rate of all and high-grade PN, hydration with IV normal saline 500-1000 ccs prior to Bz administration as part of supportive care in selected patients was instituted and a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of this intervention on PN is in process. Conclusions: The combination of RVD with SC Bz is a highly effective treatment regimen for patients with newly diagnosed MM, including high risk pts. However, rates of all- and high-grade PN were greater than expected despite the use of SC Bz. Prompt dose reduction and/or change in schedule of Bz administration to weekly administration is recommended, with careful attention to supportive care in order to further improve tolerability. Disclosures Rosenblatt: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Farber:Charles M. Farber, MD, PhD, LLC-Medical legal consulting: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; ummit Medical Group-MD Anderson Cancer Center: Employment; BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding. Ghobrial:Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Richardson:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Dasatinib Versus Imatinib In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP) In the DASISION Trial: 18-Month Follow-up

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.206.206 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 206-206 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Neil Shah ◽

Hagop Kantarjian ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

M. Brigid Bradley-Garelik ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Initial Treatment ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Analysis ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Once Daily ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 206 Background: Dasatinib is 325-fold more potent than imatinib in vitro against unmutated BCR-ABL, and is an established second-line treatment for patients (pts) with CML-CP who are resistant, intolerant or have a suboptimal response to imatinib. The Phase 3 DASISION study compares dasatinib with imatinib as initial treatment for pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. After a minimum of 12 months (mos) of follow-up, dasatinib 100 mg once daily demonstrated significantly higher and faster rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) compared to imatinib 400 mg once daily (Kantarjian, H, et al. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2260). Eighteen-mo follow-up data are presented here. Methods: 519 pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP (median disease duration of 1 mo) stratified by Hasford risk were randomized to either dasatinib 100 mg once daily (n=259), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (n=260). The study design and endpoints have been described previously. All analyses were based on intention-to-treat pts. Results: Median treatment duration at the present analysis was 18 mos for each drug, with 81% of pts in the dasatinib arm and 80% in the imatinib arm still remaining on study drug. Median dose intensity was 99 mg/d for dasatinib and 400 mg/d for imatinib. Efficacy and safety results in the present analysis were consistent with those reported previously after 12 mos of follow-up. The rate of confirmed CCyR (cCCyR, CCyR on consecutive analyses at least 1 mo apart) by 18 mos continued to be higher for dasatinib than for imatinib (78% vs 