Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Image by Michael Bonert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About orphan designation

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

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Image by Michael Bonert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About orphan designation

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

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Image by Michael Bonert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About orphan designation

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

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
 

Observation

Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).

Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.

“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.

In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.

Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).

“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
 

Transplant-based approaches

Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.

Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).

For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.

The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.

“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.

Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).

Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.

“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.

For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”

Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.

Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).

R-HyperCVAD

R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.

Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).

The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.

“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.

Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.

“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
 

Older nontransplant candidates

When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.

In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.

However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).

The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.

Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).

“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
 

Maintenance therapy

As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).

“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.

A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).

“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.


Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
 

Observation

Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).

Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.

“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.

In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.

Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).

“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
 

Transplant-based approaches

Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.

Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).

For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.

The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.

“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.

Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).

Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.

“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.

For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”

Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.

Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).

R-HyperCVAD

R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.

Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).

The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.

“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.

Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.

“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
 

Older nontransplant candidates

When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.

In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.

However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).

The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.

Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).

“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
 

Maintenance therapy

As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).

“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.

A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).

“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.


Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
 

Observation

Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).

Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.

“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.

In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.

Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).

“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
 

Transplant-based approaches

Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.

Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).

For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.

The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.

“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.

Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).

Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.

“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.

For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”

Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.

Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).

R-HyperCVAD

R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.

Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).

The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.

“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.

Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.

“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
 

Older nontransplant candidates

When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.

In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.

However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).

The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.

Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).

“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
 

Maintenance therapy

As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).

“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.

A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).

“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.


Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Image from NIAID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image from NIAID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image from NIAID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image by Spencer Phillips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image by Spencer Phillips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image by Spencer Phillips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients.

Researchers found the updated ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 22% to 25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56% to 57%, and specificity of 85% to 87%.

Darko Antić, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Dr. Antić said he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients, and the Khorana score is predominantly for solid tumor malignancies.

“It’s good . . . , but it’s not specific for lymphoma patients,” Dr. Antić said.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues developed ThroLy. They based the scoring system on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a past study*, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma:

• Previous VTE
• Previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke
• Mediastinal involvement
• Body mass index > 30 kg/m²
• Reduced mobility
• Extranodal localization
• Development of neutropenia
• Hemoglobin level < 100g/L.

Previous VTE, previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth 2 points, and the other factors were worth a single point.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low-risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate-risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high-risk.

Prospective validation

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antić and his colleagues used it to assess 1723 lymphoma patients treated at 8 institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=467), aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=647), chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (n=235), and Hodgkin lymphoma (n=366). Most subjects (84%) were outpatients.

Nine percent of patients had thrombosis (n=142), with 7% having VTE (n=121).

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared to 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively.

The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua. The specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antić noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models.

Model 1 included the following variables:

• Type of lymphoma/clinical stage (aggressive/advanced)—1 point
• Previous VTE—5 points
• Reduced mobility—2 points
• Hemoglobin level < 100 g/L—1 point
• Presence of vascular devices—1 point.

Model 2 included all of the aforementioned variables as well as thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

With these models, patients were divided into two risk groups—low-risk (≤ 2 points) and high-risk (>2 points).

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%.

For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

Dr. Antić said there were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration according to the country in which a patient was treated or whether patients were treated in inpatient or outpatient settings.

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

*Antić D et al. Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91(10):1014-9. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24466.

Audience at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients.

Researchers found the updated ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 22% to 25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56% to 57%, and specificity of 85% to 87%.

Darko Antić, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Dr. Antić said he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients, and the Khorana score is predominantly for solid tumor malignancies.

“It’s good . . . , but it’s not specific for lymphoma patients,” Dr. Antić said.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues developed ThroLy. They based the scoring system on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a past study*, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma:

• Previous VTE
• Previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke
• Mediastinal involvement
• Body mass index > 30 kg/m²
• Reduced mobility
• Extranodal localization
• Development of neutropenia
• Hemoglobin level < 100g/L.

Previous VTE, previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth 2 points, and the other factors were worth a single point.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low-risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate-risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high-risk.

Prospective validation

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antić and his colleagues used it to assess 1723 lymphoma patients treated at 8 institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=467), aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=647), chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (n=235), and Hodgkin lymphoma (n=366). Most subjects (84%) were outpatients.

Nine percent of patients had thrombosis (n=142), with 7% having VTE (n=121).

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared to 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively.

The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua. The specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antić noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models.

Model 1 included the following variables:

• Type of lymphoma/clinical stage (aggressive/advanced)—1 point
• Previous VTE—5 points
• Reduced mobility—2 points
• Hemoglobin level < 100 g/L—1 point
• Presence of vascular devices—1 point.

Model 2 included all of the aforementioned variables as well as thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

With these models, patients were divided into two risk groups—low-risk (≤ 2 points) and high-risk (>2 points).

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%.

For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

Dr. Antić said there were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration according to the country in which a patient was treated or whether patients were treated in inpatient or outpatient settings.

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

*Antić D et al. Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91(10):1014-9. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24466.

Audience at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice

DUBROVNIK, CROATIA—An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.

The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients.

Researchers found the updated ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 22% to 25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56% to 57%, and specificity of 85% to 87%.

Darko Antić, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma: Europe and the USA, Linking Knowledge and Practice.

Dr. Antić said he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients, and the Khorana score is predominantly for solid tumor malignancies.

“It’s good . . . , but it’s not specific for lymphoma patients,” Dr. Antić said.

With this in mind, he and his colleagues developed ThroLy. They based the scoring system on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.

In a past study*, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma:

• Previous VTE
• Previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke
• Mediastinal involvement
• Body mass index > 30 kg/m²
• Reduced mobility
• Extranodal localization
• Development of neutropenia
• Hemoglobin level < 100g/L.

Previous VTE, previous acute myocardial infarction/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth 2 points, and the other factors were worth a single point.

Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low-risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate-risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high-risk.

Prospective validation

To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antić and his colleagues used it to assess 1723 lymphoma patients treated at 8 institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=467), aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=647), chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (n=235), and Hodgkin lymphoma (n=366). Most subjects (84%) were outpatients.

Nine percent of patients had thrombosis (n=142), with 7% having VTE (n=121).

ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared to 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively.

The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua. The specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.

“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antić noted.

Updated models

To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models.

Model 1 included the following variables:

• Type of lymphoma/clinical stage (aggressive/advanced)—1 point
• Previous VTE—5 points
• Reduced mobility—2 points
• Hemoglobin level < 100 g/L—1 point
• Presence of vascular devices—1 point.

Model 2 included all of the aforementioned variables as well as thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.

With these models, patients were divided into two risk groups—low-risk (≤ 2 points) and high-risk (>2 points).

For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%.

For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.

Dr. Antić said there were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration according to the country in which a patient was treated or whether patients were treated in inpatient or outpatient settings.

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

*Antić D et al. Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91(10):1014-9. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24466.

Photo from Novartis

The cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) depends on long-term clinical outcomes, which are presently unknown, according to investigators.

