Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Cancer patient receiving
chemotherapy
Photo by Rhoda Baer

One-time treatment with the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin may provide long-term relief of existential anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancers, according to a small study.

After receiving a single high dose of the drug, most of the patients studied reported decreases in depression and anxiety as well as increases in quality of life and optimism.

These improvements were sustained at 6 months of follow-up.

“The most interesting and remarkable finding is that a single dose of psilocybin, which lasts 4 to 6 hours, produced enduring decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms, and this may represent a fascinating new model for treating some psychiatric conditions,” said study author Roland Griffiths, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Griffiths said this study grew out of a decade of research at Johns Hopkins on the effects of psilocybin in healthy volunteers, which showed that psilocybin can consistently produce positive changes in mood, behavior, and spirituality when administered to carefully screened and prepared participants.

The current study was designed to see if psilocybin could produce similar results in psychologically distressed cancer patients.

The results were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology alongside a similar study and 11 accompanying editorials.

For their study, Dr Griffiths and his colleagues recruited 51 participants diagnosed with life-threatening cancers, most of which were recurrent or metastatic.

Types of cancer included breast (n=13), upper aerodigestive (n=7), gastrointestinal (n=4), genitourinary (n=18), and “other” cancers (n=1), as well as hematologic malignancies (n=8).

All participants had been given a formal psychiatric diagnosis, including an anxiety or depressive disorder.

Half of the participants were female, and they had an average age of 56. Ninety-two percent were white, 4% were black, and 2% were Asian.

Treatment

Each participant had 2 treatment sessions scheduled 5 weeks apart. In 1 session, they received a capsule containing a very low dose (1 or 3 mg per 70 kg) of psilocybin that was meant to act as a “control” because the dose was too low to produce effects.

In the other session, participants received a capsule with what is considered a moderate or high dose (22 or 30 mg per 70 kg).

To minimize expectancy effects, the participants and the staff members supervising the sessions were told that participants would receive psilocybin on both sessions, but they did not know that all participants would receive a high dose and a low dose.

Blood pressure and mood were monitored throughout the sessions.

Two monitors aided participants during each session, encouraging them to lie down, wear an eye mask, listen to music through headphones, and direct their attention on their inner experience. If anxiety or confusion arose, the monitors provided reassurance to the participants.

Participants, staff, and community observers rated participants’ moods, attitudes, and behaviors throughout the study.

The researchers assessed each participant via questionnaires and structured interviews before the first session, 7 hours after taking the psilocybin, 5 weeks after each session, and 6 months after the second session.

Adverse events

Thirty-four percent of participants had an episode of elevated systolic blood pressure (>160 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point) in the high-dose psilocybin session, and 17% of participants had such an episode in the low-dose session.

Thirteen percent and 2%, respectively, had an episode of elevated diastolic blood pressure (>100 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point). None of these episodes met criteria for medical intervention.

During the high-dose psilocybin session, 15% of patients experienced nausea or vomiting. There were no such events during the low-dose session.

Three participants reported mild to moderate headaches after the high-dose session.

Twenty-one percent of patients reported physical discomfort during the high-dose session, as did 8% of patients during the low-dose session.

Psychological discomfort occurred in 32% and 12% of participants, respectively. The researchers said there were no cases of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder or prolonged psychosis.

Efficacy outcomes

Most participants reported experiencing changes in visual perception, emotions, and thinking after taking high-dose psilocybin. They also reported experiences of psychological insight and profound, deeply meaningful experiences.

Six months after the final session of treatment, about 80% of participants continued to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety, according to clinician assessment.

According to the participants themselves, 83% had increases in well-being or life satisfaction at 6 months after treatment.

Sixty-seven percent of participants rated the experience as one of the top 5 meaningful experiences in their lives, and 70% rated the experience as one of their top 5 spiritually significant lifetime events.

“Before beginning the study, it wasn’t clear to me that this treatment would be helpful, since cancer patients may experience profound hopelessness in response to their diagnosis, which is often followed by multiple surgeries and prolonged chemotherapy,” Dr Griffiths said.

“I could imagine that cancer patients would receive psilocybin, look into the existential void, and come out even more fearful. However, the positive changes in attitudes, moods, and behavior that we documented in healthy volunteers were replicated in cancer patients.”

Cancer patient receiving
chemotherapy
Photo by Rhoda Baer

One-time treatment with the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin may provide long-term relief of existential anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancers, according to a small study.

After receiving a single high dose of the drug, most of the patients studied reported decreases in depression and anxiety as well as increases in quality of life and optimism.

These improvements were sustained at 6 months of follow-up.

“The most interesting and remarkable finding is that a single dose of psilocybin, which lasts 4 to 6 hours, produced enduring decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms, and this may represent a fascinating new model for treating some psychiatric conditions,” said study author Roland Griffiths, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Griffiths said this study grew out of a decade of research at Johns Hopkins on the effects of psilocybin in healthy volunteers, which showed that psilocybin can consistently produce positive changes in mood, behavior, and spirituality when administered to carefully screened and prepared participants.

The current study was designed to see if psilocybin could produce similar results in psychologically distressed cancer patients.

The results were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology alongside a similar study and 11 accompanying editorials.

For their study, Dr Griffiths and his colleagues recruited 51 participants diagnosed with life-threatening cancers, most of which were recurrent or metastatic.

Types of cancer included breast (n=13), upper aerodigestive (n=7), gastrointestinal (n=4), genitourinary (n=18), and “other” cancers (n=1), as well as hematologic malignancies (n=8).

All participants had been given a formal psychiatric diagnosis, including an anxiety or depressive disorder.

Half of the participants were female, and they had an average age of 56. Ninety-two percent were white, 4% were black, and 2% were Asian.

Treatment

Each participant had 2 treatment sessions scheduled 5 weeks apart. In 1 session, they received a capsule containing a very low dose (1 or 3 mg per 70 kg) of psilocybin that was meant to act as a “control” because the dose was too low to produce effects.

In the other session, participants received a capsule with what is considered a moderate or high dose (22 or 30 mg per 70 kg).

To minimize expectancy effects, the participants and the staff members supervising the sessions were told that participants would receive psilocybin on both sessions, but they did not know that all participants would receive a high dose and a low dose.

Blood pressure and mood were monitored throughout the sessions.

Two monitors aided participants during each session, encouraging them to lie down, wear an eye mask, listen to music through headphones, and direct their attention on their inner experience. If anxiety or confusion arose, the monitors provided reassurance to the participants.

Participants, staff, and community observers rated participants’ moods, attitudes, and behaviors throughout the study.

The researchers assessed each participant via questionnaires and structured interviews before the first session, 7 hours after taking the psilocybin, 5 weeks after each session, and 6 months after the second session.

Adverse events

Thirty-four percent of participants had an episode of elevated systolic blood pressure (>160 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point) in the high-dose psilocybin session, and 17% of participants had such an episode in the low-dose session.

Thirteen percent and 2%, respectively, had an episode of elevated diastolic blood pressure (>100 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point). None of these episodes met criteria for medical intervention.

During the high-dose psilocybin session, 15% of patients experienced nausea or vomiting. There were no such events during the low-dose session.

Three participants reported mild to moderate headaches after the high-dose session.

Twenty-one percent of patients reported physical discomfort during the high-dose session, as did 8% of patients during the low-dose session.

Psychological discomfort occurred in 32% and 12% of participants, respectively. The researchers said there were no cases of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder or prolonged psychosis.

Efficacy outcomes

Most participants reported experiencing changes in visual perception, emotions, and thinking after taking high-dose psilocybin. They also reported experiences of psychological insight and profound, deeply meaningful experiences.

Six months after the final session of treatment, about 80% of participants continued to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety, according to clinician assessment.

According to the participants themselves, 83% had increases in well-being or life satisfaction at 6 months after treatment.

Sixty-seven percent of participants rated the experience as one of the top 5 meaningful experiences in their lives, and 70% rated the experience as one of their top 5 spiritually significant lifetime events.

“Before beginning the study, it wasn’t clear to me that this treatment would be helpful, since cancer patients may experience profound hopelessness in response to their diagnosis, which is often followed by multiple surgeries and prolonged chemotherapy,” Dr Griffiths said.

“I could imagine that cancer patients would receive psilocybin, look into the existential void, and come out even more fearful. However, the positive changes in attitudes, moods, and behavior that we documented in healthy volunteers were replicated in cancer patients.”

Cancer patient receiving
chemotherapy
Photo by Rhoda Baer

One-time treatment with the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin may provide long-term relief of existential anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancers, according to a small study.

After receiving a single high dose of the drug, most of the patients studied reported decreases in depression and anxiety as well as increases in quality of life and optimism.

These improvements were sustained at 6 months of follow-up.

“The most interesting and remarkable finding is that a single dose of psilocybin, which lasts 4 to 6 hours, produced enduring decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms, and this may represent a fascinating new model for treating some psychiatric conditions,” said study author Roland Griffiths, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Griffiths said this study grew out of a decade of research at Johns Hopkins on the effects of psilocybin in healthy volunteers, which showed that psilocybin can consistently produce positive changes in mood, behavior, and spirituality when administered to carefully screened and prepared participants.

The current study was designed to see if psilocybin could produce similar results in psychologically distressed cancer patients.

The results were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology alongside a similar study and 11 accompanying editorials.

For their study, Dr Griffiths and his colleagues recruited 51 participants diagnosed with life-threatening cancers, most of which were recurrent or metastatic.

Types of cancer included breast (n=13), upper aerodigestive (n=7), gastrointestinal (n=4), genitourinary (n=18), and “other” cancers (n=1), as well as hematologic malignancies (n=8).

All participants had been given a formal psychiatric diagnosis, including an anxiety or depressive disorder.

Half of the participants were female, and they had an average age of 56. Ninety-two percent were white, 4% were black, and 2% were Asian.

Treatment

Each participant had 2 treatment sessions scheduled 5 weeks apart. In 1 session, they received a capsule containing a very low dose (1 or 3 mg per 70 kg) of psilocybin that was meant to act as a “control” because the dose was too low to produce effects.

