ASH 2016

Vial of obinutuzumab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

Vial of obinutuzumab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

Vial of obinutuzumab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

The median follow-up was 29 months.

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

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

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

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

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

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patient disposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biomarker analysis

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

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

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

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

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

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

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

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

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patient disposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biomarker analysis

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

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

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

 

2016 ASH Annual Meeting
© Todd Buchanan 2016

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the investigators added a combination cohort to CheckMate 039.

Combination cohort study design

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

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

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

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

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patient disposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biomarker analysis

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

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

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

SCID mouse

Photo courtesy of NCI

SAN DIEGO—A novel xenograft model of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that the JAK/STAT inhibitor ruxolitinib can prevent severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) without impairing the anti-tumor effect of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, according to research presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Almost all patients responding to CART-cell therapy develop CRS, and up to 60% develop severe CRS.

The research team believes the mouse model and findings with ruxolitinib will provide an important platform for studying CRS prevention and treatment.

At ASH, Saad Kenderian, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, explained that CRS produces very high levels of the inflammatory protein IL-6.

Treatment with ruxolitinib in clinical studies has reduced human inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, it made sense to the investigators to study ruxolitinib as a means to prevent CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Tocilizumab has been used to treat grade 3 and 4 CRS, but physicians are concerned that earlier introduction during the course of CRS may impair CAR T-cell function.

At present, no relevant preclinical model for CRS after CAR T-cell therapy exists, “which is limiting the development of CRS preventative modalities that could, in turn, enhance the feasibility of CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr Kenderian said.

And so the investigators decided to create an animal model.

Dr Kenderian described the work at the meeting as abstract 652.

Mouse model for human CRS

Using NSG-S mice (non-obese diabetic, SCID ɣ -/- mice additionally transgenic for human stem cell factor, IL-3, and GM-CSF), investigators injected them with blasts from AML patients. After 3 to 4 weeks, investigators treated the mice with 1 x 10⁶ CD123-directed CAR T cells.

Dr Kenderian noted this dose of CART123 was 10 times higher than doses previously used in primary AML xenograft models.

The mice became weak, emaciated, developed hunched bodies, became withdrawn, had poor motor responses, and died in 7 to 10 days. The illness started within 1 week of CAR T-cell injection and correlated with significant expansion of T cells in the peripheral blood of these mice.

The team studied the serum from these mice 7 days after CART123 injection. They found extreme elevation of human IL-6, interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α, and other inflammatory cytokines. This response resembled human CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Ruxolitinib treatment

The investigators first studied ruxolitinib activity in vitro with CART123 cells and found that ruxolitinib did not impair CAR T-cell effector functions.

“And also, ruxolitinib was not directly toxic to CAR T cells,” Dr Kenderian added.

But ruxolitinib did slow CAR T-cell proliferation in vitro.

They next tested ruxolitinib and CART123 in the mouse model.

Once the mice experienced high-burden disease, investigators treated them with CART123. That same day, investigators began treating the mice with ruxolitinib for 1 week. The mice were randomized to 30, 60, 90 mg/kg, or vehicle twice a day.

Twenty-nine days after AML injection, the mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg or 60 mg of ruxolitinib experienced less weight loss than those treated with CART123 plus 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123-only.

“And more importantly, all mice had eradication of their disease,” Dr Kenderian said.

Mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg, 60 mg, or 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123 alone had fewer AML blasts at day 28 than mice treated with 60 mg of ruxolitinib alone.

The investigators then analyzed the effect of ruxolitinib on the anti-tumor effect of CART123 and found that ruxolitinib did not impair it.

The attenuation of inflammatory cytokines translated to a survival advantage for mice treated with CART123 and ruxolitinib.

The investigators believe the addition of ruxolitinib to CAR T-cell therapy is a modality that should be investigated in patients at high-risk of developing CRS.

Dr Kenderian disclosed patents, royalties, and research funding from Novartis.

SCID mouse

Photo courtesy of NCI

SAN DIEGO—A novel xenograft model of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that the JAK/STAT inhibitor ruxolitinib can prevent severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) without impairing the anti-tumor effect of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, according to research presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Almost all patients responding to CART-cell therapy develop CRS, and up to 60% develop severe CRS.

The research team believes the mouse model and findings with ruxolitinib will provide an important platform for studying CRS prevention and treatment.

At ASH, Saad Kenderian, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, explained that CRS produces very high levels of the inflammatory protein IL-6.

Treatment with ruxolitinib in clinical studies has reduced human inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, it made sense to the investigators to study ruxolitinib as a means to prevent CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Tocilizumab has been used to treat grade 3 and 4 CRS, but physicians are concerned that earlier introduction during the course of CRS may impair CAR T-cell function.

At present, no relevant preclinical model for CRS after CAR T-cell therapy exists, “which is limiting the development of CRS preventative modalities that could, in turn, enhance the feasibility of CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr Kenderian said.

And so the investigators decided to create an animal model.

Dr Kenderian described the work at the meeting as abstract 652.

Mouse model for human CRS

Using NSG-S mice (non-obese diabetic, SCID ɣ -/- mice additionally transgenic for human stem cell factor, IL-3, and GM-CSF), investigators injected them with blasts from AML patients. After 3 to 4 weeks, investigators treated the mice with 1 x 10⁶ CD123-directed CAR T cells.

Dr Kenderian noted this dose of CART123 was 10 times higher than doses previously used in primary AML xenograft models.

The mice became weak, emaciated, developed hunched bodies, became withdrawn, had poor motor responses, and died in 7 to 10 days. The illness started within 1 week of CAR T-cell injection and correlated with significant expansion of T cells in the peripheral blood of these mice.

The team studied the serum from these mice 7 days after CART123 injection. They found extreme elevation of human IL-6, interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α, and other inflammatory cytokines. This response resembled human CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Ruxolitinib treatment

The investigators first studied ruxolitinib activity in vitro with CART123 cells and found that ruxolitinib did not impair CAR T-cell effector functions.

“And also, ruxolitinib was not directly toxic to CAR T cells,” Dr Kenderian added.

But ruxolitinib did slow CAR T-cell proliferation in vitro.

They next tested ruxolitinib and CART123 in the mouse model.

Once the mice experienced high-burden disease, investigators treated them with CART123. That same day, investigators began treating the mice with ruxolitinib for 1 week. The mice were randomized to 30, 60, 90 mg/kg, or vehicle twice a day.