If the long-term outcomes are more modest than clinical trials suggest, then payers may be unwilling to cover the costly therapy, reported John K. Lin, MD, of Stanford University, and his colleagues.

Lowering the price or setting up an outcomes-based pricing structure may be necessary to get insurers to cover the therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August 2017 for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

In 2018, the FDA expanded the indication for tisagenlecleucel to include adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, though outcomes from lymphoma trials are not analyzed in the current study.

At a wholesale acquisition cost of $475,000 per infusion, it is the most expensive existing oncology therapy to date, and can be accompanied by expensive, potentially fatal adverse effects.

However, clinical trials suggest that tisagenlecleucel can offer years of relapse-free remission, thereby allowing patients to forgo other expensive therapies such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

“Although tisagenlecleucel-induced remission rates are promising, compared with those of established therapies (greater than 80% vs. less than 50%), only short-term follow-up data currently exist,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Given the high cost and broad applicability in other malignancies of tisagenlecleucel, a pressing question for policy makers, payers, patients, and clinicians is whether the cost of therapy represents reasonable value.”

The study used a Markov model to assess various long-term clinical outcome rates and cost thresholds of tisagenlecleucel. The lifetime cost of therapy was assessed and compared with costs of existing therapies.

The results showed that a 5-year relapse free survival rate of 40% would make the present cost ($475,000) of tisagenlecleucel economically reasonable. In this scenario, the increased life expectancy would be 12.1 years and would result in an additional 5.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained at a cost of $61,000 per QALY, compared with blinatumomab.

But if long-term outcomes are less favorable, tisagenlecleucel becomes much less cost effective. A 5-year relapse-free survival rate of 20% would drop increased life expectancy to 3.8 years, resulting in 1.80 QALYs gained and raising the cost to $151,000 per QALY.

“Our results suggest that at tisagenlecleucel’s current price and payment structure, its economic value is uncertain,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested a price drop to $200,000 or $350,000, which would allow the drug to remain cost effective even in a worse-case scenario, in which patients relapse and tisagenlecleucel is a bridge to transplant.

Another option is to move to outcomes-based pricing. Making payment conditional on 7 months of remission would make the treatment cost effective, according to the analysis.

“Price reductions of tisagenlecleucel or payment only for longer-term remissions would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes are modest,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by a Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations advanced fellowship in health service and research development, and a National Center for Advancing Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award.

One of the study coauthors reported consulting and research funding from Novartis. 

Photo from Novartis

The cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) depends on long-term clinical outcomes, which are presently unknown, according to investigators.

If the long-term outcomes are more modest than clinical trials suggest, then payers may be unwilling to cover the costly therapy, reported John K. Lin, MD, of Stanford University, and his colleagues.

Lowering the price or setting up an outcomes-based pricing structure may be necessary to get insurers to cover the therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August 2017 for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

In 2018, the FDA expanded the indication for tisagenlecleucel to include adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, though outcomes from lymphoma trials are not analyzed in the current study.

At a wholesale acquisition cost of $475,000 per infusion, it is the most expensive existing oncology therapy to date, and can be accompanied by expensive, potentially fatal adverse effects.

However, clinical trials suggest that tisagenlecleucel can offer years of relapse-free remission, thereby allowing patients to forgo other expensive therapies such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

“Although tisagenlecleucel-induced remission rates are promising, compared with those of established therapies (greater than 80% vs. less than 50%), only short-term follow-up data currently exist,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Given the high cost and broad applicability in other malignancies of tisagenlecleucel, a pressing question for policy makers, payers, patients, and clinicians is whether the cost of therapy represents reasonable value.”

The study used a Markov model to assess various long-term clinical outcome rates and cost thresholds of tisagenlecleucel. The lifetime cost of therapy was assessed and compared with costs of existing therapies.

The results showed that a 5-year relapse free survival rate of 40% would make the present cost ($475,000) of tisagenlecleucel economically reasonable. In this scenario, the increased life expectancy would be 12.1 years and would result in an additional 5.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained at a cost of $61,000 per QALY, compared with blinatumomab.

But if long-term outcomes are less favorable, tisagenlecleucel becomes much less cost effective. A 5-year relapse-free survival rate of 20% would drop increased life expectancy to 3.8 years, resulting in 1.80 QALYs gained and raising the cost to $151,000 per QALY.

“Our results suggest that at tisagenlecleucel’s current price and payment structure, its economic value is uncertain,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested a price drop to $200,000 or $350,000, which would allow the drug to remain cost effective even in a worse-case scenario, in which patients relapse and tisagenlecleucel is a bridge to transplant.

Another option is to move to outcomes-based pricing. Making payment conditional on 7 months of remission would make the treatment cost effective, according to the analysis.

“Price reductions of tisagenlecleucel or payment only for longer-term remissions would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes are modest,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by a Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations advanced fellowship in health service and research development, and a National Center for Advancing Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award.

One of the study coauthors reported consulting and research funding from Novartis. 

Photo from Novartis

The cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) depends on long-term clinical outcomes, which are presently unknown, according to investigators.

If the long-term outcomes are more modest than clinical trials suggest, then payers may be unwilling to cover the costly therapy, reported John K. Lin, MD, of Stanford University, and his colleagues.

Lowering the price or setting up an outcomes-based pricing structure may be necessary to get insurers to cover the therapy.

Tisagenlecleucel is an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August 2017 for relapsed or refractory pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

In 2018, the FDA expanded the indication for tisagenlecleucel to include adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, though outcomes from lymphoma trials are not analyzed in the current study.

At a wholesale acquisition cost of $475,000 per infusion, it is the most expensive existing oncology therapy to date, and can be accompanied by expensive, potentially fatal adverse effects.

However, clinical trials suggest that tisagenlecleucel can offer years of relapse-free remission, thereby allowing patients to forgo other expensive therapies such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

“Although tisagenlecleucel-induced remission rates are promising, compared with those of established therapies (greater than 80% vs. less than 50%), only short-term follow-up data currently exist,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Given the high cost and broad applicability in other malignancies of tisagenlecleucel, a pressing question for policy makers, payers, patients, and clinicians is whether the cost of therapy represents reasonable value.”

The study used a Markov model to assess various long-term clinical outcome rates and cost thresholds of tisagenlecleucel. The lifetime cost of therapy was assessed and compared with costs of existing therapies.

The results showed that a 5-year relapse free survival rate of 40% would make the present cost ($475,000) of tisagenlecleucel economically reasonable. In this scenario, the increased life expectancy would be 12.1 years and would result in an additional 5.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained at a cost of $61,000 per QALY, compared with blinatumomab.

But if long-term outcomes are less favorable, tisagenlecleucel becomes much less cost effective. A 5-year relapse-free survival rate of 20% would drop increased life expectancy to 3.8 years, resulting in 1.80 QALYs gained and raising the cost to $151,000 per QALY.

“Our results suggest that at tisagenlecleucel’s current price and payment structure, its economic value is uncertain,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested a price drop to $200,000 or $350,000, which would allow the drug to remain cost effective even in a worse-case scenario, in which patients relapse and tisagenlecleucel is a bridge to transplant.