In the other session, participants received a capsule with what is considered a moderate or high dose (22 or 30 mg per 70 kg).

To minimize expectancy effects, the participants and the staff members supervising the sessions were told that participants would receive psilocybin on both sessions, but they did not know that all participants would receive a high dose and a low dose.

Blood pressure and mood were monitored throughout the sessions.

Two monitors aided participants during each session, encouraging them to lie down, wear an eye mask, listen to music through headphones, and direct their attention on their inner experience. If anxiety or confusion arose, the monitors provided reassurance to the participants.

Participants, staff, and community observers rated participants’ moods, attitudes, and behaviors throughout the study.

The researchers assessed each participant via questionnaires and structured interviews before the first session, 7 hours after taking the psilocybin, 5 weeks after each session, and 6 months after the second session.

Adverse events

Thirty-four percent of participants had an episode of elevated systolic blood pressure (>160 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point) in the high-dose psilocybin session, and 17% of participants had such an episode in the low-dose session.

Thirteen percent and 2%, respectively, had an episode of elevated diastolic blood pressure (>100 mm Hg at 1 or more time-point). None of these episodes met criteria for medical intervention.

During the high-dose psilocybin session, 15% of patients experienced nausea or vomiting. There were no such events during the low-dose session.

Three participants reported mild to moderate headaches after the high-dose session.

Twenty-one percent of patients reported physical discomfort during the high-dose session, as did 8% of patients during the low-dose session.

Psychological discomfort occurred in 32% and 12% of participants, respectively. The researchers said there were no cases of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder or prolonged psychosis.

Efficacy outcomes

Most participants reported experiencing changes in visual perception, emotions, and thinking after taking high-dose psilocybin. They also reported experiences of psychological insight and profound, deeply meaningful experiences.

Six months after the final session of treatment, about 80% of participants continued to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety, according to clinician assessment.

According to the participants themselves, 83% had increases in well-being or life satisfaction at 6 months after treatment.

Sixty-seven percent of participants rated the experience as one of the top 5 meaningful experiences in their lives, and 70% rated the experience as one of their top 5 spiritually significant lifetime events.

“Before beginning the study, it wasn’t clear to me that this treatment would be helpful, since cancer patients may experience profound hopelessness in response to their diagnosis, which is often followed by multiple surgeries and prolonged chemotherapy,” Dr Griffiths said.

“I could imagine that cancer patients would receive psilocybin, look into the existential void, and come out even more fearful. However, the positive changes in attitudes, moods, and behavior that we documented in healthy volunteers were replicated in cancer patients.”

Drug release in a cancer cell

Image courtesy of PNAS

A diabetes medication and an antihypertensive drug may prove effective in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and other cancers, according to preclinical research published in Science Advances.

Past research has shown that metformin, a drug used to treat type 2 diabetes, has anticancer properties.

However, the usual therapeutic dose is too low to effectively fight cancer, and higher doses of metformin could be too toxic.

With the current study, researchers found that the antihypertensive drug syrosingopine enhances the anticancer efficacy of metformin without harming normal blood cells.

The team screened over a thousand drugs to find one that could boost metformin’s efficacy against cancers.

They identified syrosingopine and tested it in combination with metformin—at concentrations substantially below the drugs’ therapeutic thresholds—on a range of cancer cell lines and in mouse models of liver cancer.

Thirty-five of the 43 cell lines tested were susceptible to both syrosingopine and metformin. This included leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma cell lines.

In addition, the mice given a short course of syrosingopine and metformin experienced a reduction in the number of visible liver tumors.

The researchers also tested syrosingopine and metformin in peripheral blasts from 12 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and a patient with blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia. All 13 samples responded to the treatment.

On the other hand, syrosingopine and metformin did not affect peripheral blood cells from healthy subjects.

“[A]lmost all tumor cells were killed by this cocktail and at doses that are actually not toxic to normal cells,” said study author Don Benjamin, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.

“And the effect was exclusively confined to cancer cells, as the blood cells from healthy donors were insensitive to the treatment.”

The researchers believe metformin functions by lowering blood glucose levels for cancer cells, starving them of essential nutrients needed for their survival. However, it is not clear how syrosingopine works in conjunction with metformin.

The team emphasized the need for more research evaluating the drugs in combination.

“We have been able to show that the 2 known drugs lead to more profound effects on cancer cell proliferation than each drug alone,” Dr Benjamin said. “The data from this study support the development of combination approaches for the treatment of cancer patients.”

Drug release in a cancer cell

Image courtesy of PNAS

A diabetes medication and an antihypertensive drug may prove effective in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and other cancers, according to preclinical research published in Science Advances.

Past research has shown that metformin, a drug used to treat type 2 diabetes, has anticancer properties.

However, the usual therapeutic dose is too low to effectively fight cancer, and higher doses of metformin could be too toxic.

With the current study, researchers found that the antihypertensive drug syrosingopine enhances the anticancer efficacy of metformin without harming normal blood cells.

The team screened over a thousand drugs to find one that could boost metformin’s efficacy against cancers.

They identified syrosingopine and tested it in combination with metformin—at concentrations substantially below the drugs’ therapeutic thresholds—on a range of cancer cell lines and in mouse models of liver cancer.

Thirty-five of the 43 cell lines tested were susceptible to both syrosingopine and metformin. This included leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma cell lines.

In addition, the mice given a short course of syrosingopine and metformin experienced a reduction in the number of visible liver tumors.

The researchers also tested syrosingopine and metformin in peripheral blasts from 12 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and a patient with blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia. All 13 samples responded to the treatment.

On the other hand, syrosingopine and metformin did not affect peripheral blood cells from healthy subjects.

“[A]lmost all tumor cells were killed by this cocktail and at doses that are actually not toxic to normal cells,” said study author Don Benjamin, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.

“And the effect was exclusively confined to cancer cells, as the blood cells from healthy donors were insensitive to the treatment.”

The researchers believe metformin functions by lowering blood glucose levels for cancer cells, starving them of essential nutrients needed for their survival. However, it is not clear how syrosingopine works in conjunction with metformin.

The team emphasized the need for more research evaluating the drugs in combination.

“We have been able to show that the 2 known drugs lead to more profound effects on cancer cell proliferation than each drug alone,” Dr Benjamin said. “The data from this study support the development of combination approaches for the treatment of cancer patients.”

Drug release in a cancer cell

Image courtesy of PNAS

A diabetes medication and an antihypertensive drug may prove effective in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and other cancers, according to preclinical research published in Science Advances.

Past research has shown that metformin, a drug used to treat type 2 diabetes, has anticancer properties.

However, the usual therapeutic dose is too low to effectively fight cancer, and higher doses of metformin could be too toxic.

With the current study, researchers found that the antihypertensive drug syrosingopine enhances the anticancer efficacy of metformin without harming normal blood cells.

The team screened over a thousand drugs to find one that could boost metformin’s efficacy against cancers.

They identified syrosingopine and tested it in combination with metformin—at concentrations substantially below the drugs’ therapeutic thresholds—on a range of cancer cell lines and in mouse models of liver cancer.

Thirty-five of the 43 cell lines tested were susceptible to both syrosingopine and metformin. This included leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma cell lines.

In addition, the mice given a short course of syrosingopine and metformin experienced a reduction in the number of visible liver tumors.

The researchers also tested syrosingopine and metformin in peripheral blasts from 12 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and a patient with blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia. All 13 samples responded to the treatment.

On the other hand, syrosingopine and metformin did not affect peripheral blood cells from healthy subjects.

“[A]lmost all tumor cells were killed by this cocktail and at doses that are actually not toxic to normal cells,” said study author Don Benjamin, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.

“And the effect was exclusively confined to cancer cells, as the blood cells from healthy donors were insensitive to the treatment.”

The researchers believe metformin functions by lowering blood glucose levels for cancer cells, starving them of essential nutrients needed for their survival. However, it is not clear how syrosingopine works in conjunction with metformin.

The team emphasized the need for more research evaluating the drugs in combination.

“We have been able to show that the 2 known drugs lead to more profound effects on cancer cell proliferation than each drug alone,” Dr Benjamin said. “The data from this study support the development of combination approaches for the treatment of cancer patients.”

Ofatumumab

Photo courtesy of GSK

Salvage treatment with an ofatumumab-based regimen is no better than a rituximab-based regimen for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a phase 3 study.

The study, ORCHARRD, was a comparison of ofatumumab plus cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (O-DHAP) and rituximab plus DHAP (R-DHAP), both followed by autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT), in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The data showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment arms with regard to progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), or overall survival (OS).

And the incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar between the arms.

Gustaaf W. van Imhoff, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, Netherlands, and his colleagues conducted this study and reported the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was proposed by HOVON, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and funded by GSK, Genmab A/S, and Novartis AG. Ofatumumab became an asset of Novartis AG in March 2015.

Patients and treatment

The study included 447 adults with CD20+ DLBCL who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line treatment with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or a similar regimen.

The patients’ median age was 57 (range, 18 to 83), 63% had stage III/IV disease, and 71% of patients either did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line treatment or had a CR lasting less than 1 year.

The patients were randomized to receive O-DHAP (n=222) or R-DHAP (n=225). They received ofatumumab at 1000 mg or rituximab at 375 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP (4 infusions of either drug).

The patients who had responded after 2 cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and auto-SCT. Failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 was included as an event.

Response and survival

The response rate was 38% with O-DHAP and 42% with R-DHAP. The CR rate was 15% and 22%, respectively.

Thirty-three percent of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 37% in the R-DHAP arm underwent auto-SCT on protocol.

At 2 years, PFS was 24% with O-DHAP and 26% with R-DHAP (hazard ratio [HR]=1.12, P=0.33).

Two-year EFS was 16% with O-DHAP and 18% with R-DHAP. (HR=1.10, P=0.35). And 2-year OS was 41% with O-DHAP and 38% with R-DHAP (HR=0.90, P=0.38).

The researchers found that having a negative PET scan after cycle 3 was associated with better PFS and OS.

Two-year PFS was 32% for patients with a positive PET scan after cycle 3 and 70% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.001). Two-year OS was 43% for patients with positive PET scan and 78% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.0018).