70%); P=0.0366). Based on time-in-cCCyR (a measure of durability) analysis involving all randomized pts, dasatinib-treated pts were 28% less likely to experience a progression event (as defined by European LeukemiaNet 2006) after achieving a cCCyR or never achieving a cCCyR compared to those on imatinib. The MMR rate at any time was superior for dasatinib compared to imatinib (57% vs 41%, P=0.0002). Based on time-to-response analysis, pts on dasatinib were 1.84-fold more likely to achieve a MMR than those on imatinib (HR=1.84, P <0.0001). Rates of cCCyR in dasatinib-treated pts with low, intermediate and high risk were 92, 71 and 73%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the imatinib arm were 72, 71 and 64%. Rates of MMR in dasatinib-treated pts with low, intermediate and high risk were 63, 56 and 51%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the imatinib arm were 48, 40 and 30%. A BCR-ABL transcript level of ≤ 0.0032% was achieved in 13% dasatinib-treated and 7% imatinib-treated pts. Rates of progression-free survival at 18 mos were 94.9% for dasatinib and 93.7% for imatinib; the corresponding overall survival rates were 96.0% and 97.9%, respectively. Six pts (2.3%) in the dasatinib arm and 11 (4.3%) in the imatinib arm discontinued due to treatment failure as defined by 2006 European LeukemiaNet criteria. Six pts (2.3%) on dasatinib and 9 (3.5%) on imatinib had a transformation to accelerated or blast phase. Discontinuation of treatment due to drug-related adverse events (AEs) was infrequent for both dasatinib (6%) and imatinib (4%). Non-hematologic AEs (all grades) in ≥10% of pts (dasatinib vs imatinib) were fluid retention (23% vs 43%), diarrhea (18% vs 19%), nausea (9% vs 21%), vomiting (5% vs 10%), muscle inflammation (4% vs 19%), myalgia (6% vs 12%), musculoskeletal pain (12% vs 16%), fatigue (8% vs 11%) and rash (11% vs 17%). While superficial edema was less frequent with dasatinib than with imatinib (10% vs 36%), pleural effusion was seen only with dasatinib (12% vs 0%: grade 1, 2%; grade 2, 9%; grade 3, <1%), and did not impact the efficacy. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 AEs were infrequent in either arm (≤1%). Grade 3/4 cytopenias (dasatinib vs imatinib) were anemia (11% vs 7%), neutropenia (22% vs 20%) and thrombocytopenia (19% vs 10%). Two pts (0.8%) on dasatinib and 3 (1.2%) on imatinib had grade 3/4 bleeding. Cytopenia was the reason for discontinuation in 6 pts on the dasatinib arm (2.3%) and 3 on the imatinib arm (1.2%). Conclusions: After 18 mos of follow-up, dasatinib 100 mg once daily continues to demonstrate superior efficacy compared to imatinib. Dasatinib also continues to be generally well tolerated. These results support the potential use of dasatinib as initial treatment for pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Disclosures: Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kantarjian:BMS, Pfizer and Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Hochhaus:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cortes:Brostol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Wyeth: Honoraria. Bradley-Garelik:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Baccarani:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in >75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p<0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3884.3884 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3884-3884