Twenty-nine days after AML injection, the mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg or 60 mg of ruxolitinib experienced less weight loss than those treated with CART123 plus 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123-only.

“And more importantly, all mice had eradication of their disease,” Dr Kenderian said.

Mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg, 60 mg, or 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123 alone had fewer AML blasts at day 28 than mice treated with 60 mg of ruxolitinib alone.

The investigators then analyzed the effect of ruxolitinib on the anti-tumor effect of CART123 and found that ruxolitinib did not impair it.

The attenuation of inflammatory cytokines translated to a survival advantage for mice treated with CART123 and ruxolitinib.

The investigators believe the addition of ruxolitinib to CAR T-cell therapy is a modality that should be investigated in patients at high-risk of developing CRS.

Dr Kenderian disclosed patents, royalties, and research funding from Novartis.

SCID mouse

Photo courtesy of NCI

SAN DIEGO—A novel xenograft model of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that the JAK/STAT inhibitor ruxolitinib can prevent severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) without impairing the anti-tumor effect of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, according to research presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Almost all patients responding to CART-cell therapy develop CRS, and up to 60% develop severe CRS.

The research team believes the mouse model and findings with ruxolitinib will provide an important platform for studying CRS prevention and treatment.

At ASH, Saad Kenderian, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, explained that CRS produces very high levels of the inflammatory protein IL-6.

Treatment with ruxolitinib in clinical studies has reduced human inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, it made sense to the investigators to study ruxolitinib as a means to prevent CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Tocilizumab has been used to treat grade 3 and 4 CRS, but physicians are concerned that earlier introduction during the course of CRS may impair CAR T-cell function.

At present, no relevant preclinical model for CRS after CAR T-cell therapy exists, “which is limiting the development of CRS preventative modalities that could, in turn, enhance the feasibility of CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr Kenderian said.

And so the investigators decided to create an animal model.

Dr Kenderian described the work at the meeting as abstract 652.

Mouse model for human CRS

Using NSG-S mice (non-obese diabetic, SCID ɣ -/- mice additionally transgenic for human stem cell factor, IL-3, and GM-CSF), investigators injected them with blasts from AML patients. After 3 to 4 weeks, investigators treated the mice with 1 x 10⁶ CD123-directed CAR T cells.

Dr Kenderian noted this dose of CART123 was 10 times higher than doses previously used in primary AML xenograft models.

The mice became weak, emaciated, developed hunched bodies, became withdrawn, had poor motor responses, and died in 7 to 10 days. The illness started within 1 week of CAR T-cell injection and correlated with significant expansion of T cells in the peripheral blood of these mice.

The team studied the serum from these mice 7 days after CART123 injection. They found extreme elevation of human IL-6, interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α, and other inflammatory cytokines. This response resembled human CRS after CAR T-cell therapy.

Ruxolitinib treatment

The investigators first studied ruxolitinib activity in vitro with CART123 cells and found that ruxolitinib did not impair CAR T-cell effector functions.

“And also, ruxolitinib was not directly toxic to CAR T cells,” Dr Kenderian added.

But ruxolitinib did slow CAR T-cell proliferation in vitro.

They next tested ruxolitinib and CART123 in the mouse model.

Once the mice experienced high-burden disease, investigators treated them with CART123. That same day, investigators began treating the mice with ruxolitinib for 1 week. The mice were randomized to 30, 60, 90 mg/kg, or vehicle twice a day.

Twenty-nine days after AML injection, the mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg or 60 mg of ruxolitinib experienced less weight loss than those treated with CART123 plus 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123-only.

“And more importantly, all mice had eradication of their disease,” Dr Kenderian said.

Mice treated with CART123 plus 90 mg, 60 mg, or 30 mg of ruxolitinib or CART123 alone had fewer AML blasts at day 28 than mice treated with 60 mg of ruxolitinib alone.

The investigators then analyzed the effect of ruxolitinib on the anti-tumor effect of CART123 and found that ruxolitinib did not impair it.

The attenuation of inflammatory cytokines translated to a survival advantage for mice treated with CART123 and ruxolitinib.

The investigators believe the addition of ruxolitinib to CAR T-cell therapy is a modality that should be investigated in patients at high-risk of developing CRS.

Dr Kenderian disclosed patents, royalties, and research funding from Novartis.

Prescription medications

Photo courtesy of CDC

SAN DIEGO—Results from the ARETA trial suggest patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) can benefit from early treatment even if they are not considered high-risk.

In this phase 3 trial, non-high-risk patients were less likely to experience ET-related cardiovascular events or disease progression if they received extended-release anagrelide rather than placebo.

Patients who received extended-release anagrelide were also less likely to become high-risk over time.

And extended-release anagrelide had a safety profile consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, according to investigator Heinz Gisslinger, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria.

Dr Gisslinger reported final results of the ARETA trial at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 476).

The trial was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG, the company developing the extended-release formulation of anagrelide, known as anagrelide retard (AR).

Dr Gisslinger noted that the goals of developing AR are to achieve lower peak plasma concentration of anagrelide, reduce the frequency and intensity of peak concentration related to adverse events (AEs), allow for an easier dosing scheme (once daily vs 2 to 3 times daily), and improve patient compliance.

He also pointed out that results of the phase 3 TEAM-ET trial suggest AR is non-inferior to the standard formulation of anagrelide (Thromboreductin, also a product of AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals).

So with the ARETA trial, Dr Gisslinger and his colleagues set out to determine if AR would be beneficial as an early intervention in patients with non-high-risk ET.

Patients

The trial enrolled 146 patients who had platelet counts below 1000 G/L and met at least 1 of the following criteria:

• Age 40 to 60 years
• ET duration of more than 3 years
• Any risk factor for thrombotic complications (JAK2 mutation, protein C and/or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, factor V Leiden or prothrombin mutation, or cardiovascular risk factors).

Seventy-seven patients were randomized to AR, and 69 were randomized to placebo. In both treatment arms, 100% of patients were Caucasian, and about 74% were female.

The mean age was 40.9 (range, 20-60) in the AR arm and 45.2 (range, 19-59) in the placebo arm. The median disease duration was 75.0 days (range, 1-2502) and 78.0 days (range, 1-2195), respectively. The mean platelet count was 748.6 G/L and 745.3 G/L, respectively.