Safety

Fifty-two percent of all patients had 1 or more serious AE, and the incidence of serious AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (13%), acute renal failure (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and vomiting (5%).

Fatal serious AEs occurred in 6% of patients. These were mainly related to infectious complications and occurred in a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms.

The incidence of rash was higher in the O-DHAP arm (22% vs 9%), as was the incidence of raised serum creatinine (23% vs 16%).

Dose interruptions/delays (of either anti-CD20 therapy or chemotherapy) as a result of AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 30% in the R-DHAP arm.

AEs causing dose delays/interruptions included (in the O-DHAP and R-DHAP arms, respectively) neutropenia (6% and 7%), rash (9% and <1%), thrombocytopenia (5% and 4%), urticaria (6% and <1%), pyrexia (4% and 2%), febrile neutropenia (4% and 1%), hypersensitivity (4% and 1%), infusion-related reactions (5% and <1%), decrease in platelet count (2% and 3%), and pruritus (4% and 0%).

Sixteen percent of all patients had AEs that led to permanent discontinuation of study treatment. The rate of such AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent event leading to discontinuation was renal toxicity (8%).

Ofatumumab

Photo courtesy of GSK

Salvage treatment with an ofatumumab-based regimen is no better than a rituximab-based regimen for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a phase 3 study.

The study, ORCHARRD, was a comparison of ofatumumab plus cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (O-DHAP) and rituximab plus DHAP (R-DHAP), both followed by autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT), in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The data showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment arms with regard to progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), or overall survival (OS).

And the incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar between the arms.

Gustaaf W. van Imhoff, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, Netherlands, and his colleagues conducted this study and reported the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was proposed by HOVON, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and funded by GSK, Genmab A/S, and Novartis AG. Ofatumumab became an asset of Novartis AG in March 2015.

Patients and treatment

The study included 447 adults with CD20+ DLBCL who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line treatment with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or a similar regimen.

The patients’ median age was 57 (range, 18 to 83), 63% had stage III/IV disease, and 71% of patients either did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line treatment or had a CR lasting less than 1 year.

The patients were randomized to receive O-DHAP (n=222) or R-DHAP (n=225). They received ofatumumab at 1000 mg or rituximab at 375 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP (4 infusions of either drug).

The patients who had responded after 2 cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and auto-SCT. Failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 was included as an event.

Response and survival

The response rate was 38% with O-DHAP and 42% with R-DHAP. The CR rate was 15% and 22%, respectively.

Thirty-three percent of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 37% in the R-DHAP arm underwent auto-SCT on protocol.

At 2 years, PFS was 24% with O-DHAP and 26% with R-DHAP (hazard ratio [HR]=1.12, P=0.33).

Two-year EFS was 16% with O-DHAP and 18% with R-DHAP. (HR=1.10, P=0.35). And 2-year OS was 41% with O-DHAP and 38% with R-DHAP (HR=0.90, P=0.38).

The researchers found that having a negative PET scan after cycle 3 was associated with better PFS and OS.

Two-year PFS was 32% for patients with a positive PET scan after cycle 3 and 70% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.001). Two-year OS was 43% for patients with positive PET scan and 78% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.0018).

Safety

Fifty-two percent of all patients had 1 or more serious AE, and the incidence of serious AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (13%), acute renal failure (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and vomiting (5%).

Fatal serious AEs occurred in 6% of patients. These were mainly related to infectious complications and occurred in a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms.

The incidence of rash was higher in the O-DHAP arm (22% vs 9%), as was the incidence of raised serum creatinine (23% vs 16%).

Dose interruptions/delays (of either anti-CD20 therapy or chemotherapy) as a result of AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 30% in the R-DHAP arm.

AEs causing dose delays/interruptions included (in the O-DHAP and R-DHAP arms, respectively) neutropenia (6% and 7%), rash (9% and <1%), thrombocytopenia (5% and 4%), urticaria (6% and <1%), pyrexia (4% and 2%), febrile neutropenia (4% and 1%), hypersensitivity (4% and 1%), infusion-related reactions (5% and <1%), decrease in platelet count (2% and 3%), and pruritus (4% and 0%).

Sixteen percent of all patients had AEs that led to permanent discontinuation of study treatment. The rate of such AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent event leading to discontinuation was renal toxicity (8%).

Ofatumumab

Photo courtesy of GSK

Salvage treatment with an ofatumumab-based regimen is no better than a rituximab-based regimen for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a phase 3 study.

The study, ORCHARRD, was a comparison of ofatumumab plus cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (O-DHAP) and rituximab plus DHAP (R-DHAP), both followed by autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT), in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The data showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment arms with regard to progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), or overall survival (OS).

And the incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar between the arms.

Gustaaf W. van Imhoff, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Groningen in Groningen, Netherlands, and his colleagues conducted this study and reported the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was proposed by HOVON, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and funded by GSK, Genmab A/S, and Novartis AG. Ofatumumab became an asset of Novartis AG in March 2015.

Patients and treatment

The study included 447 adults with CD20+ DLBCL who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line treatment with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or a similar regimen.

The patients’ median age was 57 (range, 18 to 83), 63% had stage III/IV disease, and 71% of patients either did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line treatment or had a CR lasting less than 1 year.

The patients were randomized to receive O-DHAP (n=222) or R-DHAP (n=225). They received ofatumumab at 1000 mg or rituximab at 375 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP (4 infusions of either drug).

The patients who had responded after 2 cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and auto-SCT. Failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 was included as an event.

Response and survival

The response rate was 38% with O-DHAP and 42% with R-DHAP. The CR rate was 15% and 22%, respectively.

Thirty-three percent of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 37% in the R-DHAP arm underwent auto-SCT on protocol.

At 2 years, PFS was 24% with O-DHAP and 26% with R-DHAP (hazard ratio [HR]=1.12, P=0.33).

Two-year EFS was 16% with O-DHAP and 18% with R-DHAP. (HR=1.10, P=0.35). And 2-year OS was 41% with O-DHAP and 38% with R-DHAP (HR=0.90, P=0.38).

The researchers found that having a negative PET scan after cycle 3 was associated with better PFS and OS.

Two-year PFS was 32% for patients with a positive PET scan after cycle 3 and 70% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.001). Two-year OS was 43% for patients with positive PET scan and 78% for those with a negative PET scan (P=0.0018).

Safety

Fifty-two percent of all patients had 1 or more serious AE, and the incidence of serious AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (13%), acute renal failure (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and vomiting (5%).

Fatal serious AEs occurred in 6% of patients. These were mainly related to infectious complications and occurred in a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms.

The incidence of rash was higher in the O-DHAP arm (22% vs 9%), as was the incidence of raised serum creatinine (23% vs 16%).

Dose interruptions/delays (of either anti-CD20 therapy or chemotherapy) as a result of AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the O-DHAP arm and 30% in the R-DHAP arm.

AEs causing dose delays/interruptions included (in the O-DHAP and R-DHAP arms, respectively) neutropenia (6% and 7%), rash (9% and <1%), thrombocytopenia (5% and 4%), urticaria (6% and <1%), pyrexia (4% and 2%), febrile neutropenia (4% and 1%), hypersensitivity (4% and 1%), infusion-related reactions (5% and <1%), decrease in platelet count (2% and 3%), and pruritus (4% and 0%).

Sixteen percent of all patients had AEs that led to permanent discontinuation of study treatment. The rate of such AEs was similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent event leading to discontinuation was renal toxicity (8%).

Neutrophil engulfing bacteria

Image by Volker Brinkmann

Gedeon Richter Plc. has withdrawn its marketing authorization application (MAA) for the biosimilar pegfilgrastim product Cavoley from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Richter was seeking approval of Cavoley for the same indications as the reference product, Neulasta, a pegylated recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the occurrence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy to treat malignancies (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The MAA filing for Cavoley was based on data from Richter’s completed biosimilar development program.

The company presented to the EMA results of studies in healthy volunteers designed to show that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, the way it works, and how the body handles the drug.

Richter also presented results of a study comparing the safety and effectiveness of Cavoley and Neulasta in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (EudraCT 2013-003166-14).

Richter withdrew the MAA for Cavoley after the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) evaluated the documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

After the CHMP had assessed the company’s responses to the last round of questions, there were still some unresolved issues.

Based on the review of the data and Richter’s response to the CHMP’s list of questions, at the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Cavoley could not have been approved.

The CHMP said the company had not demonstrated that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

In its letter notifying the EMA of the MAA withdrawal, Richter said it would continue developing Cavoley and follow the CHMP’s advice to eliminate the remaining uncertainty that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

Neutrophil engulfing bacteria

Image by Volker Brinkmann

Gedeon Richter Plc. has withdrawn its marketing authorization application (MAA) for the biosimilar pegfilgrastim product Cavoley from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Richter was seeking approval of Cavoley for the same indications as the reference product, Neulasta, a pegylated recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the occurrence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy to treat malignancies (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The MAA filing for Cavoley was based on data from Richter’s completed biosimilar development program.

The company presented to the EMA results of studies in healthy volunteers designed to show that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, the way it works, and how the body handles the drug.

Richter also presented results of a study comparing the safety and effectiveness of Cavoley and Neulasta in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (EudraCT 2013-003166-14).

Richter withdrew the MAA for Cavoley after the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) evaluated the documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

After the CHMP had assessed the company’s responses to the last round of questions, there were still some unresolved issues.

Based on the review of the data and Richter’s response to the CHMP’s list of questions, at the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Cavoley could not have been approved.

The CHMP said the company had not demonstrated that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

In its letter notifying the EMA of the MAA withdrawal, Richter said it would continue developing Cavoley and follow the CHMP’s advice to eliminate the remaining uncertainty that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

Neutrophil engulfing bacteria

Image by Volker Brinkmann

Gedeon Richter Plc. has withdrawn its marketing authorization application (MAA) for the biosimilar pegfilgrastim product Cavoley from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Richter was seeking approval of Cavoley for the same indications as the reference product, Neulasta, a pegylated recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the occurrence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy to treat malignancies (except chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes).

The MAA filing for Cavoley was based on data from Richter’s completed biosimilar development program.