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Suzanne Hayman ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Francis Buadi ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Effect Of Treatment With The JAK2-Selective Inhibitor Fedratinib (SAR302503) On Bone Marrow Histology In Patients With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms With Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2823.2823 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2823-2823 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Catriona HM Jamieson ◽

Robert P Hasserjian ◽

Jason Gotlib ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Richard M. Stone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

High Risk ◽

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Research Funding ◽

Selective Inhibitor ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Fedratinib, a JAK2-selective inhibitor, demonstrated clinical benefit through a reduction in splenomegaly and symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis (MF), including post-polycythemia vera MF (post-PV MF), post-essential thrombocythemia MF (post-ET MF) and primary MF (PMF), in Phase I and II studies (J Clin Oncol 2011;29:789; Haematologica 2013;98:S1113). Bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) has been associated with splenomegaly and cytopenias (Ann Hematol 2006;85:226). Hence, stabilization and/or reversal of BMF remain important therapeutic goals. This report represents an exploratory analysis of sequential BMF data from patients with MF in an open-label Phase I/II study to evaluate the long-term effects of orally administered fedratinib (TED12015; NCT00724334). Methods Patients with intermediate or high-risk MF (Mayo Prognostic Scoring System) received fedratinib therapy in consecutive cycles (1 cycle = 28 days) as long as they derived clinical benefit. Bone marrow trephine biopsies were performed at baseline and after every 6 cycles. Hematoxylin and eosin, reticulin, and Masson's trichrome staining of core biopsy slides were used to grade BMF on a scale from 0 to 3 using the 2008 WHO MF grading criteria. BMF was graded independently in a blinded fashion by 3 hematopathologists. BMF grades were established as long as at least 2 of the 3 pathologists agreed independently. Changes in BMF grade from baseline were categorized as improvement (≥1 grade reduction), stabilization (no change), or worsening (≥1 grade increase). Results Of the 43 patients enrolled in the TED12015 study, the median fedratinib dose received was 473 (range 144–683) mg/day and median treatment duration was 32.3 (range 7–61) cycles. Bone marrow biopsies at baseline and at least one other time point were available for 21/43 (49%) patients, whose baseline characteristics were: median age 61 years (range 43–85); 57% male; 38% high-risk MF by WHO 2008 criteria (Leukemia 2008; 22:14); and 90% JAK2V617F positive. A consensus grade was achieved for 96% of the samples. At baseline, 2, 10, and 9 patients had grade 1, 2, and 3 BMF, respectively. Changes in BMF grade from baseline are shown in the figure. BMF improvement with 1 grade reduction was observed in 8/18 (44%) patients at Cycle 6. By Cycle 30, 4/9 (44%) evaluable patients had BMF improvement, including 2 patients with improvement by 2 grades and 2 patients with improvement by 1 grade. Of patients with Grade 3 BMF at baseline, 6/9 (67%) exhibited 1 grade improvement at Cycle 6. Two patients had 2 grades of BMF reduction from baseline during treatment (grade 3 to 1, and grade 2 to 0, both at Cycle 12), and the latter achieved a complete clinical remission at Cycle 30 assessed by IWG-MRT response criteria. The two patients who experienced complete reversal of BMF to grade 0 (one from grade 2 and one from grade 1) had normalization of not only hemoglobin level but also white blood cell and platelet counts at Cycle 18. Conclusions These exploratory analyses suggest that a proportion of patients treated long-term with fedratinib demonstrate stable or improved BMF. The disease modifying impact of fedratinib on BMF changes will be further assessed in a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial (JAKARTA; NCT01437787). This study was sponsored by Sanofi. Disclosures: Jamieson: J&J, Roche: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hasserjian:Sanofi, Inc: Consultancy. Gotlib:Sanofi: Travel to EHA 2012, Travel to EHA 2012 Other; Sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Research Funding. Cortes:Incyte, Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte, Sanofi: Research Funding. Talpaz:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Research Funding; Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ariad, Deciphera: Speakers Bureau. Thiele:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Novartis, Shire, Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis, Shire: Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Novartis, Shire, Sanofi: Honoraria. Rodig:Ventana/Roche Inc.: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo/Arqule Inc., Ventana/Roche Inc., Shape Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy. Patki:Sanofi: Employment. Wu:Sanofi: Employment. Wu:Sanofi: Employment. Pozdnyakova:Sanofi: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

ENESTxtnd: Impact Of Nilotinib Dose Re-Escalation In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.4009.4009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 4009-4009

Author(s):