A majority of patients in both arms had JAK2 mutations (62.7% in the AR arm and 63.8% in the placebo arm). Fewer had CALR mutations (22.7% and 13.6%, respectively) and MPL mutations (16.7% and 12.5%).

Treatment

Patients were stratified by JAK2 status and randomized to receive AR at 2 to 8 mg/day or placebo.

The dosing of AR started at 1 tablet (2 mg) per day during week 1 and was titrated up according to platelet response to 2 tablets in week 2. Dosing was further increased or decreased according to platelet response in weeks 3 and 4.

The maximum dose was 4 tablets (8 mg) per day. After week 4, the maximum dose to achieve optimal platelet counts (<450 G/L) was maintained, and patients continued with weekly visits through week 6.

After that, patients had visits every 3 months in both the main phase of this study and the extension phase. The main phase lasted 1 year, and the extension phase lasted up to 3 years.

Sixty patients (77.9%) in the AR arm and 52 (75.4%) in the placebo arm completed the main phase of the study.

Fifty-seven patients in the AR arm entered the extension phase, and 44 (57.1%) completed it. Thirty-four patients in the placebo arm entered the extension phase, and 21 (30.4%) completed it.

Efficacy

The primary endpoint was time to ET-related cardiovascular events (as confirmed by a blinded expert panel) or disease progression/worsening (platelet increase >1000 G/L).

The 1-year event-free rate (patients who did not meet criteria for the primary endpoint) was 87% in the AR arm and 69% in the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.356, P=0.0008).

According to the expert panel, there were 12 ET-related events in 11 patients in the AR arm, as well as 17 such events in 14 patients in the placebo arm. This included major and minor arterial, venous, and bleeding events.

In total, there were 13 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the AR arm (13 events) and 26 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the placebo arm (30 events).

Nine patients in the AR arm (11.7%) and 18 in the placebo arm (26.1%) changed to high-risk status at some point during the trial (odds ratio=2.67, P=0.033).

Safety

The overall incidence of AEs was 88.3% in the AR arm and 69.6% in the placebo arm. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was 76.6% and 27.5%, respectively.

The incidence of treatment-related serious AEs was 1.3% and 0%, respectively. And the incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to withdrawal was 9.1% and 7.2%, respectively.

Treatment-related AEs occurring in more than 10% of patients in either arm (the AR and placebo arms, respectively) included headache (41.6% and 15.9%), dizziness (35.1% and 14.5%), palpitations (28.6% and 1.4%), and tachycardia (10.4% and 1.4%).

In closing, Dr Gisslinger noted that the primary endpoint of this study was met, and AR allowed for platelet count normalization and delayed progression to high-risk status.

Furthermore, the safety profile of AR is consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, but AR allows for a more convenient dosing schedule.

Dr Gisslinger concluded, “[T]hese data from the ARETA study support an early treatment concept for all ET patients where platelet count or symptom reduction is a goal and those patients who can be attributed as intermediate-risk patients.”

Prescription medications

Photo courtesy of CDC

SAN DIEGO—Results from the ARETA trial suggest patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) can benefit from early treatment even if they are not considered high-risk.

In this phase 3 trial, non-high-risk patients were less likely to experience ET-related cardiovascular events or disease progression if they received extended-release anagrelide rather than placebo.

Patients who received extended-release anagrelide were also less likely to become high-risk over time.

And extended-release anagrelide had a safety profile consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, according to investigator Heinz Gisslinger, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria.

Dr Gisslinger reported final results of the ARETA trial at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 476).

The trial was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG, the company developing the extended-release formulation of anagrelide, known as anagrelide retard (AR).

Dr Gisslinger noted that the goals of developing AR are to achieve lower peak plasma concentration of anagrelide, reduce the frequency and intensity of peak concentration related to adverse events (AEs), allow for an easier dosing scheme (once daily vs 2 to 3 times daily), and improve patient compliance.

He also pointed out that results of the phase 3 TEAM-ET trial suggest AR is non-inferior to the standard formulation of anagrelide (Thromboreductin, also a product of AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals).

So with the ARETA trial, Dr Gisslinger and his colleagues set out to determine if AR would be beneficial as an early intervention in patients with non-high-risk ET.

Patients

The trial enrolled 146 patients who had platelet counts below 1000 G/L and met at least 1 of the following criteria:

• Age 40 to 60 years
• ET duration of more than 3 years
• Any risk factor for thrombotic complications (JAK2 mutation, protein C and/or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, factor V Leiden or prothrombin mutation, or cardiovascular risk factors).

Seventy-seven patients were randomized to AR, and 69 were randomized to placebo. In both treatment arms, 100% of patients were Caucasian, and about 74% were female.

The mean age was 40.9 (range, 20-60) in the AR arm and 45.2 (range, 19-59) in the placebo arm. The median disease duration was 75.0 days (range, 1-2502) and 78.0 days (range, 1-2195), respectively. The mean platelet count was 748.6 G/L and 745.3 G/L, respectively.

A majority of patients in both arms had JAK2 mutations (62.7% in the AR arm and 63.8% in the placebo arm). Fewer had CALR mutations (22.7% and 13.6%, respectively) and MPL mutations (16.7% and 12.5%).

Treatment

Patients were stratified by JAK2 status and randomized to receive AR at 2 to 8 mg/day or placebo.

The dosing of AR started at 1 tablet (2 mg) per day during week 1 and was titrated up according to platelet response to 2 tablets in week 2. Dosing was further increased or decreased according to platelet response in weeks 3 and 4.

The maximum dose was 4 tablets (8 mg) per day. After week 4, the maximum dose to achieve optimal platelet counts (<450 G/L) was maintained, and patients continued with weekly visits through week 6.

After that, patients had visits every 3 months in both the main phase of this study and the extension phase. The main phase lasted 1 year, and the extension phase lasted up to 3 years.

Sixty patients (77.9%) in the AR arm and 52 (75.4%) in the placebo arm completed the main phase of the study.

Fifty-seven patients in the AR arm entered the extension phase, and 44 (57.1%) completed it. Thirty-four patients in the placebo arm entered the extension phase, and 21 (30.4%) completed it.

Efficacy

The primary endpoint was time to ET-related cardiovascular events (as confirmed by a blinded expert panel) or disease progression/worsening (platelet increase >1000 G/L).