The company presented to the EMA results of studies in healthy volunteers designed to show that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta in terms of chemical structure, purity, the way it works, and how the body handles the drug.

Richter also presented results of a study comparing the safety and effectiveness of Cavoley and Neulasta in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (EudraCT 2013-003166-14).

Richter withdrew the MAA for Cavoley after the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) evaluated the documentation provided by the company and formulated lists of questions.

After the CHMP had assessed the company’s responses to the last round of questions, there were still some unresolved issues.

Based on the review of the data and Richter’s response to the CHMP’s list of questions, at the time of the withdrawal, the CHMP had some concerns and was of the provisional opinion that Cavoley could not have been approved.

The CHMP said the company had not demonstrated that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

In its letter notifying the EMA of the MAA withdrawal, Richter said it would continue developing Cavoley and follow the CHMP’s advice to eliminate the remaining uncertainty that Cavoley is highly similar to Neulasta.

Micrograph showing CLL

Results of a phase 2 trial suggest a 2-drug combination may be effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), particularly those with high-risk disease.

The combination consists of ublituximab (TG-1101), a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and the oral BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

Six months after starting treatment, the overall response rate was 88% among all evaluable patients and 95% among those with high-risk CLL.

Researchers said the long-term clinical benefit of the combination will be defined by an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The team reported results from the phase 2 trial in the British Journal of Haematology. The study was sponsored by TG Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing ublituximab.

The trial included 45 patients. Their median age was 71 (range, 39-86), about half were female, and the median ECOG performance score was 1.

Nearly half of patients (47%, n=21) had high-risk CLL. Twelve patients had del 17p, 12 had del 11q, 5 patients had both, and 2 had a TP53 mutation.

The patients had a median of 2 (range, 1-7) prior treatments, including purine analogues (n=22), bendamustine (n=21), idelalisib (n=2), a spleen-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (n=2), and the BTK inhibitor CC-292 (n=1).

Treatment

For this study, patients received ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 2 different doses of ublituximab. The study had a dose-confirmation safety run-in period that was followed by an open enrollment into phase 2.

The dose-confirmation safety assessment enrolled 6 patients in each of 2 cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 received ublituximab at 600 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If there was ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in this cohort, the dose escalation would proceed to cohort 2.

In cohort 2, patients’ ublituximab dose increased to 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If ≤ 1 DLT was reported in this cohort, the dose was considered safe for phase 2.

There were no DLTs observed in either cohort. So subsequent patients were enrolled into the open phase 2 part of the study, in which they received ublituximab at 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, as well as on day 1 of cycles 2 to 6.

Patients had response assessments at cycles 3 and 6. After that, they continued on ibrutinib monotherapy off study.

Safety

All 45 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events (AEs) were infusion-related reactions (IRRs, 53%), diarrhea (40%), fatigue (33%), cough (27%), rash (27%), and nausea (24%).

Grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (11%), neutropenia (11%), IRRs (7%), thrombocytopenia (7%), diarrhea (4%), and arthralgia (2%).

All rash and grade 3/4 diarrhea events were attributed to ibrutinib, and all IRRs were related to ublituximab. Twenty-one patients (47%) had dose interruptions due to IRRs, and 1 patient had a dose reduction to 600 mg.

Four patients had ublituximab-related dose interruptions—2 due to neutropenia and 2 because of elevated aspartate aminotransferase.

Two patients had ibrutinib-related dose reductions (for diarrhea and dizziness). Ten patients had ibrutinib-related dose interruptions—3 due to rash, 2 due to neutropenia, and 1 each because of anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, hypercalcemia, and dehydration.

Efficacy

Forty-one patients were evaluable for efficacy. Two patients were lost to follow-up, and 2 discontinued due to AEs. One of the AEs, diarrhea, was considered related to ibrutinib. The other patient discontinued due to pneumonia and pleural effusion, which were not attributed to study treatment.

At 6 months, the overall response rate was 88% among evaluable patients and 95% among high-risk patients. The median time to response was 8 weeks.

Two patients had a complete response, 34 had a partial response, and 3 had stable disease.

Both complete responders and 1 of the partial responders achieved minimal residual disease negativity. All 3 of these patients had high-risk disease.

“[T]he addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib not only produced high response rates but also allowed patients to achieve deeper responses, with complete responses and minimal residual disease negativity seen, which is rare with ibrutinib alone,” said study author Jeff Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute in Eugene, Oregon.

“We look forward to exploring how the increased depth of response may affect the sequence of treatments given to patients.”

Micrograph showing CLL

Results of a phase 2 trial suggest a 2-drug combination may be effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), particularly those with high-risk disease.

The combination consists of ublituximab (TG-1101), a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and the oral BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

Six months after starting treatment, the overall response rate was 88% among all evaluable patients and 95% among those with high-risk CLL.

Researchers said the long-term clinical benefit of the combination will be defined by an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The team reported results from the phase 2 trial in the British Journal of Haematology. The study was sponsored by TG Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing ublituximab.

The trial included 45 patients. Their median age was 71 (range, 39-86), about half were female, and the median ECOG performance score was 1.

Nearly half of patients (47%, n=21) had high-risk CLL. Twelve patients had del 17p, 12 had del 11q, 5 patients had both, and 2 had a TP53 mutation.

The patients had a median of 2 (range, 1-7) prior treatments, including purine analogues (n=22), bendamustine (n=21), idelalisib (n=2), a spleen-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (n=2), and the BTK inhibitor CC-292 (n=1).

Treatment

For this study, patients received ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 2 different doses of ublituximab. The study had a dose-confirmation safety run-in period that was followed by an open enrollment into phase 2.

The dose-confirmation safety assessment enrolled 6 patients in each of 2 cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 received ublituximab at 600 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If there was ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in this cohort, the dose escalation would proceed to cohort 2.

In cohort 2, patients’ ublituximab dose increased to 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If ≤ 1 DLT was reported in this cohort, the dose was considered safe for phase 2.

There were no DLTs observed in either cohort. So subsequent patients were enrolled into the open phase 2 part of the study, in which they received ublituximab at 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, as well as on day 1 of cycles 2 to 6.

Patients had response assessments at cycles 3 and 6. After that, they continued on ibrutinib monotherapy off study.

Safety

All 45 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events (AEs) were infusion-related reactions (IRRs, 53%), diarrhea (40%), fatigue (33%), cough (27%), rash (27%), and nausea (24%).

Grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (11%), neutropenia (11%), IRRs (7%), thrombocytopenia (7%), diarrhea (4%), and arthralgia (2%).

All rash and grade 3/4 diarrhea events were attributed to ibrutinib, and all IRRs were related to ublituximab. Twenty-one patients (47%) had dose interruptions due to IRRs, and 1 patient had a dose reduction to 600 mg.

Four patients had ublituximab-related dose interruptions—2 due to neutropenia and 2 because of elevated aspartate aminotransferase.

Two patients had ibrutinib-related dose reductions (for diarrhea and dizziness). Ten patients had ibrutinib-related dose interruptions—3 due to rash, 2 due to neutropenia, and 1 each because of anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, hypercalcemia, and dehydration.

Efficacy

Forty-one patients were evaluable for efficacy. Two patients were lost to follow-up, and 2 discontinued due to AEs. One of the AEs, diarrhea, was considered related to ibrutinib. The other patient discontinued due to pneumonia and pleural effusion, which were not attributed to study treatment.

At 6 months, the overall response rate was 88% among evaluable patients and 95% among high-risk patients. The median time to response was 8 weeks.

Two patients had a complete response, 34 had a partial response, and 3 had stable disease.

Both complete responders and 1 of the partial responders achieved minimal residual disease negativity. All 3 of these patients had high-risk disease.

“[T]he addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib not only produced high response rates but also allowed patients to achieve deeper responses, with complete responses and minimal residual disease negativity seen, which is rare with ibrutinib alone,” said study author Jeff Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute in Eugene, Oregon.

“We look forward to exploring how the increased depth of response may affect the sequence of treatments given to patients.”

Micrograph showing CLL

Results of a phase 2 trial suggest a 2-drug combination may be effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), particularly those with high-risk disease.

The combination consists of ublituximab (TG-1101), a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and the oral BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

Six months after starting treatment, the overall response rate was 88% among all evaluable patients and 95% among those with high-risk CLL.

Researchers said the long-term clinical benefit of the combination will be defined by an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The team reported results from the phase 2 trial in the British Journal of Haematology. The study was sponsored by TG Therapeutics, Inc., the company developing ublituximab.

The trial included 45 patients. Their median age was 71 (range, 39-86), about half were female, and the median ECOG performance score was 1.

Nearly half of patients (47%, n=21) had high-risk CLL. Twelve patients had del 17p, 12 had del 11q, 5 patients had both, and 2 had a TP53 mutation.

The patients had a median of 2 (range, 1-7) prior treatments, including purine analogues (n=22), bendamustine (n=21), idelalisib (n=2), a spleen-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (n=2), and the BTK inhibitor CC-292 (n=1).

Treatment

For this study, patients received ibrutinib at 420 mg once daily and 2 different doses of ublituximab. The study had a dose-confirmation safety run-in period that was followed by an open enrollment into phase 2.

The dose-confirmation safety assessment enrolled 6 patients in each of 2 cohorts. Patients in cohort 1 received ublituximab at 600 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If there was ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in this cohort, the dose escalation would proceed to cohort 2.

In cohort 2, patients’ ublituximab dose increased to 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1. If ≤ 1 DLT was reported in this cohort, the dose was considered safe for phase 2.

There were no DLTs observed in either cohort. So subsequent patients were enrolled into the open phase 2 part of the study, in which they received ublituximab at 900 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, as well as on day 1 of cycles 2 to 6.

Patients had response assessments at cycles 3 and 6. After that, they continued on ibrutinib monotherapy off study.

Safety

All 45 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events (AEs) were infusion-related reactions (IRRs, 53%), diarrhea (40%), fatigue (33%), cough (27%), rash (27%), and nausea (24%).

Grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (11%), neutropenia (11%), IRRs (7%), thrombocytopenia (7%), diarrhea (4%), and arthralgia (2%).