Another option is to move to outcomes-based pricing. Making payment conditional on 7 months of remission would make the treatment cost effective, according to the analysis.

“Price reductions of tisagenlecleucel or payment only for longer-term remissions would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes are modest,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by a Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations advanced fellowship in health service and research development, and a National Center for Advancing Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award.

One of the study coauthors reported consulting and research funding from Novartis. 

Photo courtesy of NCCN

New York—Although the data set is small and not yet mature, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy appears to be a promising approach for Hodgkin lymphoma, according to Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

While based on a handful of patients, the data do suggest this approach may play a role either by targeting CD30 or Epstein Barr virus (EBV), Dr. Armand said in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Most importantly perhaps, like it's experience outside of Hodgkin lymphoma, it may really have curative potential, based on the long CR rates that have been already exhibited,” he told attendees at the NCCN conference.

Much of the published clinical experience to date is with CD30-directed CAR Ts, Dr. Armand said, noting that in Hodgkin lymphoma, results so far show promise for this particular approach.

In a recent phase 1 dose escalation study, 9 patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) received infusions of autologous T cells modified to express CD30-specific CAR T cells encoding the CD28 costimulatory domain, with no conditioning regimen.

Out of 7 relapsed Hodgkin patients, one had a complete response (CR) lasting beyond 2.5 years following a second infusion. Another had a CR persisting almost 2 years and 3 had transient stable disease.

One of the 2 ALCL patients had a CR lasting 9 months after a fourth infusion. No toxicities attributable to the therapy were seen, according to investigators.

The CD30 CAR T cells are being evaluated with a conditioning regimen in the phase 1 RELY-30 trial. According to Dr. Armand, preliminary results presented at the EBMT 2018 meeting showed better expansion of CAR T cells and responses in 3 out of 5 patients, including 2 CRs.

A CD30-directed CAR T-cell therapy with a 4-1bb costimulatory domain has also been tested in a small group of Hodgkin patients with a response rate of 35%, including some CRs. Response rates were lower in patients with extranodal involvement, although that needs to be validated with further study, according to Dr. Armand.

A considerable amount of active research is ongoing in China, Dr. Armand said, while a phase 1 study of T cells expressing a fully human anti-CD30 CAR is being evaluated in the United States in CD30-expressing lymphomas, he added.

Among non-CD30-targeted products, a CD19 CAR-T approach has been tried in Hodgkin lymphoma, though preliminary results suggest only transient activity.

An interesting approach has been the targeting of EBV, Dr. Armand noted. Recently reported results showed that two doses of T cells with specificity for EBV-derived tumor antigens induced clinical responses in patients with EBV-positive Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cells were engineered to express dominant-negative TGF-β receptor type 2 (DNRII).

“We know that TGF-β provides a strong immunosuppressant signal in the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Armand said, noting that some of the responses in the 7 evaluable patients lasted 4 years or more. 

Photo courtesy of NCCN

New York—Although the data set is small and not yet mature, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy appears to be a promising approach for Hodgkin lymphoma, according to Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

While based on a handful of patients, the data do suggest this approach may play a role either by targeting CD30 or Epstein Barr virus (EBV), Dr. Armand said in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Most importantly perhaps, like it's experience outside of Hodgkin lymphoma, it may really have curative potential, based on the long CR rates that have been already exhibited,” he told attendees at the NCCN conference.

Much of the published clinical experience to date is with CD30-directed CAR Ts, Dr. Armand said, noting that in Hodgkin lymphoma, results so far show promise for this particular approach.

In a recent phase 1 dose escalation study, 9 patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) received infusions of autologous T cells modified to express CD30-specific CAR T cells encoding the CD28 costimulatory domain, with no conditioning regimen.

Out of 7 relapsed Hodgkin patients, one had a complete response (CR) lasting beyond 2.5 years following a second infusion. Another had a CR persisting almost 2 years and 3 had transient stable disease.

One of the 2 ALCL patients had a CR lasting 9 months after a fourth infusion. No toxicities attributable to the therapy were seen, according to investigators.

The CD30 CAR T cells are being evaluated with a conditioning regimen in the phase 1 RELY-30 trial. According to Dr. Armand, preliminary results presented at the EBMT 2018 meeting showed better expansion of CAR T cells and responses in 3 out of 5 patients, including 2 CRs.

A CD30-directed CAR T-cell therapy with a 4-1bb costimulatory domain has also been tested in a small group of Hodgkin patients with a response rate of 35%, including some CRs. Response rates were lower in patients with extranodal involvement, although that needs to be validated with further study, according to Dr. Armand.

A considerable amount of active research is ongoing in China, Dr. Armand said, while a phase 1 study of T cells expressing a fully human anti-CD30 CAR is being evaluated in the United States in CD30-expressing lymphomas, he added.

Among non-CD30-targeted products, a CD19 CAR-T approach has been tried in Hodgkin lymphoma, though preliminary results suggest only transient activity.

An interesting approach has been the targeting of EBV, Dr. Armand noted. Recently reported results showed that two doses of T cells with specificity for EBV-derived tumor antigens induced clinical responses in patients with EBV-positive Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cells were engineered to express dominant-negative TGF-β receptor type 2 (DNRII).

“We know that TGF-β provides a strong immunosuppressant signal in the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Armand said, noting that some of the responses in the 7 evaluable patients lasted 4 years or more. 

Photo courtesy of NCCN

New York—Although the data set is small and not yet mature, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy appears to be a promising approach for Hodgkin lymphoma, according to Philippe Armand, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

While based on a handful of patients, the data do suggest this approach may play a role either by targeting CD30 or Epstein Barr virus (EBV), Dr. Armand said in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

“Most importantly perhaps, like it's experience outside of Hodgkin lymphoma, it may really have curative potential, based on the long CR rates that have been already exhibited,” he told attendees at the NCCN conference.

Much of the published clinical experience to date is with CD30-directed CAR Ts, Dr. Armand said, noting that in Hodgkin lymphoma, results so far show promise for this particular approach.

In a recent phase 1 dose escalation study, 9 patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) received infusions of autologous T cells modified to express CD30-specific CAR T cells encoding the CD28 costimulatory domain, with no conditioning regimen.

Out of 7 relapsed Hodgkin patients, one had a complete response (CR) lasting beyond 2.5 years following a second infusion. Another had a CR persisting almost 2 years and 3 had transient stable disease.

One of the 2 ALCL patients had a CR lasting 9 months after a fourth infusion. No toxicities attributable to the therapy were seen, according to investigators.

The CD30 CAR T cells are being evaluated with a conditioning regimen in the phase 1 RELY-30 trial. According to Dr. Armand, preliminary results presented at the EBMT 2018 meeting showed better expansion of CAR T cells and responses in 3 out of 5 patients, including 2 CRs.

A CD30-directed CAR T-cell therapy with a 4-1bb costimulatory domain has also been tested in a small group of Hodgkin patients with a response rate of 35%, including some CRs. Response rates were lower in patients with extranodal involvement, although that needs to be validated with further study, according to Dr. Armand.