The 1-year event-free rate (patients who did not meet criteria for the primary endpoint) was 87% in the AR arm and 69% in the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.356, P=0.0008).

According to the expert panel, there were 12 ET-related events in 11 patients in the AR arm, as well as 17 such events in 14 patients in the placebo arm. This included major and minor arterial, venous, and bleeding events.

In total, there were 13 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the AR arm (13 events) and 26 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the placebo arm (30 events).

Nine patients in the AR arm (11.7%) and 18 in the placebo arm (26.1%) changed to high-risk status at some point during the trial (odds ratio=2.67, P=0.033).

Safety

The overall incidence of AEs was 88.3% in the AR arm and 69.6% in the placebo arm. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was 76.6% and 27.5%, respectively.

The incidence of treatment-related serious AEs was 1.3% and 0%, respectively. And the incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to withdrawal was 9.1% and 7.2%, respectively.

Treatment-related AEs occurring in more than 10% of patients in either arm (the AR and placebo arms, respectively) included headache (41.6% and 15.9%), dizziness (35.1% and 14.5%), palpitations (28.6% and 1.4%), and tachycardia (10.4% and 1.4%).

In closing, Dr Gisslinger noted that the primary endpoint of this study was met, and AR allowed for platelet count normalization and delayed progression to high-risk status.

Furthermore, the safety profile of AR is consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, but AR allows for a more convenient dosing schedule.

Dr Gisslinger concluded, “[T]hese data from the ARETA study support an early treatment concept for all ET patients where platelet count or symptom reduction is a goal and those patients who can be attributed as intermediate-risk patients.”

Prescription medications

Photo courtesy of CDC

SAN DIEGO—Results from the ARETA trial suggest patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) can benefit from early treatment even if they are not considered high-risk.

In this phase 3 trial, non-high-risk patients were less likely to experience ET-related cardiovascular events or disease progression if they received extended-release anagrelide rather than placebo.

Patients who received extended-release anagrelide were also less likely to become high-risk over time.

And extended-release anagrelide had a safety profile consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, according to investigator Heinz Gisslinger, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria.

Dr Gisslinger reported final results of the ARETA trial at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 476).

The trial was sponsored by AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG, the company developing the extended-release formulation of anagrelide, known as anagrelide retard (AR).

Dr Gisslinger noted that the goals of developing AR are to achieve lower peak plasma concentration of anagrelide, reduce the frequency and intensity of peak concentration related to adverse events (AEs), allow for an easier dosing scheme (once daily vs 2 to 3 times daily), and improve patient compliance.

He also pointed out that results of the phase 3 TEAM-ET trial suggest AR is non-inferior to the standard formulation of anagrelide (Thromboreductin, also a product of AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals).

So with the ARETA trial, Dr Gisslinger and his colleagues set out to determine if AR would be beneficial as an early intervention in patients with non-high-risk ET.

Patients

The trial enrolled 146 patients who had platelet counts below 1000 G/L and met at least 1 of the following criteria:

• Age 40 to 60 years
• ET duration of more than 3 years
• Any risk factor for thrombotic complications (JAK2 mutation, protein C and/or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, factor V Leiden or prothrombin mutation, or cardiovascular risk factors).

Seventy-seven patients were randomized to AR, and 69 were randomized to placebo. In both treatment arms, 100% of patients were Caucasian, and about 74% were female.

The mean age was 40.9 (range, 20-60) in the AR arm and 45.2 (range, 19-59) in the placebo arm. The median disease duration was 75.0 days (range, 1-2502) and 78.0 days (range, 1-2195), respectively. The mean platelet count was 748.6 G/L and 745.3 G/L, respectively.

A majority of patients in both arms had JAK2 mutations (62.7% in the AR arm and 63.8% in the placebo arm). Fewer had CALR mutations (22.7% and 13.6%, respectively) and MPL mutations (16.7% and 12.5%).

Treatment

Patients were stratified by JAK2 status and randomized to receive AR at 2 to 8 mg/day or placebo.

The dosing of AR started at 1 tablet (2 mg) per day during week 1 and was titrated up according to platelet response to 2 tablets in week 2. Dosing was further increased or decreased according to platelet response in weeks 3 and 4.

The maximum dose was 4 tablets (8 mg) per day. After week 4, the maximum dose to achieve optimal platelet counts (<450 G/L) was maintained, and patients continued with weekly visits through week 6.

After that, patients had visits every 3 months in both the main phase of this study and the extension phase. The main phase lasted 1 year, and the extension phase lasted up to 3 years.

Sixty patients (77.9%) in the AR arm and 52 (75.4%) in the placebo arm completed the main phase of the study.

Fifty-seven patients in the AR arm entered the extension phase, and 44 (57.1%) completed it. Thirty-four patients in the placebo arm entered the extension phase, and 21 (30.4%) completed it.

Efficacy

The primary endpoint was time to ET-related cardiovascular events (as confirmed by a blinded expert panel) or disease progression/worsening (platelet increase >1000 G/L).

The 1-year event-free rate (patients who did not meet criteria for the primary endpoint) was 87% in the AR arm and 69% in the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.356, P=0.0008).

According to the expert panel, there were 12 ET-related events in 11 patients in the AR arm, as well as 17 such events in 14 patients in the placebo arm. This included major and minor arterial, venous, and bleeding events.

In total, there were 13 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the AR arm (13 events) and 26 patients who had ET-related events or met platelet criteria in the placebo arm (30 events).

Nine patients in the AR arm (11.7%) and 18 in the placebo arm (26.1%) changed to high-risk status at some point during the trial (odds ratio=2.67, P=0.033).

Safety

The overall incidence of AEs was 88.3% in the AR arm and 69.6% in the placebo arm. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was 76.6% and 27.5%, respectively.

The incidence of treatment-related serious AEs was 1.3% and 0%, respectively. And the incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to withdrawal was 9.1% and 7.2%, respectively.

Treatment-related AEs occurring in more than 10% of patients in either arm (the AR and placebo arms, respectively) included headache (41.6% and 15.9%), dizziness (35.1% and 14.5%), palpitations (28.6% and 1.4%), and tachycardia (10.4% and 1.4%).

In closing, Dr Gisslinger noted that the primary endpoint of this study was met, and AR allowed for platelet count normalization and delayed progression to high-risk status.

Furthermore, the safety profile of AR is consistent with conventional anagrelide formulations, but AR allows for a more convenient dosing schedule.