Jeff H. Lipton ◽

Luis Meillon ◽

Vernon Louw ◽

Carolina Pavlovsky ◽

Lee-Yung Shih ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Dose Intensity ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Study Dose ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Background Frontline nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) provides superior efficacy vs imatinib in pts with CML-CP, with good tolerability. Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials—Extending Molecular Reponses (ENESTxtnd) is evaluating the kinetics of molecular response to frontline nilotinib 300 mg BID in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP, as assessed in national and local laboratories, and is also the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nilotinib dose optimization (including dose re-escalation in pts who require dose reductions due to adverse events [AEs] and dose increase in pts with less than optimal response). Here, we present results of a preplanned, interim analysis (IA) based on the first 20% of pts who completed 12 mo of treatment or discontinued early. Methods ENESTxtnd (NCT01254188) is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3b clinical trial of nilotinib 300 mg BID in adults with CML-CP newly diagnosed within 6 mo of study entry. The primary endpoint is rate of MMR by 12 mo. Molecular responses were monitored by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) at local laboratories at baseline, at 1, 2, and 3 mo, and every 3 mo thereafter. Bone marrow cytogenetic analyses were performed locally at baseline, 6 mo, and end of study. Dose reductions were allowed for grade ≥ 2 nonhematologic AEs and grade 3/4 hematologic AEs. Pts with dose reductions could attempt to re-escalate (successful re-escalation defined as ≥ 4 wk on nilotinib 300 mg BID with no dose adjustments for any AE) and remain on study. Dose increase to nilotinib 400 mg BID was allowed in cases of BCR-ABL > 10% on the International Scale (BCR-ABLIS) at 3 mo or later, no major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) at 12 mo, loss of MMR, or treatment failure. Results This IA includes 85 pts treated in 12 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Africa). Median age was 49 y (range, 19-85 y), and 58% of pts were male. Median time since diagnosis was 35 days (range, 2-157 days). Prior to study entry, 64 pts (75%) received hydroxyurea, and 3 pts (4%) received imatinib (all for ≤ 2 wk). At the data cutoff, 68 pts (80%) had treatment ongoing, and the remaining 17 had discontinued due to AEs/laboratory abnormalities (n = 8; nonhematologic AEs [n = 5], biochemical abnormalities [n = 2], and hematologic abnormalities [n = 1]), loss to follow-up (n = 2), administrative problems (n = 2), intolerance to the protocol-proposed dose (n = 2), suboptimal response (n = 1), withdrawal of consent (n = 1), or protocol deviation (n = 1). Median time on treatment was 13.8 mo (range, 1 day-18 mo). Median actual dose intensity of nilotinib was 597 mg/day (range, 165-756 mg/day), and 85% of pts had an actual dose intensity of > 400 mg/day to ≤ 600 mg/day. Of 30 pts with dose reductions due to AEs, 19 (63%) successfully re-escalated to nilotinib 300 mg BID. Nine pts (11%) dose escalated to nilotinib 400 mg BID due to lack of efficacy. The primary endpoint of MMR by 12 mo was achieved by 57 pts (67%; 99.89% CI, 49%-82%). Complete cytogenetic response by 6 mo was achieved by 48 pts (56%). Median BCR-ABLIS decreased over time, with a median value of 0.05% (range, 0.00%-41.36%) at 12 mo (Figure). Most pts (91%) achieved early molecular response (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Of the 8 pts (9%) with BCR-ABLIS > 10% at 3 mo (4 of whom were then dose escalated), 3 achieved MMR by 12 mo (1 of whom had been dose escalated). By the data cutoff, no pt had progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and there had been no deaths on study. Nilotinib was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in other frontline studies. Drug-related nonhematologic AEs (≥ 10% of pts) were rash (31%), constipation (13%), and headache (13%). Newly occurring or worsening grade 3/4 hematologic or biochemical abnormalities (≥ 10% of pts) were neutropenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (17%), increased lipase (13%), and increased bilirubin (12%). Conclusions These results demonstrate that dose-optimized nilotinib affords high rates of molecular response in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Further, they support the feasibility of nilotinib dose re-escalation in pts who require temporary dose reductions due to AEs, with 63% of dose-reduced pts able to successfully re-escalate to nilotinib 300 mg BID and safely continue therapy. Disclosures: Lipton: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Meillon:Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Louw:Novartis: Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Congress attendance support, Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Pavlovsky:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Jin:Novartis: Employment. Acharya:Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Woodman:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Turkina:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Andrew Spencer ◽

Francesco Di Raimondo ◽

Adam Zdenek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Targeted Genomic Mutation Panel (M3 P) Results from 504 Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1795.1795 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1795-1795

Author(s):

