Ibrutinib ‘treatment of choice’ in rel/ref MCL

Crowd at 2015 ASH

Annual Meeting

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to a speaker at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.

Results of the phase 3 RAY trial showed that ibrutinib can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) when compared to the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus.

There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms, but this outcome was influenced by the fact that patients were allowed to cross over from the temsirolimus arm to the ibrutinib arm after they progressed.

A majority of patients in both arms experienced adverse events (AEs), and the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was high—about 70% with ibrutinib and 90% with temsirolimus.

Simon Rule, MD, of Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, UK, presented these results at the meeting as abstract 469. The study has been published in The Lancet as well.

The research was sponsored by Janssen Biotech, Inc., which is jointly developing and commercializing ibrutinib with Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company.

Study design

The trial included 280 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. They were enrolled from December 2012 to November 2013.

The patients were randomized to receive oral ibrutinib (n=139) at 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (n=141) at 175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Starting July 2014, patients were allowed to cross over from the ibrutinib arm to the temsirolimus arm if they had progressive disease, as confirmed by an independent review committee. Thirty-two patients ultimately crossed over.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67 (range, 39-84) in the ibrutinib arm and 68 (range, 34-88) in the temsirolimus arm. Most patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (48.2% and 47.5%, respectively) or 1 (51.1% in both arms).

The median number of prior therapies was 2 in both arms (range, 1-9). A majority of patients had 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy—68.3% in the ibrutinib arm and 66% in the temsirolimus arm.

The median time from the end of last therapy was 8.25 months for the ibrutinib arm and 7.03 months for the temsirolimus arm. And about 30% of patients in each arm were refractory to their last therapy—25.9% and 33.3%, respectively.

About half of patients in each arm had intermediate-risk disease (46.8% in the ibrutinib arm and 48.9% in the temsirolimus arm), followed by low-risk (31.7% and 29.8%, respectively) and high-risk disease (21.6% and 21.3%, respectively).

Most patients had stage IV disease—80.6% in the ibrutinib arm and 85.1% in the temsirolimus arm.

PFS

The study’s primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by an independent review committee.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 14.6 months for patients in the ibrutinib arm and 6.2 months for patients in the temsirolimus arm (hazard ratio=0.43, P<0.0001). At 2 years, the PFS was 41% in the ibrutinib arm and 7% in the temsirolimus arm.

Dr Rule noted that, looking at these data, people might question the validity of temsirolimus as a comparator to ibrutinib for this patient population.

“If you look at the median PFS for temsirolimus here, it’s 6.2 months,” he said. “In the registration study for Velcade—bortezomib—in the US, PFS was 6.5 months. If you look at the median PFS in the lenalidomide study that got registration, it was 4 months. So [the PFS for temsirolimus] is very representative of an oral novel agent in the context of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr Rule also pointed out that the improvement in PFS with ibrutinib was consistent across subgroups (ie, older age, risk score, tumor bulk, refractory disease). The only exception was patients with blastoid histology, but this was a very small group.

Secondary endpoints

The median OS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm but was 21.3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr Rule noted that the trial was not powered for OS, and the analysis is confounded by the crossover. Twenty-three percent of patients in the temsirolimus arm ultimately received ibrutinib.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 71.9% in the ibrutinib arm and 40.4% in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001), according to the independent review committee. The complete response rates were 18.7% (n=26) and 1.4% (n=2), respectively.

The median duration of response was not reached with ibrutinib but was 7 months for temsirolimus. The median time to next treatment was not reached with ibrutinib, but it was 11.6 months in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001).

And the median duration of study treatment was 14.4 months in the ibrutinib arm and 3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

Timing counts

Dr Rule also presented response and PFS data according to the number of prior therapies patients received.

He noted that patients were more likely to respond to temsirolimus if they had received fewer prior therapies, but this was not the case with ibrutinib. Ibrutinib produced consistent ORRs regardless of when it was given.

In the ibrutinib arm, the ORR was 71.9% for patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, 68.4% for those who received 2 prior therapies, and 75% for those who received 3 prior therapies. In the temsirolimus arm, the ORRs were 48%, 39.5%, and 33.3%, respectively.