A considerable amount of active research is ongoing in China, Dr. Armand said, while a phase 1 study of T cells expressing a fully human anti-CD30 CAR is being evaluated in the United States in CD30-expressing lymphomas, he added.

Among non-CD30-targeted products, a CD19 CAR-T approach has been tried in Hodgkin lymphoma, though preliminary results suggest only transient activity.

An interesting approach has been the targeting of EBV, Dr. Armand noted. Recently reported results showed that two doses of T cells with specificity for EBV-derived tumor antigens induced clinical responses in patients with EBV-positive Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cells were engineered to express dominant-negative TGF-β receptor type 2 (DNRII).

“We know that TGF-β provides a strong immunosuppressant signal in the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Armand said, noting that some of the responses in the 7 evaluable patients lasted 4 years or more. 

CHICAGO – A number of mutation tests – including immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and TP53 – provide useful prognostic information at the time of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) diagnosis, according to Paul M. Barr, MD.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“It’s understood that IgVH mutation status is certainly prognostic,” Dr. Barr, associate professor of hematology/oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The B-cell receptor of the CLL cells uses IgVH genes that may or may not have undergone somatic mutations, with unmutated being defined as 98% or more sequence homology to germline.

“This is indicative of stronger signaling through the B-cell receptor and, as we all know, predicts for an inferior prognosis,” he explained, citing a study that demonstrated superior survival rates with mutated IgVH genes (Blood. 1999;94[6]:1840-7).

“It’s also well understood and accepted that we should perform a FISH panel; we should look for interphase cytogenetics based on FISH in our patients,” Dr. Barr said. “Having said that, we, as medical oncologists, do not do a very good job of using this testing appropriately. Patterns of care studies have suggested that a significant number of patients don’t get FISH testing at diagnosis or before first-line therapy.”

In fact, a typical interphase FISH panel identifies cytogenetic lesions, including del(17p), del(11q), del(13q), and trisomy 12 in more than 80% of CLL cases, with del(13q) being the most common.

Another marker that can be assessed in CLL patients and has maintained prognostic value across multiple analyses is serum beta-2 microglobulin, Dr. Barr noted.

TP53 sequencing is valuable as well and has been associated with outcomes similar to those seen in patients with del(17p), he said, citing data from a study that found similarly poor outcomes with TP53 mutations or deletions and del(17p), even when minor subclones are identified using next-generation sequencing (Blood. 2014;123:2139-47).

“One of the primary reasons for this is that the two aberrations go together. Most often, if you have del(17p) you’re also going to find a TP53 mutation, but in about 30% of patients or so, only one allele is affected, so this is why it’s still important to test for TP53 mutations when you’re looking for a 17p deletion,” he said.

Numerous other recurrent mutations in CLL have been associated with poor overall survival and/or progression-free survival, including SF3B1, ATM, NOTCH1, POT1, BIRC3, and NFKBIE.

“The gut instinct is that maybe we should start testing for all of these mutations now, but I would caution everybody that we still need further validation before we can apply these to the majority of patients,” Dr. Barr said. “We still don’t know exactly what to do with all of these mutations – when and how often we should test for them, if the novel agents are truly better – so while, again, they can predict for inferior outcomes, I would say these are not yet standard of care to be tested in all patients.”

It is likely, though, that new prognostic systems will evolve as more is learned about how to use these molecular aberrations. Attempts are already being made to incorporate novel mutations into a prognostic system. Dr. Barr pointed to a report that looked at the integration of mutations and cytogenetic lesions to improve the accuracy of survival prediction in CLL (Blood. 2013;121:1403-12).

“But this still requires prospective testing, especially in patients getting the novel agents,” he said.

Conventional karyotyping also has potential, though a limited role in this setting, he said, noting that it can be reliably performed with stimulation of CLL cells.

“We also know additional aberrations are prognostic and that a complex karyotype predicts for a very poor outcome,” he said. The International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) guidelines, which were recently updated for the first time in a decade, state that further validation is needed.

“I think it’s potentially useful in a very young patient you are considering taking to transplant, but again, I agree with the stance that this is not something that should be performed in every patient across the board,” he said.

The tests currently recommended by iwCLL before CLL treatment include IgVH mutation status; FISH for del(13q), del(11q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes; and TP53.

“Some folks... don’t check a lot of these markers at diagnosis, but wait for patients to require therapy, and that’s a reasonable way to practice,” Dr. Barr said, noting, however, that he prefers knowing patients’ risk up front – especially for those patients he will see just once before they are “managed closer to home for the majority of their course.

“But if you [wait], then knowing what to repeat later is important,” he added. Namely, the FISH and TP53 tests are worth repeating as patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time.

Dr. Barr reported serving as a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics. He also reported receiving research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

sworcester@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A number of mutation tests – including immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and TP53 – provide useful prognostic information at the time of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) diagnosis, according to Paul M. Barr, MD.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“It’s understood that IgVH mutation status is certainly prognostic,” Dr. Barr, associate professor of hematology/oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The B-cell receptor of the CLL cells uses IgVH genes that may or may not have undergone somatic mutations, with unmutated being defined as 98% or more sequence homology to germline.

“This is indicative of stronger signaling through the B-cell receptor and, as we all know, predicts for an inferior prognosis,” he explained, citing a study that demonstrated superior survival rates with mutated IgVH genes (Blood. 1999;94[6]:1840-7).

“It’s also well understood and accepted that we should perform a FISH panel; we should look for interphase cytogenetics based on FISH in our patients,” Dr. Barr said. “Having said that, we, as medical oncologists, do not do a very good job of using this testing appropriately. Patterns of care studies have suggested that a significant number of patients don’t get FISH testing at diagnosis or before first-line therapy.”

In fact, a typical interphase FISH panel identifies cytogenetic lesions, including del(17p), del(11q), del(13q), and trisomy 12 in more than 80% of CLL cases, with del(13q) being the most common.

Another marker that can be assessed in CLL patients and has maintained prognostic value across multiple analyses is serum beta-2 microglobulin, Dr. Barr noted.

TP53 sequencing is valuable as well and has been associated with outcomes similar to those seen in patients with del(17p), he said, citing data from a study that found similarly poor outcomes with TP53 mutations or deletions and del(17p), even when minor subclones are identified using next-generation sequencing (Blood. 2014;123:2139-47).

“One of the primary reasons for this is that the two aberrations go together. Most often, if you have del(17p) you’re also going to find a TP53 mutation, but in about 30% of patients or so, only one allele is affected, so this is why it’s still important to test for TP53 mutations when you’re looking for a 17p deletion,” he said.

Numerous other recurrent mutations in CLL have been associated with poor overall survival and/or progression-free survival, including SF3B1, ATM, NOTCH1, POT1, BIRC3, and NFKBIE.

“The gut instinct is that maybe we should start testing for all of these mutations now, but I would caution everybody that we still need further validation before we can apply these to the majority of patients,” Dr. Barr said. “We still don’t know exactly what to do with all of these mutations – when and how often we should test for them, if the novel agents are truly better – so while, again, they can predict for inferior outcomes, I would say these are not yet standard of care to be tested in all patients.”