Dr Gisslinger concluded, “[T]hese data from the ARETA study support an early treatment concept for all ET patients where platelet count or symptom reduction is a goal and those patients who can be attributed as intermediate-risk patients.”

Eytan Stein, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—Daily treatment with enasidenib monotherapy in patients with mutated IDH2-positive myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) induced responses in the majority of patients treated, according to a presentation at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study was a portion of a larger phase 1/2 trial of the agent in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other hematologic malignancies, so the subset was relatively small, numbering 17 patients.

Nevertheless, enasidenib was well tolerated and induced responses in these predominantly higher-risk patients.

Enasidenib (AG-221/CC-9007) is a selective, oral, potent inhibitor of mutant IDH2 (mIDH2), which produces 2-HG and thus alters DNA methylation and blocks cellular differentiation of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

Approximately 15% of AML patients and 5% of MDS patients have mIDH2. So investigators undertook the study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of enasidenib monotherapy in these diseases.

Eytan Stein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, presented the analysis of enasidenib in mIDH2-positive MDS patients as abstract 343.*

Study design

MDS patients were allowed to enroll during the dose-escalation and expansion phase of the study, Dr Stein explained.

Patients had to be 18 or older and have an advanced hematologic malignancy with mutated IDH2—relapsed or refractory AML, relapsed or refractory MDS, untreated AML, or other hematologic malignancy with mIDH2.

MDS patients could not be candidates for other therapies, had to be IPSS-R high risk, and had to have relapsed or refractory RAEB-1/RAEB-2 disease.

Investigators also performed co-molecular profiling using next-generation sequencing with a FoundationOne® Heme Panel.

All patients received daily oral enasidenib at 100 mg daily in 28-day cycles.

Patient characteristics

The study accrued a total of 239 patients—176 with relapsed or refractory AML, 37 with untreated AML, 9 with another hematologic malignancy, and 17 with MDS.

The median age of the MDS patients was 67 (range, 45-78), and 71% were male. All had the IDH2 mutation, 88% had R140 mutations, and 12% had R172.

Thirteen patients (76%) had an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and 4 (24%) had a performance status of 2.

A little more than a third (35%) of patients had 2 or more prior anti-cancer regimens.

Two patients (12%) received prior lenalidomide therapy, 8 (47%) received other treatments, including sorafenib (n=2) and vosaroxin, epoetin alfa, pracinostat, cytarabine plus clofarabine, ruxolitinib, and rigosertib (n=1 each). Four patients (24%) were untreated.

“I want to make the point,” Dr Stein said, “that, of those patients, three quarters of them, 76% [n=13], had received a prior hypomethylating agent, really understanding that this is a very poor-risk group of patients that we are studying here.”

About half of patients (47%) had intermediate-2/high IPSS risk status, good MDS cytogenetic risk, and high/very high IPSS-R risk status.

Adverse events

Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurring in 2 or more patients were hyperbilirubinemia (n=5), pneumonia (n=4), thrombocytopenia (n=4), anemia (n=3), hypokalemia (n=3), dyspnea (n=2), and tumor lysis syndrome (n=2).

“As I’ve said in a number of meetings where I’ve talked about IDH2 inhibitors, and specifically enasidenib, the hyperbilirubinemia that is seen with this drug is an indirect hyperbilirubinemia,” Dr Stein said.

“A known off-target effect of this drug is inhibition of the UGT1a1 enzyme, which conjugates bilirubin, and this indirect hyperbilirubinemia, which is typically relatively mild [and] does not appear to have any clinical sequelae.”

Investigators considered 9 of the AEs reported for 6 patients to be drug-related.

Four serious enasidenib-related AEs included tumor lysis syndrome (n=2), increased blood bilirubin (n=1), and transaminitis (n=1).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

Response and survival

Ten of 17 patients (59%) achieved an overall response, defined as complete response (CR) plus partial response, plus marrow CR, plus hematologic improvement (HI).

One patient achieved CR, 1 had a partial response, 3 had marrow CR, and 5 had HI.

Dr Stein noted that, of the 13 patients who had received prior hypomethylating agent therapy, 7 (54%) had a response with enasidenib.

Of the patients who attained HI, 2 had trilineage and 2 had bilineage improvement.

The median time to response was 21 days (range, 10-87), and the median number of treatment cycles was 3.0.

Patients remained on study for up to 24 months. Four patients in hematologic remission are still on study, and 3 patients proceeded to stem cell or bone marrow transplant, Dr Stein said.

Two patients discontinued because of investigator decision, and 8 discontinued therapy due to death or disease progression.

The limitation of the study regarding overall survival, Dr Stein said, is that the number is very small.

At a median follow-up of 7.5 months, the median overall survival was not reached.

“So I’m not arguing that this is the end word of this,” he said. “This is going to be dynamic as more patients come on these studies. But I think it’s a nice indication that this treatment appears to be well-tolerated and doing good for a large subset of patients.”

Co-occurring mutations

The investigators also analyzed co-occurring mutations in 13 MDS patients.

The small patient population prevented the investigators from making definitive conclusions regarding potential correlations between response and co-mutations.

Nevertheless, Dr Stein said the analysis revealed something “very, very intriguing.”

He noted that 7 patients had ASXL1 mutations, and “those are typically patients who are bad actors.”

“Five of those 7 patients had a response,” Dr Stein said. “And of those 5, 3 of them had received a prior hypomethylating agent. I think it’s at least food for thought that you can salvage a patient who has failed a hypomethylating agent, with poor risk disease. I think this is very, very exciting.”

Celgene Corporation and its collaborator, Agios Pharmaceuticals, sponsored the trial.

*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.

Eytan Stein, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—Daily treatment with enasidenib monotherapy in patients with mutated IDH2-positive myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) induced responses in the majority of patients treated, according to a presentation at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study was a portion of a larger phase 1/2 trial of the agent in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other hematologic malignancies, so the subset was relatively small, numbering 17 patients.

Nevertheless, enasidenib was well tolerated and induced responses in these predominantly higher-risk patients.

Enasidenib (AG-221/CC-9007) is a selective, oral, potent inhibitor of mutant IDH2 (mIDH2), which produces 2-HG and thus alters DNA methylation and blocks cellular differentiation of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

Approximately 15% of AML patients and 5% of MDS patients have mIDH2. So investigators undertook the study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of enasidenib monotherapy in these diseases.