Conversely, patients had a greater PFS benefit if they received ibrutinib earlier in their treatment course, but this was not true for temsirolimus.

At the median follow-up of 20 months, PFS was more than 60% for ibrutinib-treated patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy and less than 30% for ibrutinib-treated patients who received 2 or more prior lines of therapy. PFS was less than 15% for patients in the temsirolimus arm, regardless of their number of prior therapies.

“So that’s perhaps the first hint that, if we’re going to be using [ibrutinib], we should be using it earlier on,” Dr Rule said. “And I also suspect that, with further follow-up with this study, if this holds up, there will be, indeed, a survival benefit observed.”

Safety

“Despite patients on the ibrutinib arm being exposed to drug more than 4 times longer than those with temsirolimus, the frequency of most cumulative adverse events was lower in the ibrutinib arm,” Dr Rule said.

Still, he noted that most patients had some adverse events. And grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 67.6% of patients on ibrutinib and 87.1% of patients on temsirolimus.

Grade 3 or higher AEs included atrial fibrillation (AFib) and major bleeding. AFib occurred in 4.3% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 1.4% in the temsirolimus arm. Major bleeding occurred in 10.1% and 6.5%, respectively.

Five of the 6 patients with AFib in the ibrutinib arm and all 3 patients who developed AFib in the temsirolimus arm had risk factors for AFib prior to treatment. None of these patients discontinued treatment due to AFib.

Dr Rule said there was no evidence to suggest that either drug increases the risk of second primary malignancies, although 3.6% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 2.9% in the temsirolimus arm were diagnosed with second primary malignancies (mostly non-melanoma skin cancers).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20%) of any grade for the ibrutinib arm were diarrhea (28.8%), cough (22.3%), and fatigue (22.3%).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (>20%) of any grade for the temsirolimus arm were thrombocytopenia (56.1%), anemia (43.2%), diarrhea (30.9%), fatigue (28.8%), neutropenia (25.9%), epistaxis (23.7%), cough (22.3%), peripheral edema (22.3%), nausea (21.6%), pyrexia (20.9%), and stomatitis (20.9%).

The most common hematologic AEs (≥10%) in the ibrutinib and temsirolimus arms, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (18% vs 56.1%), anemia (18% vs 43.2%), and neutropenia (15.8% vs 25.9%).

Six percent of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 26% in the temsirolimus arm discontinued treatment due to AEs.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, 42% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 45% in the temsirolimus arm had died. The most common cause of death associated with ibrutinib was disease progression, and deaths in the temsirolimus arm were primarily attributed to AEs.

Crowd at 2015 ASH

Annual Meeting

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to a speaker at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.

Results of the phase 3 RAY trial showed that ibrutinib can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) when compared to the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus.

There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms, but this outcome was influenced by the fact that patients were allowed to cross over from the temsirolimus arm to the ibrutinib arm after they progressed.

A majority of patients in both arms experienced adverse events (AEs), and the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was high—about 70% with ibrutinib and 90% with temsirolimus.

Simon Rule, MD, of Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, UK, presented these results at the meeting as abstract 469. The study has been published in The Lancet as well.

The research was sponsored by Janssen Biotech, Inc., which is jointly developing and commercializing ibrutinib with Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company.

Study design

The trial included 280 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. They were enrolled from December 2012 to November 2013.

The patients were randomized to receive oral ibrutinib (n=139) at 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (n=141) at 175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Starting July 2014, patients were allowed to cross over from the ibrutinib arm to the temsirolimus arm if they had progressive disease, as confirmed by an independent review committee. Thirty-two patients ultimately crossed over.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67 (range, 39-84) in the ibrutinib arm and 68 (range, 34-88) in the temsirolimus arm. Most patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (48.2% and 47.5%, respectively) or 1 (51.1% in both arms).

The median number of prior therapies was 2 in both arms (range, 1-9). A majority of patients had 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy—68.3% in the ibrutinib arm and 66% in the temsirolimus arm.