K Martin Kortuem ◽

Esteban Braggio ◽

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Laura Ann Bruins ◽

Santiago Barrio ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

Gene Panel ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

P Gene ◽

New Findings ◽

Travel Grant

Abstract Introduction: Customized gene panel sequencing is an attractive approach to genomic tumor characterization in clinical care. Based on published MM exome data we developed a MM Mutation Panel (M3 P) that includes the most commonly mutated genes, actionable drug targets, genes targeted by current standard of care (SOC) therapies and which allows tracking of clonal evolution, copy number and sample purity. Methods and Material: M3 P (v3.0) covers 88 genes (1327 amplicons, 181kb). MM samples from 504 patients (pts) have been analyzed (corresponding germline in 81%) through collaborations between Mayo Clinic and Hospital-12-de-Octubre (Madrid, Spain), the DSMM and GMMG (Würzburg, Ulm, Freiburg and Heidelberg, Germany) and the HOVON trial groups (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). The investigated cohort includes 410 untreated pts (81%), which includes a high risk cohort of 72 pts with del17p, 25 paired samples with later follow up from the same cohort, and 94 relapsed patients, of which 50 were relapsed and refractory. Results: Overall coverage per mutation averaged >500x depth. We identified 945 variants (1.9 per pt) and in 83% of the pts a mutation was found. Clonal heterogeneity was assessed with mutations ranging from 3%-100% variant reads suggesting the presence of a significant number of subclones (e.g. 21% of mutations were in < 10% of reads). The mutation incidence was compared with and closely resembles the most recent MM comprehensive genomic data from the MMRF CoMMpass study: We compare here all pts sequenced by M3 P, untreated pts sequenced by M3 P and CoMMpass: KRAS (24%/23%/24%), NRAS (20%/20%/18%), DIS3 (13%/14%/10%), BRAF (9%/7%/6%), FAM46C (6%/6%/8%) and TRAF3 (6%/6%/7%). TP53 mutation incidence, however, was significantly increased in our cohort (14%/12%/4.2%), a difference explained by the inclusion of del17p (untreated) and relapsed refractory MM in panel sequenced pts, cohorts with elevated incidences of TP53 mutations (32% / 26% respectively). Potentially actionable targets include BRAF mutationsin 43 patients (9%), with druggable p.V600E in 19 or 5%, 8 pts (2%) with FGFR3 (p.R248C and p.G375C one patient each), p.R132 mutation in 4 out of 5 IDH1 (1%) and p.R172K IDH2 mutation in 1 of 3 (1%) pts. Mutations in the MAPK pathway (NRAS, KRAS, BRAF) were detected in 59% of pts, ranging from 36% untreated MM to 72% in refractory MM. Similarly, the CRBN/CUL4B/IKZF1/IKZF3/IRF4 pathway, important for IMiD function, harbored a significant enrichment of mutations in advanced disease (6% untreated vs 17% relapsed), including CRBN mutations (0.5% vs 7%). Nine of 17 IRF4 mutations were located at the p.K123R hotspot, with minor difference between early or late disease (1% vs 3%). Notably, in 8 of 9 pts with CRBN mutation and clinical information, all were unresponsive to IMiD therapy, supporting association of these mutations with resistance to IMiDs. Conversely, M3 P genes related to other SOC therapies, including NR3C1 (targeted by steroids) and 5 proteasome subunit genes (proteasome inhibitors), were rarely mutated across the cohorts not exceeding 1% mutation incidence for each gene. Significant differences in DIS3 and FAM46C mutation incidences were observed across cohorts: DIS3 mutations are more common in untreated pts with a 1.7 fold increased predominance (14% untreated and 8% treated). FAM46C has an expected incidence of 8% but was rarely mutated in untreated del17p high risk disease with only one of 100 patients harboring both mutations. The significance of this finding needs to be determined but implies a possible overlap in function. Finally we assessed impact on survival of the mutation variants identified in 142 untreated Mayo patients and found STAT3 mutations negatively impacting PFS (p=0.034) and OS (p=0.001). This gene is rarely mutated in MM (2% of the total cohort) thus the sample size was small and this finding needs further validation. Conclusion: We here describe 504 MM patients sequenced using the M3 P gene panel, which identified mutations in >80% of investigated patients, overlaps well with published whole exome sequence data and provides clinically relevant information. New findings were the high frequency of minor clones, the relative lack of overlap of del17 and FAM46C mutation, a higher frequency of DIS3 mutation at diagnosis compared to relapse, the prognostic significance of STAT3 mutation and the frequent presence of CRBN pathway mutation in drug resistant relapsed patients. Disclosures Sonneveld: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Mai:Janssen-Cilag: Other: Travel Grant; Onyx: Other: Travel Grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Other: Travel Grant. Goldschmidt:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Knop:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Kull:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Einsele:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Raab:Novartis: Research Funding. Stewart:Oncospire Inc.: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text