All rash and grade 3/4 diarrhea events were attributed to ibrutinib, and all IRRs were related to ublituximab. Twenty-one patients (47%) had dose interruptions due to IRRs, and 1 patient had a dose reduction to 600 mg.

Four patients had ublituximab-related dose interruptions—2 due to neutropenia and 2 because of elevated aspartate aminotransferase.

Two patients had ibrutinib-related dose reductions (for diarrhea and dizziness). Ten patients had ibrutinib-related dose interruptions—3 due to rash, 2 due to neutropenia, and 1 each because of anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, hypercalcemia, and dehydration.

Efficacy

Forty-one patients were evaluable for efficacy. Two patients were lost to follow-up, and 2 discontinued due to AEs. One of the AEs, diarrhea, was considered related to ibrutinib. The other patient discontinued due to pneumonia and pleural effusion, which were not attributed to study treatment.

At 6 months, the overall response rate was 88% among evaluable patients and 95% among high-risk patients. The median time to response was 8 weeks.

Two patients had a complete response, 34 had a partial response, and 3 had stable disease.

Both complete responders and 1 of the partial responders achieved minimal residual disease negativity. All 3 of these patients had high-risk disease.

“[T]he addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib not only produced high response rates but also allowed patients to achieve deeper responses, with complete responses and minimal residual disease negativity seen, which is rare with ibrutinib alone,” said study author Jeff Sharman, MD, of Willamette Valley Cancer Institute in Eugene, Oregon.

“We look forward to exploring how the increased depth of response may affect the sequence of treatments given to patients.”

Micrograph showing MCL

Bendamustine hydrochloride (TREAKISYM®) has been approved in Japan as first-line treatment for patients with low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The drug will now be available for adjunctive use with rituximab in these patients.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is already approved in Japan as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL, as well as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is the subject of a licensing agreement concluded between Eisai Co., Ltd and SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited. Under the licensing agreement, Eisai has been marketing the product since December 2010.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is available at doses of 25 mg and 100 mg for intravenous infusion. The recommended dosage and administration is as follows:

• For low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL

  • As first-line treatment

    When used adjunctively with rituximab, the usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 90 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

  • For relapsed or refractory disease

    The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 120 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 21-day cycles.

• For chronic lymphocytic leukemia

  • The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 100 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

All of the aforementioned doses may be reduced appropriately according to the patient’s condition. 

Micrograph showing MCL

Bendamustine hydrochloride (TREAKISYM®) has been approved in Japan as first-line treatment for patients with low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The drug will now be available for adjunctive use with rituximab in these patients.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is already approved in Japan as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL, as well as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is the subject of a licensing agreement concluded between Eisai Co., Ltd and SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited. Under the licensing agreement, Eisai has been marketing the product since December 2010.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is available at doses of 25 mg and 100 mg for intravenous infusion. The recommended dosage and administration is as follows:

• For low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL

  • As first-line treatment

    When used adjunctively with rituximab, the usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 90 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

  • For relapsed or refractory disease

    The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 120 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 21-day cycles.

• For chronic lymphocytic leukemia

  • The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 100 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

All of the aforementioned doses may be reduced appropriately according to the patient’s condition. 

Micrograph showing MCL

Bendamustine hydrochloride (TREAKISYM®) has been approved in Japan as first-line treatment for patients with low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The drug will now be available for adjunctive use with rituximab in these patients.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is already approved in Japan as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL, as well as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is the subject of a licensing agreement concluded between Eisai Co., Ltd and SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited. Under the licensing agreement, Eisai has been marketing the product since December 2010.

Bendamustine hydrochloride is available at doses of 25 mg and 100 mg for intravenous infusion. The recommended dosage and administration is as follows:

• For low-grade B-cell NHL and MCL

  • As first-line treatment

    When used adjunctively with rituximab, the usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 90 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

  • For relapsed or refractory disease

    The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 120 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 21-day cycles.

• For chronic lymphocytic leukemia

  • The usual adult dose of bendamustine hydrochloride is 100 mg/m² body surface area infused intravenously over 60 minutes on days 1 and 2 of repeated 28-day cycles.

All of the aforementioned doses may be reduced appropriately according to the patient’s condition. 

Castleman disease or angiofollicular lymph node hyperplasia is an uncommon cause of an incidental abdominal mass found on imaging. The etiology of Castleman disease is relatively unknown, however, it is thought to be primarily associated with an oversecretion of interleukin-6. The oversecretion of this pro-inflammatory cytokine leads to lymph node hyperplasia. Castleman disease can be classified into 2 categories: unicentric or multicentric. Most cases of unicentric Castleman disease are asymptomatic and are found on routine imaging. It is found predominately in middle-aged persons of equal sex and is managed primarily by surgical resection. We present here a case of a peripancreatic mass diagnosed by surgical excision as Castleman disease, hyaline vascular type.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Castleman disease or angiofollicular lymph node hyperplasia is an uncommon cause of an incidental abdominal mass found on imaging. The etiology of Castleman disease is relatively unknown, however, it is thought to be primarily associated with an oversecretion of interleukin-6. The oversecretion of this pro-inflammatory cytokine leads to lymph node hyperplasia. Castleman disease can be classified into 2 categories: unicentric or multicentric. Most cases of unicentric Castleman disease are asymptomatic and are found on routine imaging. It is found predominately in middle-aged persons of equal sex and is managed primarily by surgical resection. We present here a case of a peripancreatic mass diagnosed by surgical excision as Castleman disease, hyaline vascular type.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Castleman disease or angiofollicular lymph node hyperplasia is an uncommon cause of an incidental abdominal mass found on imaging. The etiology of Castleman disease is relatively unknown, however, it is thought to be primarily associated with an oversecretion of interleukin-6. The oversecretion of this pro-inflammatory cytokine leads to lymph node hyperplasia. Castleman disease can be classified into 2 categories: unicentric or multicentric. Most cases of unicentric Castleman disease are asymptomatic and are found on routine imaging. It is found predominately in middle-aged persons of equal sex and is managed primarily by surgical resection. We present here a case of a peripancreatic mass diagnosed by surgical excision as Castleman disease, hyaline vascular type.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Vial of obinutuzumab

SAN DIEGO—Substituting obinutuzumab for rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy does not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a study presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

In this phase 3 trial, known as GOYA, researchers compared obinutuzumab plus CHOP (G-CHOP) to rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL.

There were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS).

In addition, grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP.

“Rituximab plus CHOP remains the standard of care in this setting,” said study investigator Umberto Vitolo, MD, of the Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino in Torino, Italy.

“Further analyses of the data from this trial will inform and shape the direction of future research activities in DLBCL.”

Dr Vitolo presented results from GOYA at ASH as abstract 470.

Obinutuzumab is a glycoengineered, type II, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody said to have greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than rituximab.

In the phase 2 GATHER trial, G-CHOP demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced, untreated DLBCL.

So with the phase 3 GOYA trial, researchers wanted to compare G-CHOP to R-CHOP in DLBCL. The trial enrolled 1418 patients (median age 62) with previously untreated DLBCL.

Patients from 207 centers around the world were randomized to receive eight 21-day cycles of obinutuzumab at 1000 mg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 1 and day 1 in cycles 2 to 8 (n=706) or rituximab at 375 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 (n=712) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP. Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease.

Dr Vitolo said baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Cell-of-origin distribution, as assessed by gene-expression profiling, was similar in both arms.

Virtually all (88%) of the patients received more than 90% of the planned cumulative dose of chemotherapy. Antibody dose delays were more common in the G-CHOP arm.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

For the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, there was no significant difference between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms. The 3-year PFS was 69.6% for G-CHOP and 66.9% for R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR]=0.92, P=0.3868).

There were no clinically meaningful differences observed between the treatment arms in terms of secondary endpoints, including OS, end-of-treatment overall response rate, and complete response rate, with or without PET scanning.

At the end of treatment, the overall response rates, according to CT and PET, were 77.9% in the R-CHOP arm and 77.4% in the G-CHOP arm. The complete response rates were 59.5% and 56.7%, respectively.

The 3-year OS rate was 81.4% in the R-CHOP arm and 81.2% in the G-CHOP arm (HR=1.00, P=0.9982).

In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of investigator-assessed PFS, there was a slight trend toward improved PFS in favor of G-CHOP for patients with GCB DLBCL, with a 3-year PFS of 79% vs 70% for R-CHOP (HR=0.72).

Safety

No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3 or higher AEs and serious AEs were more common in the G-CHOP arm than the R-CHOP arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 AEs was 73.7% and 64.7%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 42.6% and 37.6%, respectively.

Certain grade 3-5 AEs were more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP, including neutropenia (46.2% vs 38.1%), infusion-related reactions (2.8% vs 0.6%), infections (19.2% vs 15.5%), and thrombocytopenia 4.4% vs 1.4%).

AEs resulting in withdrawal from treatment and AEs with fatal outcomes were slightly more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP. AEs leading to withdrawal occurred in 11.9% and 8.5% of patients, respectively.

Fatal AEs (listed by preferred term) in the G-CHOP arm included septic shock (n=6, 0.9%), pneumonia (n=5, 0.7%), death (n=3, 0.4%), pulmonary embolism (n=2, 1.3%), and cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%).

Fatal AEs in the R-CHOP arm included pneumonia (n=6, 0.9%), sepsis (n=3, 0.4%), cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%), and death (n=2, 0.3%).

Vial of obinutuzumab

SAN DIEGO—Substituting obinutuzumab for rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy does not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a study presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

In this phase 3 trial, known as GOYA, researchers compared obinutuzumab plus CHOP (G-CHOP) to rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL.

There were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS).

In addition, grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP.

“Rituximab plus CHOP remains the standard of care in this setting,” said study investigator Umberto Vitolo, MD, of the Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino in Torino, Italy.

“Further analyses of the data from this trial will inform and shape the direction of future research activities in DLBCL.”

Dr Vitolo presented results from GOYA at ASH as abstract 470.

Obinutuzumab is a glycoengineered, type II, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody said to have greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than rituximab.

In the phase 2 GATHER trial, G-CHOP demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced, untreated DLBCL.