The median time from the end of last therapy was 8.25 months for the ibrutinib arm and 7.03 months for the temsirolimus arm. And about 30% of patients in each arm were refractory to their last therapy—25.9% and 33.3%, respectively.

About half of patients in each arm had intermediate-risk disease (46.8% in the ibrutinib arm and 48.9% in the temsirolimus arm), followed by low-risk (31.7% and 29.8%, respectively) and high-risk disease (21.6% and 21.3%, respectively).

Most patients had stage IV disease—80.6% in the ibrutinib arm and 85.1% in the temsirolimus arm.

PFS

The study’s primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by an independent review committee.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 14.6 months for patients in the ibrutinib arm and 6.2 months for patients in the temsirolimus arm (hazard ratio=0.43, P<0.0001). At 2 years, the PFS was 41% in the ibrutinib arm and 7% in the temsirolimus arm.

Dr Rule noted that, looking at these data, people might question the validity of temsirolimus as a comparator to ibrutinib for this patient population.

“If you look at the median PFS for temsirolimus here, it’s 6.2 months,” he said. “In the registration study for Velcade—bortezomib—in the US, PFS was 6.5 months. If you look at the median PFS in the lenalidomide study that got registration, it was 4 months. So [the PFS for temsirolimus] is very representative of an oral novel agent in the context of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr Rule also pointed out that the improvement in PFS with ibrutinib was consistent across subgroups (ie, older age, risk score, tumor bulk, refractory disease). The only exception was patients with blastoid histology, but this was a very small group.

Secondary endpoints

The median OS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm but was 21.3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr Rule noted that the trial was not powered for OS, and the analysis is confounded by the crossover. Twenty-three percent of patients in the temsirolimus arm ultimately received ibrutinib.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 71.9% in the ibrutinib arm and 40.4% in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001), according to the independent review committee. The complete response rates were 18.7% (n=26) and 1.4% (n=2), respectively.

The median duration of response was not reached with ibrutinib but was 7 months for temsirolimus. The median time to next treatment was not reached with ibrutinib, but it was 11.6 months in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001).

And the median duration of study treatment was 14.4 months in the ibrutinib arm and 3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

Timing counts

Dr Rule also presented response and PFS data according to the number of prior therapies patients received.

He noted that patients were more likely to respond to temsirolimus if they had received fewer prior therapies, but this was not the case with ibrutinib. Ibrutinib produced consistent ORRs regardless of when it was given.

In the ibrutinib arm, the ORR was 71.9% for patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, 68.4% for those who received 2 prior therapies, and 75% for those who received 3 prior therapies. In the temsirolimus arm, the ORRs were 48%, 39.5%, and 33.3%, respectively.

Conversely, patients had a greater PFS benefit if they received ibrutinib earlier in their treatment course, but this was not true for temsirolimus.

At the median follow-up of 20 months, PFS was more than 60% for ibrutinib-treated patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy and less than 30% for ibrutinib-treated patients who received 2 or more prior lines of therapy. PFS was less than 15% for patients in the temsirolimus arm, regardless of their number of prior therapies.

“So that’s perhaps the first hint that, if we’re going to be using [ibrutinib], we should be using it earlier on,” Dr Rule said. “And I also suspect that, with further follow-up with this study, if this holds up, there will be, indeed, a survival benefit observed.”

Safety

“Despite patients on the ibrutinib arm being exposed to drug more than 4 times longer than those with temsirolimus, the frequency of most cumulative adverse events was lower in the ibrutinib arm,” Dr Rule said.

Still, he noted that most patients had some adverse events. And grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 67.6% of patients on ibrutinib and 87.1% of patients on temsirolimus.

Grade 3 or higher AEs included atrial fibrillation (AFib) and major bleeding. AFib occurred in 4.3% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 1.4% in the temsirolimus arm. Major bleeding occurred in 10.1% and 6.5%, respectively.

Five of the 6 patients with AFib in the ibrutinib arm and all 3 patients who developed AFib in the temsirolimus arm had risk factors for AFib prior to treatment. None of these patients discontinued treatment due to AFib.