It is likely, though, that new prognostic systems will evolve as more is learned about how to use these molecular aberrations. Attempts are already being made to incorporate novel mutations into a prognostic system. Dr. Barr pointed to a report that looked at the integration of mutations and cytogenetic lesions to improve the accuracy of survival prediction in CLL (Blood. 2013;121:1403-12).

“But this still requires prospective testing, especially in patients getting the novel agents,” he said.

Conventional karyotyping also has potential, though a limited role in this setting, he said, noting that it can be reliably performed with stimulation of CLL cells.

“We also know additional aberrations are prognostic and that a complex karyotype predicts for a very poor outcome,” he said. The International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) guidelines, which were recently updated for the first time in a decade, state that further validation is needed.

“I think it’s potentially useful in a very young patient you are considering taking to transplant, but again, I agree with the stance that this is not something that should be performed in every patient across the board,” he said.

The tests currently recommended by iwCLL before CLL treatment include IgVH mutation status; FISH for del(13q), del(11q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes; and TP53.

“Some folks... don’t check a lot of these markers at diagnosis, but wait for patients to require therapy, and that’s a reasonable way to practice,” Dr. Barr said, noting, however, that he prefers knowing patients’ risk up front – especially for those patients he will see just once before they are “managed closer to home for the majority of their course.

“But if you [wait], then knowing what to repeat later is important,” he added. Namely, the FISH and TP53 tests are worth repeating as patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time.

Dr. Barr reported serving as a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics. He also reported receiving research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

sworcester@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A number of mutation tests – including immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IgVH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and TP53 – provide useful prognostic information at the time of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) diagnosis, according to Paul M. Barr, MD.

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

“It’s understood that IgVH mutation status is certainly prognostic,” Dr. Barr, associate professor of hematology/oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The B-cell receptor of the CLL cells uses IgVH genes that may or may not have undergone somatic mutations, with unmutated being defined as 98% or more sequence homology to germline.

“This is indicative of stronger signaling through the B-cell receptor and, as we all know, predicts for an inferior prognosis,” he explained, citing a study that demonstrated superior survival rates with mutated IgVH genes (Blood. 1999;94[6]:1840-7).

“It’s also well understood and accepted that we should perform a FISH panel; we should look for interphase cytogenetics based on FISH in our patients,” Dr. Barr said. “Having said that, we, as medical oncologists, do not do a very good job of using this testing appropriately. Patterns of care studies have suggested that a significant number of patients don’t get FISH testing at diagnosis or before first-line therapy.”

In fact, a typical interphase FISH panel identifies cytogenetic lesions, including del(17p), del(11q), del(13q), and trisomy 12 in more than 80% of CLL cases, with del(13q) being the most common.

Another marker that can be assessed in CLL patients and has maintained prognostic value across multiple analyses is serum beta-2 microglobulin, Dr. Barr noted.

TP53 sequencing is valuable as well and has been associated with outcomes similar to those seen in patients with del(17p), he said, citing data from a study that found similarly poor outcomes with TP53 mutations or deletions and del(17p), even when minor subclones are identified using next-generation sequencing (Blood. 2014;123:2139-47).

“One of the primary reasons for this is that the two aberrations go together. Most often, if you have del(17p) you’re also going to find a TP53 mutation, but in about 30% of patients or so, only one allele is affected, so this is why it’s still important to test for TP53 mutations when you’re looking for a 17p deletion,” he said.

Numerous other recurrent mutations in CLL have been associated with poor overall survival and/or progression-free survival, including SF3B1, ATM, NOTCH1, POT1, BIRC3, and NFKBIE.

“The gut instinct is that maybe we should start testing for all of these mutations now, but I would caution everybody that we still need further validation before we can apply these to the majority of patients,” Dr. Barr said. “We still don’t know exactly what to do with all of these mutations – when and how often we should test for them, if the novel agents are truly better – so while, again, they can predict for inferior outcomes, I would say these are not yet standard of care to be tested in all patients.”

It is likely, though, that new prognostic systems will evolve as more is learned about how to use these molecular aberrations. Attempts are already being made to incorporate novel mutations into a prognostic system. Dr. Barr pointed to a report that looked at the integration of mutations and cytogenetic lesions to improve the accuracy of survival prediction in CLL (Blood. 2013;121:1403-12).

“But this still requires prospective testing, especially in patients getting the novel agents,” he said.

Conventional karyotyping also has potential, though a limited role in this setting, he said, noting that it can be reliably performed with stimulation of CLL cells.

“We also know additional aberrations are prognostic and that a complex karyotype predicts for a very poor outcome,” he said. The International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) guidelines, which were recently updated for the first time in a decade, state that further validation is needed.

“I think it’s potentially useful in a very young patient you are considering taking to transplant, but again, I agree with the stance that this is not something that should be performed in every patient across the board,” he said.

The tests currently recommended by iwCLL before CLL treatment include IgVH mutation status; FISH for del(13q), del(11q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes; and TP53.

“Some folks... don’t check a lot of these markers at diagnosis, but wait for patients to require therapy, and that’s a reasonable way to practice,” Dr. Barr said, noting, however, that he prefers knowing patients’ risk up front – especially for those patients he will see just once before they are “managed closer to home for the majority of their course.

“But if you [wait], then knowing what to repeat later is important,” he added. Namely, the FISH and TP53 tests are worth repeating as patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time.

Dr. Barr reported serving as a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics. He also reported receiving research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Advanced indolent lymphoma patients can be treated with a rituximab-containing regimen as first-line therapy and, in some cases, skip chemotherapy altogether, a study with 10 years of follow-up data suggests.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

After a median of 10.6 years’ follow-up, almost three-quarters of patients (73%) in the study were alive, and 36% never required chemotherapy.

“This [overall survival] is at least as good as that observed in modern immunochemotherapy trials,” Sandra Lockmer, MD, of Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and her colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study included 321 patients who were previously untreated and had been enrolled in two randomized clinical trials performed by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials randomized patients to receive either rituximab monotherapy or rituximab combined with interferon alfa-2a. Neither trial used up-front chemotherapy.

Patients included in the follow-up analysis had follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or indolent lymphoma not otherwise specified.

The overall survival rate at 10 years after trial assignment was 75% and 66% after 15 years. Similarly, the lymphoma-specific survival rate was 81% at 10 years after trial assignment and 77% at 15 years, the researchers reported.

Overall, 117 patients did not require treatment with chemotherapy, but 24 patients were further treated with antibodies and/or radiation. Of the 93 patients who received no additional therapies after frontline treatment, 9 patients died from causes unrelated to their lymphoma.

Among the 237 patients who failed initial treatment, the median time to treatment failure was 1.5 years.

In terms of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, the rate was 2.4%/person-year overall. The cumulative risk of transformation was 20% at 10 years after trial assignment and 24% at 15 years.

The study was funded in part by the Stockholm County Council and by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials analyzed in the study were supported by Roche. Dr. Lockmer reported having no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported relationships with Novartis, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lockmer S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 4:JCO1800262. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00262.