So with the phase 3 GOYA trial, researchers wanted to compare G-CHOP to R-CHOP in DLBCL. The trial enrolled 1418 patients (median age 62) with previously untreated DLBCL.

Patients from 207 centers around the world were randomized to receive eight 21-day cycles of obinutuzumab at 1000 mg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 1 and day 1 in cycles 2 to 8 (n=706) or rituximab at 375 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 (n=712) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP. Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease.

Dr Vitolo said baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Cell-of-origin distribution, as assessed by gene-expression profiling, was similar in both arms.

Virtually all (88%) of the patients received more than 90% of the planned cumulative dose of chemotherapy. Antibody dose delays were more common in the G-CHOP arm.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

For the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, there was no significant difference between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms. The 3-year PFS was 69.6% for G-CHOP and 66.9% for R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR]=0.92, P=0.3868).

There were no clinically meaningful differences observed between the treatment arms in terms of secondary endpoints, including OS, end-of-treatment overall response rate, and complete response rate, with or without PET scanning.

At the end of treatment, the overall response rates, according to CT and PET, were 77.9% in the R-CHOP arm and 77.4% in the G-CHOP arm. The complete response rates were 59.5% and 56.7%, respectively.

The 3-year OS rate was 81.4% in the R-CHOP arm and 81.2% in the G-CHOP arm (HR=1.00, P=0.9982).

In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of investigator-assessed PFS, there was a slight trend toward improved PFS in favor of G-CHOP for patients with GCB DLBCL, with a 3-year PFS of 79% vs 70% for R-CHOP (HR=0.72).

Safety

No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3 or higher AEs and serious AEs were more common in the G-CHOP arm than the R-CHOP arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 AEs was 73.7% and 64.7%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 42.6% and 37.6%, respectively.

Certain grade 3-5 AEs were more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP, including neutropenia (46.2% vs 38.1%), infusion-related reactions (2.8% vs 0.6%), infections (19.2% vs 15.5%), and thrombocytopenia 4.4% vs 1.4%).

AEs resulting in withdrawal from treatment and AEs with fatal outcomes were slightly more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP. AEs leading to withdrawal occurred in 11.9% and 8.5% of patients, respectively.

Fatal AEs (listed by preferred term) in the G-CHOP arm included septic shock (n=6, 0.9%), pneumonia (n=5, 0.7%), death (n=3, 0.4%), pulmonary embolism (n=2, 1.3%), and cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%).

Fatal AEs in the R-CHOP arm included pneumonia (n=6, 0.9%), sepsis (n=3, 0.4%), cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%), and death (n=2, 0.3%).

Vial of obinutuzumab

SAN DIEGO—Substituting obinutuzumab for rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy does not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to a study presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

In this phase 3 trial, known as GOYA, researchers compared obinutuzumab plus CHOP (G-CHOP) to rituximab plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL.

There were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS).

In addition, grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP.

“Rituximab plus CHOP remains the standard of care in this setting,” said study investigator Umberto Vitolo, MD, of the Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino in Torino, Italy.

“Further analyses of the data from this trial will inform and shape the direction of future research activities in DLBCL.”

Dr Vitolo presented results from GOYA at ASH as abstract 470.

Obinutuzumab is a glycoengineered, type II, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody said to have greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than rituximab.

In the phase 2 GATHER trial, G-CHOP demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced, untreated DLBCL.

So with the phase 3 GOYA trial, researchers wanted to compare G-CHOP to R-CHOP in DLBCL. The trial enrolled 1418 patients (median age 62) with previously untreated DLBCL.

Patients from 207 centers around the world were randomized to receive eight 21-day cycles of obinutuzumab at 1000 mg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 in cycle 1 and day 1 in cycles 2 to 8 (n=706) or rituximab at 375 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 (n=712) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP. Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease.

Dr Vitolo said baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Cell-of-origin distribution, as assessed by gene-expression profiling, was similar in both arms.

Virtually all (88%) of the patients received more than 90% of the planned cumulative dose of chemotherapy. Antibody dose delays were more common in the G-CHOP arm.

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

For the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS, there was no significant difference between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms. The 3-year PFS was 69.6% for G-CHOP and 66.9% for R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR]=0.92, P=0.3868).

There were no clinically meaningful differences observed between the treatment arms in terms of secondary endpoints, including OS, end-of-treatment overall response rate, and complete response rate, with or without PET scanning.

At the end of treatment, the overall response rates, according to CT and PET, were 77.9% in the R-CHOP arm and 77.4% in the G-CHOP arm. The complete response rates were 59.5% and 56.7%, respectively.

The 3-year OS rate was 81.4% in the R-CHOP arm and 81.2% in the G-CHOP arm (HR=1.00, P=0.9982).

In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of investigator-assessed PFS, there was a slight trend toward improved PFS in favor of G-CHOP for patients with GCB DLBCL, with a 3-year PFS of 79% vs 70% for R-CHOP (HR=0.72).

Safety

No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3 or higher AEs and serious AEs were more common in the G-CHOP arm than the R-CHOP arm. The incidence of grade 3-5 AEs was 73.7% and 64.7%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 42.6% and 37.6%, respectively.

Certain grade 3-5 AEs were more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP, including neutropenia (46.2% vs 38.1%), infusion-related reactions (2.8% vs 0.6%), infections (19.2% vs 15.5%), and thrombocytopenia 4.4% vs 1.4%).

AEs resulting in withdrawal from treatment and AEs with fatal outcomes were slightly more common with G-CHOP than with R-CHOP. AEs leading to withdrawal occurred in 11.9% and 8.5% of patients, respectively.

Fatal AEs (listed by preferred term) in the G-CHOP arm included septic shock (n=6, 0.9%), pneumonia (n=5, 0.7%), death (n=3, 0.4%), pulmonary embolism (n=2, 1.3%), and cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%).

Fatal AEs in the R-CHOP arm included pneumonia (n=6, 0.9%), sepsis (n=3, 0.4%), cerebrovascular accident (n=2, 0.3%), and death (n=2, 0.3%).

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

SAN DIEGO—Immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown promise in treating hematologic malignancies, particularly classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), based on results of the combination cohort of the phase 1 CheckMate 039 study.

Thirty-one heavily pre-treated HL patients achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 74%, including 6 complete responses.

And in transplant-naïve HL patients, the combination produced an ORR of 67%. 

“Most in the room would be familiar with the excellent results that we have seen with monotherapy with nivolumab,” Stephen Ansell, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

“In classical Hodgkin lymphoma, we’ve seen meaningful and clinically quite stellar results and durable responses.”

“Our plan was, as part of this trial [CheckMate 039], to then move to see whether adding a further checkpoint, ipilimumab, could enhance the results seen with nivolumab.”

Dr Ansell presented the findings for the checkpoint combination as abstract 183. He disclosed research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that funded the study.
 
Checkpoint inhibitors

Nivolumab and ipilimumab are both fully human monoclonal antibodies, but ipilimumab “works in a slightly different fashion from nivolumab,” Dr Ansell said.

Nivolumab targets the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and disrupts PD-1 pathway signaling and restores anti-tumor T-cell function.

Ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and induces anti-tumor immunity.

The combination has shown superior efficacy, compared to either agent alone, in preclinical studies and a phase 1 trial of patients with advanced melanoma.

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

Patients were eligible to enroll if they had relapsed or refractory HL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, including follicular or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), T-cell NHL (including cutaneous or peripheral T-cell lymphoma), or multiple myeloma (MM).

Patients could not have had prior organ or allogeneic stem cell transplant and no prior immune checkpoint blockade therapy.

Treatment consisted of nivolumab at 3 mg/kg IV plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The combination phase was followed by nivolumab monotherapy at the same dose every 2 weeks for 2 years.

The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and biomarker analyses.

Patient characteristics

The investigators enrolled 31 HL, 15 B-cell NHL, 11 T-cell NHL, and 7 MM patients. Most patients, Dr Ansell noted, were heavily pretreated.

HL patients were 42% male, 52% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 2 to 10) prior systemic therapies. Forty-two percent had prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

“Interestingly, in the Hodgkin cohort, a number of patients had not proceeded to an autologous transplant, but predominantly because these were chemo-refractory or chemo-resistant patients not eligible for a transplant,” Dr Ansell pointed out.

Of the HL patients, 18 were transplant-naïve, 13 were chemo-resistant, 3 were ineligible for ASCT, and 2 declined the procedure.

B-cell NHL patients were 73% male, and 80% had an ECOG status of 1. They had a median of 3 (range, 1 to 16) prior systemic therapies. Seven percent had a prior ASCT.

T-cell NHL patients were 55% male, 73% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 1 to 11) prior systemic therapies. None had a prior ASCT.

MM patients were 86% male, 71% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 5 (range, 2 to 20) prior systemic therapies. More than half had a prior ASCT.

Patient disposition

With follow-up approaching a year, more patients with HL are still on treatment (39%) compared with B-cell NHL (13%), T-cell NHL (18%), and MM (0%) patients.

“Of note, however, is that the reasons for going off treatment were predominantly disease progression,” Dr Ansell said.

“The vast majority of patients who came off treatment came off treatment because their disease progressed, and the numbers that came off because of toxicity were relatively low.”

Seven HL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

Eleven B-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 withdrew due to unrelated adverse events (AEs).

Five T-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

And 4 MM patients withdrew due to disease progression, 1 due to study drug toxicity, and 1 due to AEs unrelated to the study drug.

About two-thirds of HL patients, over 90% of B-cell NHL patients, about 80% of T-cell NHL patients, and about 70% of MM patients received 90% or more of the intended dose of each drug.

Safety

One patient with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma was included in the safety analysis, for a total of 65 patients treated.

“The majority of patients had some degree of adverse event,” Dr Ansell explained. “But if one looks at the grade 3 and 4 adverse events, those were seen in a more modest number of patients, in a minority of patients. And most importantly, if one looks at the adverse events that led to discontinuation, one can see that this was in a significant minority of patients.”

Five patients discontinued due to treatment-related AEs, which were pneumonitis (n=3), pneumonia and pneumonitis (n=1), and diabetic ketoacidosis (n=1).