Dr Rule said there was no evidence to suggest that either drug increases the risk of second primary malignancies, although 3.6% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 2.9% in the temsirolimus arm were diagnosed with second primary malignancies (mostly non-melanoma skin cancers).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20%) of any grade for the ibrutinib arm were diarrhea (28.8%), cough (22.3%), and fatigue (22.3%).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (>20%) of any grade for the temsirolimus arm were thrombocytopenia (56.1%), anemia (43.2%), diarrhea (30.9%), fatigue (28.8%), neutropenia (25.9%), epistaxis (23.7%), cough (22.3%), peripheral edema (22.3%), nausea (21.6%), pyrexia (20.9%), and stomatitis (20.9%).

The most common hematologic AEs (≥10%) in the ibrutinib and temsirolimus arms, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (18% vs 56.1%), anemia (18% vs 43.2%), and neutropenia (15.8% vs 25.9%).

Six percent of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 26% in the temsirolimus arm discontinued treatment due to AEs.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, 42% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 45% in the temsirolimus arm had died. The most common cause of death associated with ibrutinib was disease progression, and deaths in the temsirolimus arm were primarily attributed to AEs.

Crowd at 2015 ASH

Annual Meeting

Photo courtesy of ASH

ORLANDO, FL—The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib should be considered the treatment of choice for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), according to a speaker at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.

Results of the phase 3 RAY trial showed that ibrutinib can prolong progression-free survival (PFS) when compared to the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus.

There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms, but this outcome was influenced by the fact that patients were allowed to cross over from the temsirolimus arm to the ibrutinib arm after they progressed.

A majority of patients in both arms experienced adverse events (AEs), and the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was high—about 70% with ibrutinib and 90% with temsirolimus.

Simon Rule, MD, of Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, UK, presented these results at the meeting as abstract 469. The study has been published in The Lancet as well.

The research was sponsored by Janssen Biotech, Inc., which is jointly developing and commercializing ibrutinib with Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company.

Study design

The trial included 280 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. They were enrolled from December 2012 to November 2013.

The patients were randomized to receive oral ibrutinib (n=139) at 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (n=141) at 175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of all subsequent 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Starting July 2014, patients were allowed to cross over from the ibrutinib arm to the temsirolimus arm if they had progressive disease, as confirmed by an independent review committee. Thirty-two patients ultimately crossed over.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. The median age was 67 (range, 39-84) in the ibrutinib arm and 68 (range, 34-88) in the temsirolimus arm. Most patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (48.2% and 47.5%, respectively) or 1 (51.1% in both arms).

The median number of prior therapies was 2 in both arms (range, 1-9). A majority of patients had 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy—68.3% in the ibrutinib arm and 66% in the temsirolimus arm.

The median time from the end of last therapy was 8.25 months for the ibrutinib arm and 7.03 months for the temsirolimus arm. And about 30% of patients in each arm were refractory to their last therapy—25.9% and 33.3%, respectively.

About half of patients in each arm had intermediate-risk disease (46.8% in the ibrutinib arm and 48.9% in the temsirolimus arm), followed by low-risk (31.7% and 29.8%, respectively) and high-risk disease (21.6% and 21.3%, respectively).

Most patients had stage IV disease—80.6% in the ibrutinib arm and 85.1% in the temsirolimus arm.

PFS

The study’s primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by an independent review committee.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS was 14.6 months for patients in the ibrutinib arm and 6.2 months for patients in the temsirolimus arm (hazard ratio=0.43, P<0.0001). At 2 years, the PFS was 41% in the ibrutinib arm and 7% in the temsirolimus arm.

Dr Rule noted that, looking at these data, people might question the validity of temsirolimus as a comparator to ibrutinib for this patient population.

“If you look at the median PFS for temsirolimus here, it’s 6.2 months,” he said. “In the registration study for Velcade—bortezomib—in the US, PFS was 6.5 months. If you look at the median PFS in the lenalidomide study that got registration, it was 4 months. So [the PFS for temsirolimus] is very representative of an oral novel agent in the context of mantle cell lymphoma.”