Advanced indolent lymphoma patients can be treated with a rituximab-containing regimen as first-line therapy and, in some cases, skip chemotherapy altogether, a study with 10 years of follow-up data suggests.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

After a median of 10.6 years’ follow-up, almost three-quarters of patients (73%) in the study were alive, and 36% never required chemotherapy.

“This [overall survival] is at least as good as that observed in modern immunochemotherapy trials,” Sandra Lockmer, MD, of Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and her colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study included 321 patients who were previously untreated and had been enrolled in two randomized clinical trials performed by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials randomized patients to receive either rituximab monotherapy or rituximab combined with interferon alfa-2a. Neither trial used up-front chemotherapy.

Patients included in the follow-up analysis had follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or indolent lymphoma not otherwise specified.

The overall survival rate at 10 years after trial assignment was 75% and 66% after 15 years. Similarly, the lymphoma-specific survival rate was 81% at 10 years after trial assignment and 77% at 15 years, the researchers reported.

Overall, 117 patients did not require treatment with chemotherapy, but 24 patients were further treated with antibodies and/or radiation. Of the 93 patients who received no additional therapies after frontline treatment, 9 patients died from causes unrelated to their lymphoma.

Among the 237 patients who failed initial treatment, the median time to treatment failure was 1.5 years.

In terms of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, the rate was 2.4%/person-year overall. The cumulative risk of transformation was 20% at 10 years after trial assignment and 24% at 15 years.

The study was funded in part by the Stockholm County Council and by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials analyzed in the study were supported by Roche. Dr. Lockmer reported having no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported relationships with Novartis, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lockmer S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 4:JCO1800262. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00262.

Advanced indolent lymphoma patients can be treated with a rituximab-containing regimen as first-line therapy and, in some cases, skip chemotherapy altogether, a study with 10 years of follow-up data suggests.

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

After a median of 10.6 years’ follow-up, almost three-quarters of patients (73%) in the study were alive, and 36% never required chemotherapy.

“This [overall survival] is at least as good as that observed in modern immunochemotherapy trials,” Sandra Lockmer, MD, of Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and her colleagues reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study included 321 patients who were previously untreated and had been enrolled in two randomized clinical trials performed by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials randomized patients to receive either rituximab monotherapy or rituximab combined with interferon alfa-2a. Neither trial used up-front chemotherapy.

Patients included in the follow-up analysis had follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or indolent lymphoma not otherwise specified.

The overall survival rate at 10 years after trial assignment was 75% and 66% after 15 years. Similarly, the lymphoma-specific survival rate was 81% at 10 years after trial assignment and 77% at 15 years, the researchers reported.

Overall, 117 patients did not require treatment with chemotherapy, but 24 patients were further treated with antibodies and/or radiation. Of the 93 patients who received no additional therapies after frontline treatment, 9 patients died from causes unrelated to their lymphoma.

Among the 237 patients who failed initial treatment, the median time to treatment failure was 1.5 years.

In terms of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, the rate was 2.4%/person-year overall. The cumulative risk of transformation was 20% at 10 years after trial assignment and 24% at 15 years.

The study was funded in part by the Stockholm County Council and by the Nordic Lymphoma Group. The trials analyzed in the study were supported by Roche. Dr. Lockmer reported having no financial disclosures. Her coauthors reported relationships with Novartis, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda, among others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lockmer S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 4:JCO1800262. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00262.

Photo from Sarah Cannon

Final analysis of the phase 3 DUO trial has shown monotherapy with oral duvelisib results in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) compared to monotherapy with ofatumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lympchocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL).

PFS for all patients as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC) was a median 13.3 months with duvelisib compared to 9.9 months with ofatumumab (P<0.0001).

ORR was significantly higher with duvelisib, 74% compared to 45%, P<0.0001, regardless of deletion 17p status.

Duvelisib (Copiktra™) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CLL/SLL based in part on this head-to-head trial.

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

"The way we treat patients with CLL is changing rapidly as we move from standard chemotherapy-based approaches to more targeted therapies," said principal investigator Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville.

"Based on these data, duvelisib may offer a new treatment option for patients who otherwise may have limited options."

Duvelisib is an oral, dual inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-δ and -γ, which means it blocks the survival and proliferation of malignant B cells and also disrupts the recruitment and differentiation of T cells and macrophages within the tumor microenvironment.

Ofatumumab is a humanized anti-CD20 antibody with single-agent efficacy in refractory CLL. It is approved by the FDA as a treatment option in CLL.

Study design

Investigators randomized 319 relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL patients, 160 to the duvelisib arm and 159 to the ofatumumab arm.

Patients in the duvelisib arm self-administered 25 mg capsules twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. They could take duvelisib for up to 18 cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Ofatumumab-treated patients received infusions as approved in the product labeling for monotherapy in relapsed CLL. Dosing of ofatumumab could not exceed 12 doses in 7 cycles.

Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecci was required for all patients on both treatment arms.

Patients were allowed to crossover to a separate extension study to receive the opposite therapy if they had progressive disease.

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

According to the investigators, patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms.

The majority (60%) were male and the median age in both arms was 69. Most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 7% in the duvelisib arm and 10% in the ofatumumab arm had a performance status of 2.

Other patient characteristics in the duvelisib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were:

• Time from initial diagnosis: 7.5 years, 6.7 years
• CLL/SLL, %: 97/5, 99/2
• Bulky disease: 46%, 45%
• Baseline lymphocyte counts: 38x109/L, 35x109/L
• Deletion 17p and/or TP53 mutation: 31%, 33%
• Median number of prior therapies: 2 in each arm
• Previous alkylating agent: 93%, 95%
• Previous monoclonal antibody: 78%, 83%
• Prior purine analog: 60%, 71%

Of the total patients enrolled, 158 patients in the duvelisib arm and 155 in the ofatumumab arm received treatment, for a median exposure of 50 weeks and 23 weeks, respectively.

Efficacy

In addition to the significantly improved overall PFS and ORR with duvelisib, further analysis revealed that PFS also improved for all predefined subgroups.

High-risk patients with deletion 17p/TP53 mutations also experienced a significant improvement in PFS with duvelisib of 12.7 months compared to 9.0 months with ofatumumab by IRC (P=0.0002).

The estimated probability of being progression-free for these patients at 6 and 12 moths was 73% and 55% with duvelisib and 63% and 30% with ofatumumab.

The investigators pointed out that duvelisib treatment was particularly effective in eliciting a lymph node response—85.0% compared to 15.7% with ofatumumab as assessed by IRC (P<0.0001).

Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. The 12-month probability of survival was 86% for both treatments.

Safety

Median treatment exposure was almost twice as long in the duvelisib arm because ofatumumab treatment was not allowed to exceed 12 doses as specified in the prescribing information.

The investigators explained this resulted in a longer adverse event (AE) reporting period for duvelisib.

One hundred twenty-four duvelisib-treated patients discontinued treatment, most commonly due to AEs (35%), disease progression (22%), subject withdrawal (8%), and death (8%).