Overall, 51 patients (78%) experienced an AE; 19 (29%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 14 (22%) had a serious AE, and 5 (8%) discontinued due to an AE.

Of 31 HL patients, 28 (90%) had an AE, 8 (26%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 6 (19%) had a serious AE, and 2 (6%) discontinued due to an AE.

All 11 T-cell NHL patients experienced an AE, 5 patients (45%) a grade 3-4 AE, 4 patients (36%) had a serious AE, and 2 patients (18%) discontinued because of an AE.

About half of B-cell NHL and MM patients experienced an AE, with 1 MM patient discontinuing as a result of it and no B-cell NHL patient discontinuing due to an AE.

“I would highlight that most of the adverse events were, as expected, immunological in nature . . . . ,” Dr Ansell said. “A very modest number of patients had grade 3 and 4 toxicities.”

The most common drug-related AEs of any grade were fatigue (n=17; 26%), pyrexia (n=15; 23%), rash (n=7; 11%), diarrhea (n=12; 18%), and nausea, pneumonitis, cough, and infusion-related reactions, with 9 patients each (14%).

Efficacy

Twenty-three HL patients (74%) achieved an overall response, including 6 patients (19%) with a complete response and 17 (55%) with a partial response. Three patients (10%) had stable disease, and 3 (10%) had relapsed or progressive disease. Response was not reported for 2 patients (6%).

“Most of these responses are durable, and, very encouraging, you can see patients out approaching a year continuing on therapy,” Dr Ansell said.

The ORR in the 18 transplant-naive patients was 67% (n=67).

The median duration of response for HL patients was not reached and ranged from 0.0 to 13.4 months.

B-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 20% (n=3). There were no complete responses and 3 (20%) partial responses. One patient (7%) had stable disease, and 8 (53%) had relapsed or progressive disase. The median duration of partial response was not reached and ranged from 11.0 to 12.7 months.

T-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 9% (n=1). There were no complete responses and 1 (9%) partial response. Four patients (36%) had stable disease, and 3 (27%) had relapsed or progressive disease. The median duration of partial response was not reached and was 3.9 months.

Except for 1 patient with stable disease, MM patients did not respond to therapy.

Biomarker analysis

All 19 HL patients with a known PD-L1 status at baseline saw their tumor burden decrease to below baseline levels. This may be because HL is characterized by high PD-L1 expression and high responsiveness to checkpoint blockade.

Patients with NHL, on the other hand, have a diverse group of tumors characterized by variable PD-L1 expression. Eight of 13 patients with known expression saw their tumor burden decrease with treatment to below baseline.

Encouraged by the results, the investigators believe further investigation of the combination is in order, as the combination, with limited follow-up, achieved a high and durable ORR in HL patients, including those who were transplant-naïve.

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

SAN DIEGO—Immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown promise in treating hematologic malignancies, particularly classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), based on results of the combination cohort of the phase 1 CheckMate 039 study.

Thirty-one heavily pre-treated HL patients achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 74%, including 6 complete responses.

And in transplant-naïve HL patients, the combination produced an ORR of 67%. 

“Most in the room would be familiar with the excellent results that we have seen with monotherapy with nivolumab,” Stephen Ansell, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

“In classical Hodgkin lymphoma, we’ve seen meaningful and clinically quite stellar results and durable responses.”

“Our plan was, as part of this trial [CheckMate 039], to then move to see whether adding a further checkpoint, ipilimumab, could enhance the results seen with nivolumab.”

Dr Ansell presented the findings for the checkpoint combination as abstract 183. He disclosed research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that funded the study.
 
Checkpoint inhibitors

Nivolumab and ipilimumab are both fully human monoclonal antibodies, but ipilimumab “works in a slightly different fashion from nivolumab,” Dr Ansell said.

Nivolumab targets the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and disrupts PD-1 pathway signaling and restores anti-tumor T-cell function.

Ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and induces anti-tumor immunity.

The combination has shown superior efficacy, compared to either agent alone, in preclinical studies and a phase 1 trial of patients with advanced melanoma.

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

Patients were eligible to enroll if they had relapsed or refractory HL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, including follicular or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), T-cell NHL (including cutaneous or peripheral T-cell lymphoma), or multiple myeloma (MM).

Patients could not have had prior organ or allogeneic stem cell transplant and no prior immune checkpoint blockade therapy.

Treatment consisted of nivolumab at 3 mg/kg IV plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The combination phase was followed by nivolumab monotherapy at the same dose every 2 weeks for 2 years.

The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and biomarker analyses.

Patient characteristics

The investigators enrolled 31 HL, 15 B-cell NHL, 11 T-cell NHL, and 7 MM patients. Most patients, Dr Ansell noted, were heavily pretreated.

HL patients were 42% male, 52% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 2 to 10) prior systemic therapies. Forty-two percent had prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

“Interestingly, in the Hodgkin cohort, a number of patients had not proceeded to an autologous transplant, but predominantly because these were chemo-refractory or chemo-resistant patients not eligible for a transplant,” Dr Ansell pointed out.

Of the HL patients, 18 were transplant-naïve, 13 were chemo-resistant, 3 were ineligible for ASCT, and 2 declined the procedure.

B-cell NHL patients were 73% male, and 80% had an ECOG status of 1. They had a median of 3 (range, 1 to 16) prior systemic therapies. Seven percent had a prior ASCT.

T-cell NHL patients were 55% male, 73% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 1 to 11) prior systemic therapies. None had a prior ASCT.

MM patients were 86% male, 71% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 5 (range, 2 to 20) prior systemic therapies. More than half had a prior ASCT.

Patient disposition

With follow-up approaching a year, more patients with HL are still on treatment (39%) compared with B-cell NHL (13%), T-cell NHL (18%), and MM (0%) patients.

“Of note, however, is that the reasons for going off treatment were predominantly disease progression,” Dr Ansell said.

“The vast majority of patients who came off treatment came off treatment because their disease progressed, and the numbers that came off because of toxicity were relatively low.”

Seven HL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

Eleven B-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 withdrew due to unrelated adverse events (AEs).

Five T-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

And 4 MM patients withdrew due to disease progression, 1 due to study drug toxicity, and 1 due to AEs unrelated to the study drug.

About two-thirds of HL patients, over 90% of B-cell NHL patients, about 80% of T-cell NHL patients, and about 70% of MM patients received 90% or more of the intended dose of each drug.

Safety

One patient with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma was included in the safety analysis, for a total of 65 patients treated.

“The majority of patients had some degree of adverse event,” Dr Ansell explained. “But if one looks at the grade 3 and 4 adverse events, those were seen in a more modest number of patients, in a minority of patients. And most importantly, if one looks at the adverse events that led to discontinuation, one can see that this was in a significant minority of patients.”

Five patients discontinued due to treatment-related AEs, which were pneumonitis (n=3), pneumonia and pneumonitis (n=1), and diabetic ketoacidosis (n=1).

Overall, 51 patients (78%) experienced an AE; 19 (29%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 14 (22%) had a serious AE, and 5 (8%) discontinued due to an AE.

Of 31 HL patients, 28 (90%) had an AE, 8 (26%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 6 (19%) had a serious AE, and 2 (6%) discontinued due to an AE.

All 11 T-cell NHL patients experienced an AE, 5 patients (45%) a grade 3-4 AE, 4 patients (36%) had a serious AE, and 2 patients (18%) discontinued because of an AE.

About half of B-cell NHL and MM patients experienced an AE, with 1 MM patient discontinuing as a result of it and no B-cell NHL patient discontinuing due to an AE.

“I would highlight that most of the adverse events were, as expected, immunological in nature . . . . ,” Dr Ansell said. “A very modest number of patients had grade 3 and 4 toxicities.”

The most common drug-related AEs of any grade were fatigue (n=17; 26%), pyrexia (n=15; 23%), rash (n=7; 11%), diarrhea (n=12; 18%), and nausea, pneumonitis, cough, and infusion-related reactions, with 9 patients each (14%).

Efficacy

Twenty-three HL patients (74%) achieved an overall response, including 6 patients (19%) with a complete response and 17 (55%) with a partial response. Three patients (10%) had stable disease, and 3 (10%) had relapsed or progressive disease. Response was not reported for 2 patients (6%).

“Most of these responses are durable, and, very encouraging, you can see patients out approaching a year continuing on therapy,” Dr Ansell said.

The ORR in the 18 transplant-naive patients was 67% (n=67).

The median duration of response for HL patients was not reached and ranged from 0.0 to 13.4 months.

B-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 20% (n=3). There were no complete responses and 3 (20%) partial responses. One patient (7%) had stable disease, and 8 (53%) had relapsed or progressive disase. The median duration of partial response was not reached and ranged from 11.0 to 12.7 months.

T-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 9% (n=1). There were no complete responses and 1 (9%) partial response. Four patients (36%) had stable disease, and 3 (27%) had relapsed or progressive disease. The median duration of partial response was not reached and was 3.9 months.

Except for 1 patient with stable disease, MM patients did not respond to therapy.

Biomarker analysis

All 19 HL patients with a known PD-L1 status at baseline saw their tumor burden decrease to below baseline levels. This may be because HL is characterized by high PD-L1 expression and high responsiveness to checkpoint blockade.

Patients with NHL, on the other hand, have a diverse group of tumors characterized by variable PD-L1 expression. Eight of 13 patients with known expression saw their tumor burden decrease with treatment to below baseline.

Encouraged by the results, the investigators believe further investigation of the combination is in order, as the combination, with limited follow-up, achieved a high and durable ORR in HL patients, including those who were transplant-naïve.

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

SAN DIEGO—Immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown promise in treating hematologic malignancies, particularly classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), based on results of the combination cohort of the phase 1 CheckMate 039 study.

Thirty-one heavily pre-treated HL patients achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 74%, including 6 complete responses.

And in transplant-naïve HL patients, the combination produced an ORR of 67%. 

“Most in the room would be familiar with the excellent results that we have seen with monotherapy with nivolumab,” Stephen Ansell, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

“In classical Hodgkin lymphoma, we’ve seen meaningful and clinically quite stellar results and durable responses.”