Eytan Stein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, presented the analysis of enasidenib in mIDH2-positive MDS patients as abstract 343.*

Study design

MDS patients were allowed to enroll during the dose-escalation and expansion phase of the study, Dr Stein explained.

Patients had to be 18 or older and have an advanced hematologic malignancy with mutated IDH2—relapsed or refractory AML, relapsed or refractory MDS, untreated AML, or other hematologic malignancy with mIDH2.

MDS patients could not be candidates for other therapies, had to be IPSS-R high risk, and had to have relapsed or refractory RAEB-1/RAEB-2 disease.

Investigators also performed co-molecular profiling using next-generation sequencing with a FoundationOne® Heme Panel.

All patients received daily oral enasidenib at 100 mg daily in 28-day cycles.

Patient characteristics

The study accrued a total of 239 patients—176 with relapsed or refractory AML, 37 with untreated AML, 9 with another hematologic malignancy, and 17 with MDS.

The median age of the MDS patients was 67 (range, 45-78), and 71% were male. All had the IDH2 mutation, 88% had R140 mutations, and 12% had R172.

Thirteen patients (76%) had an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and 4 (24%) had a performance status of 2.

A little more than a third (35%) of patients had 2 or more prior anti-cancer regimens.

Two patients (12%) received prior lenalidomide therapy, 8 (47%) received other treatments, including sorafenib (n=2) and vosaroxin, epoetin alfa, pracinostat, cytarabine plus clofarabine, ruxolitinib, and rigosertib (n=1 each). Four patients (24%) were untreated.

“I want to make the point,” Dr Stein said, “that, of those patients, three quarters of them, 76% [n=13], had received a prior hypomethylating agent, really understanding that this is a very poor-risk group of patients that we are studying here.”

About half of patients (47%) had intermediate-2/high IPSS risk status, good MDS cytogenetic risk, and high/very high IPSS-R risk status.

Adverse events

Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurring in 2 or more patients were hyperbilirubinemia (n=5), pneumonia (n=4), thrombocytopenia (n=4), anemia (n=3), hypokalemia (n=3), dyspnea (n=2), and tumor lysis syndrome (n=2).

“As I’ve said in a number of meetings where I’ve talked about IDH2 inhibitors, and specifically enasidenib, the hyperbilirubinemia that is seen with this drug is an indirect hyperbilirubinemia,” Dr Stein said.

“A known off-target effect of this drug is inhibition of the UGT1a1 enzyme, which conjugates bilirubin, and this indirect hyperbilirubinemia, which is typically relatively mild [and] does not appear to have any clinical sequelae.”

Investigators considered 9 of the AEs reported for 6 patients to be drug-related.

Four serious enasidenib-related AEs included tumor lysis syndrome (n=2), increased blood bilirubin (n=1), and transaminitis (n=1).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

Response and survival

Ten of 17 patients (59%) achieved an overall response, defined as complete response (CR) plus partial response, plus marrow CR, plus hematologic improvement (HI).

One patient achieved CR, 1 had a partial response, 3 had marrow CR, and 5 had HI.

Dr Stein noted that, of the 13 patients who had received prior hypomethylating agent therapy, 7 (54%) had a response with enasidenib.

Of the patients who attained HI, 2 had trilineage and 2 had bilineage improvement.

The median time to response was 21 days (range, 10-87), and the median number of treatment cycles was 3.0.

Patients remained on study for up to 24 months. Four patients in hematologic remission are still on study, and 3 patients proceeded to stem cell or bone marrow transplant, Dr Stein said.

Two patients discontinued because of investigator decision, and 8 discontinued therapy due to death or disease progression.

The limitation of the study regarding overall survival, Dr Stein said, is that the number is very small.

At a median follow-up of 7.5 months, the median overall survival was not reached.

“So I’m not arguing that this is the end word of this,” he said. “This is going to be dynamic as more patients come on these studies. But I think it’s a nice indication that this treatment appears to be well-tolerated and doing good for a large subset of patients.”

Co-occurring mutations

The investigators also analyzed co-occurring mutations in 13 MDS patients.

The small patient population prevented the investigators from making definitive conclusions regarding potential correlations between response and co-mutations.

Nevertheless, Dr Stein said the analysis revealed something “very, very intriguing.”

He noted that 7 patients had ASXL1 mutations, and “those are typically patients who are bad actors.”

“Five of those 7 patients had a response,” Dr Stein said. “And of those 5, 3 of them had received a prior hypomethylating agent. I think it’s at least food for thought that you can salvage a patient who has failed a hypomethylating agent, with poor risk disease. I think this is very, very exciting.”

Celgene Corporation and its collaborator, Agios Pharmaceuticals, sponsored the trial.

*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.

Eytan Stein, MD

Photo courtesy of ASH

SAN DIEGO—Daily treatment with enasidenib monotherapy in patients with mutated IDH2-positive myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) induced responses in the majority of patients treated, according to a presentation at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

The study was a portion of a larger phase 1/2 trial of the agent in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other hematologic malignancies, so the subset was relatively small, numbering 17 patients.

Nevertheless, enasidenib was well tolerated and induced responses in these predominantly higher-risk patients.

Enasidenib (AG-221/CC-9007) is a selective, oral, potent inhibitor of mutant IDH2 (mIDH2), which produces 2-HG and thus alters DNA methylation and blocks cellular differentiation of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

Approximately 15% of AML patients and 5% of MDS patients have mIDH2. So investigators undertook the study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of enasidenib monotherapy in these diseases.

Eytan Stein, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, presented the analysis of enasidenib in mIDH2-positive MDS patients as abstract 343.*

Study design

MDS patients were allowed to enroll during the dose-escalation and expansion phase of the study, Dr Stein explained.

Patients had to be 18 or older and have an advanced hematologic malignancy with mutated IDH2—relapsed or refractory AML, relapsed or refractory MDS, untreated AML, or other hematologic malignancy with mIDH2.

MDS patients could not be candidates for other therapies, had to be IPSS-R high risk, and had to have relapsed or refractory RAEB-1/RAEB-2 disease.

Investigators also performed co-molecular profiling using next-generation sequencing with a FoundationOne® Heme Panel.

All patients received daily oral enasidenib at 100 mg daily in 28-day cycles.