Dr Rule also pointed out that the improvement in PFS with ibrutinib was consistent across subgroups (ie, older age, risk score, tumor bulk, refractory disease). The only exception was patients with blastoid histology, but this was a very small group.

Secondary endpoints

The median OS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm but was 21.3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr Rule noted that the trial was not powered for OS, and the analysis is confounded by the crossover. Twenty-three percent of patients in the temsirolimus arm ultimately received ibrutinib.

The overall response rate (ORR) was 71.9% in the ibrutinib arm and 40.4% in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001), according to the independent review committee. The complete response rates were 18.7% (n=26) and 1.4% (n=2), respectively.

The median duration of response was not reached with ibrutinib but was 7 months for temsirolimus. The median time to next treatment was not reached with ibrutinib, but it was 11.6 months in the temsirolimus arm (P<0.0001).

And the median duration of study treatment was 14.4 months in the ibrutinib arm and 3 months in the temsirolimus arm.

Timing counts

Dr Rule also presented response and PFS data according to the number of prior therapies patients received.

He noted that patients were more likely to respond to temsirolimus if they had received fewer prior therapies, but this was not the case with ibrutinib. Ibrutinib produced consistent ORRs regardless of when it was given.

In the ibrutinib arm, the ORR was 71.9% for patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, 68.4% for those who received 2 prior therapies, and 75% for those who received 3 prior therapies. In the temsirolimus arm, the ORRs were 48%, 39.5%, and 33.3%, respectively.

Conversely, patients had a greater PFS benefit if they received ibrutinib earlier in their treatment course, but this was not true for temsirolimus.

At the median follow-up of 20 months, PFS was more than 60% for ibrutinib-treated patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy and less than 30% for ibrutinib-treated patients who received 2 or more prior lines of therapy. PFS was less than 15% for patients in the temsirolimus arm, regardless of their number of prior therapies.

“So that’s perhaps the first hint that, if we’re going to be using [ibrutinib], we should be using it earlier on,” Dr Rule said. “And I also suspect that, with further follow-up with this study, if this holds up, there will be, indeed, a survival benefit observed.”

Safety

“Despite patients on the ibrutinib arm being exposed to drug more than 4 times longer than those with temsirolimus, the frequency of most cumulative adverse events was lower in the ibrutinib arm,” Dr Rule said.

Still, he noted that most patients had some adverse events. And grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 67.6% of patients on ibrutinib and 87.1% of patients on temsirolimus.

Grade 3 or higher AEs included atrial fibrillation (AFib) and major bleeding. AFib occurred in 4.3% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 1.4% in the temsirolimus arm. Major bleeding occurred in 10.1% and 6.5%, respectively.

Five of the 6 patients with AFib in the ibrutinib arm and all 3 patients who developed AFib in the temsirolimus arm had risk factors for AFib prior to treatment. None of these patients discontinued treatment due to AFib.

Dr Rule said there was no evidence to suggest that either drug increases the risk of second primary malignancies, although 3.6% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 2.9% in the temsirolimus arm were diagnosed with second primary malignancies (mostly non-melanoma skin cancers).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20%) of any grade for the ibrutinib arm were diarrhea (28.8%), cough (22.3%), and fatigue (22.3%).

The most common treatment-emergent AEs (>20%) of any grade for the temsirolimus arm were thrombocytopenia (56.1%), anemia (43.2%), diarrhea (30.9%), fatigue (28.8%), neutropenia (25.9%), epistaxis (23.7%), cough (22.3%), peripheral edema (22.3%), nausea (21.6%), pyrexia (20.9%), and stomatitis (20.9%).

The most common hematologic AEs (≥10%) in the ibrutinib and temsirolimus arms, respectively, were thrombocytopenia (18% vs 56.1%), anemia (18% vs 43.2%), and neutropenia (15.8% vs 25.9%).

Six percent of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 26% in the temsirolimus arm discontinued treatment due to AEs.

At a median follow-up of 20 months, 42% of patients in the ibrutinib arm and 45% in the temsirolimus arm had died. The most common cause of death associated with ibrutinib was disease progression, and deaths in the temsirolimus arm were primarily attributed to AEs.