“Our plan was, as part of this trial [CheckMate 039], to then move to see whether adding a further checkpoint, ipilimumab, could enhance the results seen with nivolumab.”

Dr Ansell presented the findings for the checkpoint combination as abstract 183. He disclosed research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that funded the study.
 
Checkpoint inhibitors

Nivolumab and ipilimumab are both fully human monoclonal antibodies, but ipilimumab “works in a slightly different fashion from nivolumab,” Dr Ansell said.

Nivolumab targets the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and disrupts PD-1 pathway signaling and restores anti-tumor T-cell function.

Ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and induces anti-tumor immunity.

The combination has shown superior efficacy, compared to either agent alone, in preclinical studies and a phase 1 trial of patients with advanced melanoma.

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

Patients were eligible to enroll if they had relapsed or refractory HL, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, including follicular or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), T-cell NHL (including cutaneous or peripheral T-cell lymphoma), or multiple myeloma (MM).

Patients could not have had prior organ or allogeneic stem cell transplant and no prior immune checkpoint blockade therapy.

Treatment consisted of nivolumab at 3 mg/kg IV plus ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The combination phase was followed by nivolumab monotherapy at the same dose every 2 weeks for 2 years.

The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and biomarker analyses.

Patient characteristics

The investigators enrolled 31 HL, 15 B-cell NHL, 11 T-cell NHL, and 7 MM patients. Most patients, Dr Ansell noted, were heavily pretreated.

HL patients were 42% male, 52% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 2 to 10) prior systemic therapies. Forty-two percent had prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

“Interestingly, in the Hodgkin cohort, a number of patients had not proceeded to an autologous transplant, but predominantly because these were chemo-refractory or chemo-resistant patients not eligible for a transplant,” Dr Ansell pointed out.

Of the HL patients, 18 were transplant-naïve, 13 were chemo-resistant, 3 were ineligible for ASCT, and 2 declined the procedure.

B-cell NHL patients were 73% male, and 80% had an ECOG status of 1. They had a median of 3 (range, 1 to 16) prior systemic therapies. Seven percent had a prior ASCT.

T-cell NHL patients were 55% male, 73% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 4 (range, 1 to 11) prior systemic therapies. None had a prior ASCT.

MM patients were 86% male, 71% had an ECOG status of 1, and they had a median of 5 (range, 2 to 20) prior systemic therapies. More than half had a prior ASCT.

Patient disposition

With follow-up approaching a year, more patients with HL are still on treatment (39%) compared with B-cell NHL (13%), T-cell NHL (18%), and MM (0%) patients.

“Of note, however, is that the reasons for going off treatment were predominantly disease progression,” Dr Ansell said.

“The vast majority of patients who came off treatment came off treatment because their disease progressed, and the numbers that came off because of toxicity were relatively low.”

Seven HL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

Eleven B-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 withdrew due to unrelated adverse events (AEs).

Five T-cell NHL patients went off treatment due to disease progression and 2 due to study drug toxicity.

And 4 MM patients withdrew due to disease progression, 1 due to study drug toxicity, and 1 due to AEs unrelated to the study drug.

About two-thirds of HL patients, over 90% of B-cell NHL patients, about 80% of T-cell NHL patients, and about 70% of MM patients received 90% or more of the intended dose of each drug.

Safety

One patient with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma was included in the safety analysis, for a total of 65 patients treated.

“The majority of patients had some degree of adverse event,” Dr Ansell explained. “But if one looks at the grade 3 and 4 adverse events, those were seen in a more modest number of patients, in a minority of patients. And most importantly, if one looks at the adverse events that led to discontinuation, one can see that this was in a significant minority of patients.”

Five patients discontinued due to treatment-related AEs, which were pneumonitis (n=3), pneumonia and pneumonitis (n=1), and diabetic ketoacidosis (n=1).

Overall, 51 patients (78%) experienced an AE; 19 (29%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 14 (22%) had a serious AE, and 5 (8%) discontinued due to an AE.

Of 31 HL patients, 28 (90%) had an AE, 8 (26%) had a grade 3–4 AE, 6 (19%) had a serious AE, and 2 (6%) discontinued due to an AE.

All 11 T-cell NHL patients experienced an AE, 5 patients (45%) a grade 3-4 AE, 4 patients (36%) had a serious AE, and 2 patients (18%) discontinued because of an AE.

About half of B-cell NHL and MM patients experienced an AE, with 1 MM patient discontinuing as a result of it and no B-cell NHL patient discontinuing due to an AE.

“I would highlight that most of the adverse events were, as expected, immunological in nature . . . . ,” Dr Ansell said. “A very modest number of patients had grade 3 and 4 toxicities.”

The most common drug-related AEs of any grade were fatigue (n=17; 26%), pyrexia (n=15; 23%), rash (n=7; 11%), diarrhea (n=12; 18%), and nausea, pneumonitis, cough, and infusion-related reactions, with 9 patients each (14%).

Efficacy

Twenty-three HL patients (74%) achieved an overall response, including 6 patients (19%) with a complete response and 17 (55%) with a partial response. Three patients (10%) had stable disease, and 3 (10%) had relapsed or progressive disease. Response was not reported for 2 patients (6%).

“Most of these responses are durable, and, very encouraging, you can see patients out approaching a year continuing on therapy,” Dr Ansell said.

The ORR in the 18 transplant-naive patients was 67% (n=67).

The median duration of response for HL patients was not reached and ranged from 0.0 to 13.4 months.

B-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 20% (n=3). There were no complete responses and 3 (20%) partial responses. One patient (7%) had stable disease, and 8 (53%) had relapsed or progressive disase. The median duration of partial response was not reached and ranged from 11.0 to 12.7 months.

T-cell NHL patients had an ORR of 9% (n=1). There were no complete responses and 1 (9%) partial response. Four patients (36%) had stable disease, and 3 (27%) had relapsed or progressive disease. The median duration of partial response was not reached and was 3.9 months.

Except for 1 patient with stable disease, MM patients did not respond to therapy.

Biomarker analysis

All 19 HL patients with a known PD-L1 status at baseline saw their tumor burden decrease to below baseline levels. This may be because HL is characterized by high PD-L1 expression and high responsiveness to checkpoint blockade.

Patients with NHL, on the other hand, have a diverse group of tumors characterized by variable PD-L1 expression. Eight of 13 patients with known expression saw their tumor burden decrease with treatment to below baseline.

Encouraged by the results, the investigators believe further investigation of the combination is in order, as the combination, with limited follow-up, achieved a high and durable ORR in HL patients, including those who were transplant-naïve.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR017 has received breakthrough therapy designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and access to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Priority Medicines (PRIME) program.

JCAR017 has gained access to the PRIME program as a treatment for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The breakthrough designation is for JCAR017 in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory, aggressive, large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including DLBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent lymphoma), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma.

JCAR017 uses a defined CD4:CD8 cell composition and 4-1BB as the costimulatory domain. The product is being developed by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Celgene Corporation.

The breakthrough therapy designation and PRIME eligibility for JCAR017 were granted by the FDA and EMA, respectively, on the basis of early clinical results with JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

Results from a phase 1 trial of JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma were recently presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4192).

About the PRIME program

The goal of the EMA’s PRIME program is to accelerate the development of therapies that target unmet medical needs.

The program provides enhanced EMA support and increased interaction to developers, in order to optimize development plans and speed regulatory evaluations to potentially bring these therapies to patients more quickly.

To be accepted for PRIME, a therapy must demonstrate the potential to benefit patients with unmet medical need through early clinical or nonclinical data.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as a rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR017 has received breakthrough therapy designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and access to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Priority Medicines (PRIME) program.

JCAR017 has gained access to the PRIME program as a treatment for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The breakthrough designation is for JCAR017 in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory, aggressive, large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including DLBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent lymphoma), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma.

JCAR017 uses a defined CD4:CD8 cell composition and 4-1BB as the costimulatory domain. The product is being developed by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Celgene Corporation.

The breakthrough therapy designation and PRIME eligibility for JCAR017 were granted by the FDA and EMA, respectively, on the basis of early clinical results with JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

Results from a phase 1 trial of JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma were recently presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4192).

About the PRIME program

The goal of the EMA’s PRIME program is to accelerate the development of therapies that target unmet medical needs.

The program provides enhanced EMA support and increased interaction to developers, in order to optimize development plans and speed regulatory evaluations to potentially bring these therapies to patients more quickly.

To be accepted for PRIME, a therapy must demonstrate the potential to benefit patients with unmet medical need through early clinical or nonclinical data.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as a rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.

 

 

Micrograph showing DLBCL

 

The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR017 has received breakthrough therapy designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and access to the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Priority Medicines (PRIME) program.

JCAR017 has gained access to the PRIME program as a treatment for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

The breakthrough designation is for JCAR017 in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory, aggressive, large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including DLBCL not otherwise specified (de novo or transformed from indolent lymphoma), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and grade 3B follicular lymphoma.

JCAR017 uses a defined CD4:CD8 cell composition and 4-1BB as the costimulatory domain. The product is being developed by Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and Celgene Corporation.

The breakthrough therapy designation and PRIME eligibility for JCAR017 were granted by the FDA and EMA, respectively, on the basis of early clinical results with JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

Results from a phase 1 trial of JCAR017 in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma were recently presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 4192).

About the PRIME program

The goal of the EMA’s PRIME program is to accelerate the development of therapies that target unmet medical needs.

The program provides enhanced EMA support and increased interaction to developers, in order to optimize development plans and speed regulatory evaluations to potentially bring these therapies to patients more quickly.

To be accepted for PRIME, a therapy must demonstrate the potential to benefit patients with unmet medical need through early clinical or nonclinical data.

About breakthrough designation

The FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of new treatments for serious or life-threatening conditions.

Breakthrough designation entitles the company developing a therapy to more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient and accelerated development program, as well as eligibility for other actions to expedite FDA review, such as a rolling submission and priority review.

To earn breakthrough designation, a treatment must show encouraging early clinical results demonstrating substantial improvement over available therapies with regard to a clinically significant endpoint, or it must fulfill an unmet need.