Patient characteristics

The study accrued a total of 239 patients—176 with relapsed or refractory AML, 37 with untreated AML, 9 with another hematologic malignancy, and 17 with MDS.

The median age of the MDS patients was 67 (range, 45-78), and 71% were male. All had the IDH2 mutation, 88% had R140 mutations, and 12% had R172.

Thirteen patients (76%) had an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and 4 (24%) had a performance status of 2.

A little more than a third (35%) of patients had 2 or more prior anti-cancer regimens.

Two patients (12%) received prior lenalidomide therapy, 8 (47%) received other treatments, including sorafenib (n=2) and vosaroxin, epoetin alfa, pracinostat, cytarabine plus clofarabine, ruxolitinib, and rigosertib (n=1 each). Four patients (24%) were untreated.

“I want to make the point,” Dr Stein said, “that, of those patients, three quarters of them, 76% [n=13], had received a prior hypomethylating agent, really understanding that this is a very poor-risk group of patients that we are studying here.”

About half of patients (47%) had intermediate-2/high IPSS risk status, good MDS cytogenetic risk, and high/very high IPSS-R risk status.

Adverse events

Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurring in 2 or more patients were hyperbilirubinemia (n=5), pneumonia (n=4), thrombocytopenia (n=4), anemia (n=3), hypokalemia (n=3), dyspnea (n=2), and tumor lysis syndrome (n=2).

“As I’ve said in a number of meetings where I’ve talked about IDH2 inhibitors, and specifically enasidenib, the hyperbilirubinemia that is seen with this drug is an indirect hyperbilirubinemia,” Dr Stein said.

“A known off-target effect of this drug is inhibition of the UGT1a1 enzyme, which conjugates bilirubin, and this indirect hyperbilirubinemia, which is typically relatively mild [and] does not appear to have any clinical sequelae.”

Investigators considered 9 of the AEs reported for 6 patients to be drug-related.

Four serious enasidenib-related AEs included tumor lysis syndrome (n=2), increased blood bilirubin (n=1), and transaminitis (n=1).

There were no treatment-related deaths.

Response and survival

Ten of 17 patients (59%) achieved an overall response, defined as complete response (CR) plus partial response, plus marrow CR, plus hematologic improvement (HI).

One patient achieved CR, 1 had a partial response, 3 had marrow CR, and 5 had HI.

Dr Stein noted that, of the 13 patients who had received prior hypomethylating agent therapy, 7 (54%) had a response with enasidenib.

Of the patients who attained HI, 2 had trilineage and 2 had bilineage improvement.

The median time to response was 21 days (range, 10-87), and the median number of treatment cycles was 3.0.

Patients remained on study for up to 24 months. Four patients in hematologic remission are still on study, and 3 patients proceeded to stem cell or bone marrow transplant, Dr Stein said.

Two patients discontinued because of investigator decision, and 8 discontinued therapy due to death or disease progression.

The limitation of the study regarding overall survival, Dr Stein said, is that the number is very small.

At a median follow-up of 7.5 months, the median overall survival was not reached.

“So I’m not arguing that this is the end word of this,” he said. “This is going to be dynamic as more patients come on these studies. But I think it’s a nice indication that this treatment appears to be well-tolerated and doing good for a large subset of patients.”

Co-occurring mutations

The investigators also analyzed co-occurring mutations in 13 MDS patients.

The small patient population prevented the investigators from making definitive conclusions regarding potential correlations between response and co-mutations.

Nevertheless, Dr Stein said the analysis revealed something “very, very intriguing.”

He noted that 7 patients had ASXL1 mutations, and “those are typically patients who are bad actors.”

“Five of those 7 patients had a response,” Dr Stein said. “And of those 5, 3 of them had received a prior hypomethylating agent. I think it’s at least food for thought that you can salvage a patient who has failed a hypomethylating agent, with poor risk disease. I think this is very, very exciting.”

Celgene Corporation and its collaborator, Agios Pharmaceuticals, sponsored the trial.

*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.

 

 

Attendees at the

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

 

SAN DIEGO—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy KTE-C19 has met its primary endpoint at the pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to data presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

DLBCL patients had an overall response rate (ORR) of 76% and a complete response (CR) rate of 47% (P<0.0001) after 3 months or more of follow-up. And most responses were evident by day 30, the researchers report.

ZUMA-1 is the first multicenter trial of an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy in refractory, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

A second NHL cohort of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma (PMBCL/TFL) patients were also treated. Together, the cohorts achieved an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

Sattva Neelapu, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, presented the results as a late-breaking abstract (LBA-6*).

Detailed results of the PMBCL/TFL cohort were presented separately (abstract 998) at the meeting.

Earlier data from the phase 2 study have been reported in Hematology Times.

Phase 2 interim analysis

The study enrolled 111 patients, all of whom underwent leukapheresis. Seven of these patients were not treated, 5 due to serious adverse events (SAEs), 1 due to unavailable product, and 2 due to non-measurable disease.

“Importantly, there was no bridging therapy allowed on the study,” Dr Neelapu pointed out.

Patients then received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) and fludarabine (30 mg/m²) for 3 days. Two patients experienced SAEs after the conditioning regimen, making it a total of 10 patients who could not be treated.

Two days after the conditioning regimen was completed, investigators dosed 101 patients with KTE-C19 at a target dose of 2 × 10⁶ anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg.

“The majority of patients that were enrolled on the study were treated,” Dr Neelapu emphasized. “In fact, 91% of the 111 patients enrolled were treated and received the target dose of KTE-C19.”

Dr Neelapu noted that the success rate for manufacturing the CAR T cells was 99%, and the average turnaround time from apheresis to delivery to the clinical site was 17 days.

The study called for a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis when 50 patients in cohort 1—DLBCL patients—had at least 3 months of follow-up. This occurred on August 24, 2016, and the data was analyzed as of that date.

The primary endpoint was ORR of P<0.0001 using an exact binomial test comparing observed ORR to a historical control assumption of 20%. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival, safety, and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines.

At the time of the pre-specified interim analysis, 93 patients had at least 1 month of follow-up. Fifty-one patients with DLBCL and 11 patients with PMBCL/TFL had at least 3 months of follow-up.

Patient characteristics

Dr Neelapu reported data on 73 DLBCL patients (cohort 1) and 20 PMBCL/TFL patients (cohort 2) evaluable with at least 1 month of follow-up at the time of the presentation.