All ofatumumab-treated patients discontinued treatment by the time of data cutoff, and 67% had completed treatment as per protocol. Others discontinued due to disease progression (20%), subject withdrawal (5%), and AEs (4%).

Eight (5%) duvelisib patients crossed over to ofatumumab therapy at the time of disease progression, and 89 (57%) ofatumumab-treated patients crossed over to duvelisib.

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

The most common hematologic malignancies with duvelisib and ofatumumab, respectively, occurring in 10% or more patients were neutropenia (33%, 21%), anemia (23%, 10%), and thrombocytopenia (15%, 6%).

The most common nonhematologic AES with duvelisib were diarrhea (51%), pyrexia (29%), nausea (23%), and cough (21%).

With ofatumumab, the most common nonhematologic AES were infusion-related reaction (19%), cough (14%), and diarrhea, rash, and fatigue (12% each).

Grade 3 or greater AEs occurred in 87% of duvelisib-treated patients and 48% in the ofatumumab arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater events with duvelisib were neutropenia (30%), diarrhea (15%), pneumonia (14%), and anemia (13%).

With ofatumumab, only neutropenia (17%) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 10% or more patients.

Severe immune-related toxicities with duvelisib included colitis (12%) and pneumonitis, alanine transaminase (ALT) or aspartate transaminase (AST) increase (3% each). The events were managed with dose interruptions and steroid therapy for pneumonitis or colitis. All reported events resolved, and none was fatal.

Infectious AEs occurred more frequently with duvelisib, 69% compared to 43% in the ofatumumab arm. Pneumonia (18%) and upper respiratory tract infection (16%) were the most common events.

Three patients in the duvelisib arm and 1 in the ofatumumab arm contracted Pneumocystis jirovecii.

The most frequently reported serious AE was pneumonia (duvelisib 15%; ofatumumab 3%).

Nineteen fatal AEs occurred in patients on the duvelisib arm, 4 of which were related to the study drug: staphylococcal pneumonia (n = 2), sepsis (n=1), and general health deterioration (n = 1).

Seven fatal AEs occurred in patients on the ofatumumab arm, although none was attributed to ofatumumab.

The DUO trial was sponsored by Verastem Oncology and Infinity Pharmaceuticals , Inc. 

Photo from Sarah Cannon

Final analysis of the phase 3 DUO trial has shown monotherapy with oral duvelisib results in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) compared to monotherapy with ofatumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lympchocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL).

PFS for all patients as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC) was a median 13.3 months with duvelisib compared to 9.9 months with ofatumumab (P<0.0001).

ORR was significantly higher with duvelisib, 74% compared to 45%, P<0.0001, regardless of deletion 17p status.

Duvelisib (Copiktra™) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CLL/SLL based in part on this head-to-head trial.

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

"The way we treat patients with CLL is changing rapidly as we move from standard chemotherapy-based approaches to more targeted therapies," said principal investigator Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville.

"Based on these data, duvelisib may offer a new treatment option for patients who otherwise may have limited options."

Duvelisib is an oral, dual inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-δ and -γ, which means it blocks the survival and proliferation of malignant B cells and also disrupts the recruitment and differentiation of T cells and macrophages within the tumor microenvironment.

Ofatumumab is a humanized anti-CD20 antibody with single-agent efficacy in refractory CLL. It is approved by the FDA as a treatment option in CLL.

Study design

Investigators randomized 319 relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL patients, 160 to the duvelisib arm and 159 to the ofatumumab arm.

Patients in the duvelisib arm self-administered 25 mg capsules twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. They could take duvelisib for up to 18 cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Ofatumumab-treated patients received infusions as approved in the product labeling for monotherapy in relapsed CLL. Dosing of ofatumumab could not exceed 12 doses in 7 cycles.

Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecci was required for all patients on both treatment arms.

Patients were allowed to crossover to a separate extension study to receive the opposite therapy if they had progressive disease.

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

According to the investigators, patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms.

The majority (60%) were male and the median age in both arms was 69. Most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 7% in the duvelisib arm and 10% in the ofatumumab arm had a performance status of 2.

Other patient characteristics in the duvelisib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were:

• Time from initial diagnosis: 7.5 years, 6.7 years
• CLL/SLL, %: 97/5, 99/2
• Bulky disease: 46%, 45%
• Baseline lymphocyte counts: 38x109/L, 35x109/L
• Deletion 17p and/or TP53 mutation: 31%, 33%
• Median number of prior therapies: 2 in each arm
• Previous alkylating agent: 93%, 95%
• Previous monoclonal antibody: 78%, 83%
• Prior purine analog: 60%, 71%

Of the total patients enrolled, 158 patients in the duvelisib arm and 155 in the ofatumumab arm received treatment, for a median exposure of 50 weeks and 23 weeks, respectively.

Efficacy

In addition to the significantly improved overall PFS and ORR with duvelisib, further analysis revealed that PFS also improved for all predefined subgroups.

High-risk patients with deletion 17p/TP53 mutations also experienced a significant improvement in PFS with duvelisib of 12.7 months compared to 9.0 months with ofatumumab by IRC (P=0.0002).

The estimated probability of being progression-free for these patients at 6 and 12 moths was 73% and 55% with duvelisib and 63% and 30% with ofatumumab.

The investigators pointed out that duvelisib treatment was particularly effective in eliciting a lymph node response—85.0% compared to 15.7% with ofatumumab as assessed by IRC (P<0.0001).

Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. The 12-month probability of survival was 86% for both treatments.

Safety

Median treatment exposure was almost twice as long in the duvelisib arm because ofatumumab treatment was not allowed to exceed 12 doses as specified in the prescribing information.

The investigators explained this resulted in a longer adverse event (AE) reporting period for duvelisib.

One hundred twenty-four duvelisib-treated patients discontinued treatment, most commonly due to AEs (35%), disease progression (22%), subject withdrawal (8%), and death (8%).

All ofatumumab-treated patients discontinued treatment by the time of data cutoff, and 67% had completed treatment as per protocol. Others discontinued due to disease progression (20%), subject withdrawal (5%), and AEs (4%).

Eight (5%) duvelisib patients crossed over to ofatumumab therapy at the time of disease progression, and 89 (57%) ofatumumab-treated patients crossed over to duvelisib.

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

The most common hematologic malignancies with duvelisib and ofatumumab, respectively, occurring in 10% or more patients were neutropenia (33%, 21%), anemia (23%, 10%), and thrombocytopenia (15%, 6%).

The most common nonhematologic AES with duvelisib were diarrhea (51%), pyrexia (29%), nausea (23%), and cough (21%).

With ofatumumab, the most common nonhematologic AES were infusion-related reaction (19%), cough (14%), and diarrhea, rash, and fatigue (12% each).

Grade 3 or greater AEs occurred in 87% of duvelisib-treated patients and 48% in the ofatumumab arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater events with duvelisib were neutropenia (30%), diarrhea (15%), pneumonia (14%), and anemia (13%).

With ofatumumab, only neutropenia (17%) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 10% or more patients.

Severe immune-related toxicities with duvelisib included colitis (12%) and pneumonitis, alanine transaminase (ALT) or aspartate transaminase (AST) increase (3% each). The events were managed with dose interruptions and steroid therapy for pneumonitis or colitis. All reported events resolved, and none was fatal.

Infectious AEs occurred more frequently with duvelisib, 69% compared to 43% in the ofatumumab arm. Pneumonia (18%) and upper respiratory tract infection (16%) were the most common events.

Three patients in the duvelisib arm and 1 in the ofatumumab arm contracted Pneumocystis jirovecii.

The most frequently reported serious AE was pneumonia (duvelisib 15%; ofatumumab 3%).

Nineteen fatal AEs occurred in patients on the duvelisib arm, 4 of which were related to the study drug: staphylococcal pneumonia (n = 2), sepsis (n=1), and general health deterioration (n = 1).

Seven fatal AEs occurred in patients on the ofatumumab arm, although none was attributed to ofatumumab.

The DUO trial was sponsored by Verastem Oncology and Infinity Pharmaceuticals , Inc. 

Photo from Sarah Cannon

Final analysis of the phase 3 DUO trial has shown monotherapy with oral duvelisib results in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) compared to monotherapy with ofatumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lympchocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL).

PFS for all patients as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC) was a median 13.3 months with duvelisib compared to 9.9 months with ofatumumab (P<0.0001).

ORR was significantly higher with duvelisib, 74% compared to 45%, P<0.0001, regardless of deletion 17p status.

Duvelisib (Copiktra™) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for CLL/SLL based in part on this head-to-head trial.

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

"The way we treat patients with CLL is changing rapidly as we move from standard chemotherapy-based approaches to more targeted therapies," said principal investigator Ian W. Flinn, MD, PhD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville.

"Based on these data, duvelisib may offer a new treatment option for patients who otherwise may have limited options."

Duvelisib is an oral, dual inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-δ and -γ, which means it blocks the survival and proliferation of malignant B cells and also disrupts the recruitment and differentiation of T cells and macrophages within the tumor microenvironment.

Ofatumumab is a humanized anti-CD20 antibody with single-agent efficacy in refractory CLL. It is approved by the FDA as a treatment option in CLL.

Study design

Investigators randomized 319 relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL patients, 160 to the duvelisib arm and 159 to the ofatumumab arm.

Patients in the duvelisib arm self-administered 25 mg capsules twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. They could take duvelisib for up to 18 cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Ofatumumab-treated patients received infusions as approved in the product labeling for monotherapy in relapsed CLL. Dosing of ofatumumab could not exceed 12 doses in 7 cycles.

Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecci was required for all patients on both treatment arms.

Patients were allowed to crossover to a separate extension study to receive the opposite therapy if they had progressive disease.

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

According to the investigators, patient characteristics were well balanced between the arms.

The majority (60%) were male and the median age in both arms was 69. Most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 7% in the duvelisib arm and 10% in the ofatumumab arm had a performance status of 2.

Other patient characteristics in the duvelisib and ofatumumab arms, respectively, were:

• Time from initial diagnosis: 7.5 years, 6.7 years
• CLL/SLL, %: 97/5, 99/2
• Bulky disease: 46%, 45%
• Baseline lymphocyte counts: 38x109/L, 35x109/L
• Deletion 17p and/or TP53 mutation: 31%, 33%
• Median number of prior therapies: 2 in each arm
• Previous alkylating agent: 93%, 95%
• Previous monoclonal antibody: 78%, 83%
• Prior purine analog: 60%, 71%

Of the total patients enrolled, 158 patients in the duvelisib arm and 155 in the ofatumumab arm received treatment, for a median exposure of 50 weeks and 23 weeks, respectively.

Efficacy

In addition to the significantly improved overall PFS and ORR with duvelisib, further analysis revealed that PFS also improved for all predefined subgroups.

High-risk patients with deletion 17p/TP53 mutations also experienced a significant improvement in PFS with duvelisib of 12.7 months compared to 9.0 months with ofatumumab by IRC (P=0.0002).

The estimated probability of being progression-free for these patients at 6 and 12 moths was 73% and 55% with duvelisib and 63% and 30% with ofatumumab.

The investigators pointed out that duvelisib treatment was particularly effective in eliciting a lymph node response—85.0% compared to 15.7% with ofatumumab as assessed by IRC (P<0.0001).

Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. The 12-month probability of survival was 86% for both treatments.

Safety

Median treatment exposure was almost twice as long in the duvelisib arm because ofatumumab treatment was not allowed to exceed 12 doses as specified in the prescribing information.

The investigators explained this resulted in a longer adverse event (AE) reporting period for duvelisib.

One hundred twenty-four duvelisib-treated patients discontinued treatment, most commonly due to AEs (35%), disease progression (22%), subject withdrawal (8%), and death (8%).

All ofatumumab-treated patients discontinued treatment by the time of data cutoff, and 67% had completed treatment as per protocol. Others discontinued due to disease progression (20%), subject withdrawal (5%), and AEs (4%).

Eight (5%) duvelisib patients crossed over to ofatumumab therapy at the time of disease progression, and 89 (57%) ofatumumab-treated patients crossed over to duvelisib.

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

The most common hematologic malignancies with duvelisib and ofatumumab, respectively, occurring in 10% or more patients were neutropenia (33%, 21%), anemia (23%, 10%), and thrombocytopenia (15%, 6%).

The most common nonhematologic AES with duvelisib were diarrhea (51%), pyrexia (29%), nausea (23%), and cough (21%).

With ofatumumab, the most common nonhematologic AES were infusion-related reaction (19%), cough (14%), and diarrhea, rash, and fatigue (12% each).

Grade 3 or greater AEs occurred in 87% of duvelisib-treated patients and 48% in the ofatumumab arm.

The most common grade 3 or greater events with duvelisib were neutropenia (30%), diarrhea (15%), pneumonia (14%), and anemia (13%).

With ofatumumab, only neutropenia (17%) of grade 3 or higher occurred in 10% or more patients.

Severe immune-related toxicities with duvelisib included colitis (12%) and pneumonitis, alanine transaminase (ALT) or aspartate transaminase (AST) increase (3% each). The events were managed with dose interruptions and steroid therapy for pneumonitis or colitis. All reported events resolved, and none was fatal.

Infectious AEs occurred more frequently with duvelisib, 69% compared to 43% in the ofatumumab arm. Pneumonia (18%) and upper respiratory tract infection (16%) were the most common events.

Three patients in the duvelisib arm and 1 in the ofatumumab arm contracted Pneumocystis jirovecii.

The most frequently reported serious AE was pneumonia (duvelisib 15%; ofatumumab 3%).

Nineteen fatal AEs occurred in patients on the duvelisib arm, 4 of which were related to the study drug: staphylococcal pneumonia (n = 2), sepsis (n=1), and general health deterioration (n = 1).

Seven fatal AEs occurred in patients on the ofatumumab arm, although none was attributed to ofatumumab.

The DUO trial was sponsored by Verastem Oncology and Infinity Pharmaceuticals , Inc.