The median age of all 93 patients was 59 (range, 25-76), and about half were 60 years or older.

Two-thirds of patients in cohort 1 and three-quarters in cohort 2 were male. Sixty-six percent of cohort 1 and 40% of cohort 2 had an ECOG performance status of 1.

Cohort 1 had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 44% had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score of 3-4. Cohort 2 had a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 2-12), and 45% had an IPI risk score of 3-4.

Fifty-six DLBCL patients (77%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 15 (21%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Sixteen PMBCL/TFL patients (80%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 4 (20%) relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Results

Dr Neelapu indicated that patients responded rapidly to treatment, and most responses were evident at the first tumor assessment.

At 3 months’ follow-up or longer, the ORR was 76% and the CR rate 47% for the 51 DLBCL patients in cohort 1. This was a 6-fold higher CR rate compared with historical outcomes.

For the 11 PMBCL/TFL patients in cohort 2, the ORR was 91% and the CR rate was 73% at 3 months or longer.

Both cohorts combined yielded an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

The treatment effect was consistent across key covariates—refractory patients, disease stage, IPI risk score, CD4/CD8 ratio, and steroid and tocilizumab use.

Dr Neelapu described the case of a 62-year-old male with refractory DLBCL who had 4 prior rituximab-based therapies. He had no response to his last 3 therapies combining rituximab with GDP (gemcitabine, cisplatin, and dexamethasone), ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide), or lenalidomide.

After KTE-C19 therapy, the patient has an ongoing CR that has lasted more than 9 months.

Adverse events

Sixty-eight DLBCL patients (93%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). These included 10 patients (14%) with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 18 (25%) with neurologic events.

Eighteen PMBCL/TFL patients (90%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, 2 (10%) with grade 3 or higher CRS and 9 (45%) with grade 3 or higher neurologic events.

CRS and neurological events were generally reversible, Dr Neelapu said. All CRS events resolved except 1 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

In both cohorts combined, 38% of patients received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and 17% received both.

Three neurological events were ongoing at the data cut-off—grade 1 memory impairment, grade 1 tremor, and grade 2 tremor.

There were no cases of cerebral edema.

Three patients died from causes other than progressive disease—1 DLBCL patient and 2 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

Investigators considered the DLBCL patient death (due to hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis) and 1 death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to cardiac arrest) to be treatment-related.

Investigators did not consider the other death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to pulmonary embolism) to be treatment-related.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs in both arms combined included neutropenia (63%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (40%), febrile neutropenia (29%), thrombocytopenia (26%), encephalopathy (19%), hypophosphatemia (17%), and decreased lymphocyte count (17%).

Peak CAR T-cell expansion occurred between 7 and 14 days and was associated with ongoing CRs and grade 3 or greater neurological events, but not with CRS.

AEs were managed effectively across the 22 study sites, Dr Neelapu added, and most sites had no prior CAR T-cell therapy experience.

Dr Neelapu noted that the ZUMA-1 results are consistent with earlier KTE-C19 trials in aggressive NHL.

The primary analysis for this phase 2 study is expected to occur when all treated patients have 6 months of follow-up in the first quarter of 2017.

The study is sponsored by Kite Pharma but is also funded, in part, by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

 

 

Attendees at the

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

 

SAN DIEGO—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy KTE-C19 has met its primary endpoint at the pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to data presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

DLBCL patients had an overall response rate (ORR) of 76% and a complete response (CR) rate of 47% (P<0.0001) after 3 months or more of follow-up. And most responses were evident by day 30, the researchers report.

ZUMA-1 is the first multicenter trial of an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy in refractory, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

A second NHL cohort of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma (PMBCL/TFL) patients were also treated. Together, the cohorts achieved an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

Sattva Neelapu, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, presented the results as a late-breaking abstract (LBA-6*).

Detailed results of the PMBCL/TFL cohort were presented separately (abstract 998) at the meeting.

Earlier data from the phase 2 study have been reported in Hematology Times.

Phase 2 interim analysis

The study enrolled 111 patients, all of whom underwent leukapheresis. Seven of these patients were not treated, 5 due to serious adverse events (SAEs), 1 due to unavailable product, and 2 due to non-measurable disease.

“Importantly, there was no bridging therapy allowed on the study,” Dr Neelapu pointed out.

Patients then received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) and fludarabine (30 mg/m²) for 3 days. Two patients experienced SAEs after the conditioning regimen, making it a total of 10 patients who could not be treated.

Two days after the conditioning regimen was completed, investigators dosed 101 patients with KTE-C19 at a target dose of 2 × 10⁶ anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg.

“The majority of patients that were enrolled on the study were treated,” Dr Neelapu emphasized. “In fact, 91% of the 111 patients enrolled were treated and received the target dose of KTE-C19.”

Dr Neelapu noted that the success rate for manufacturing the CAR T cells was 99%, and the average turnaround time from apheresis to delivery to the clinical site was 17 days.

The study called for a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis when 50 patients in cohort 1—DLBCL patients—had at least 3 months of follow-up. This occurred on August 24, 2016, and the data was analyzed as of that date.

The primary endpoint was ORR of P<0.0001 using an exact binomial test comparing observed ORR to a historical control assumption of 20%. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival, safety, and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines.

At the time of the pre-specified interim analysis, 93 patients had at least 1 month of follow-up. Fifty-one patients with DLBCL and 11 patients with PMBCL/TFL had at least 3 months of follow-up.

Patient characteristics

Dr Neelapu reported data on 73 DLBCL patients (cohort 1) and 20 PMBCL/TFL patients (cohort 2) evaluable with at least 1 month of follow-up at the time of the presentation.

The median age of all 93 patients was 59 (range, 25-76), and about half were 60 years or older.

Two-thirds of patients in cohort 1 and three-quarters in cohort 2 were male. Sixty-six percent of cohort 1 and 40% of cohort 2 had an ECOG performance status of 1.

Cohort 1 had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 44% had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score of 3-4. Cohort 2 had a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 2-12), and 45% had an IPI risk score of 3-4.

Fifty-six DLBCL patients (77%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 15 (21%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Sixteen PMBCL/TFL patients (80%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 4 (20%) relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Results

Dr Neelapu indicated that patients responded rapidly to treatment, and most responses were evident at the first tumor assessment.

At 3 months’ follow-up or longer, the ORR was 76% and the CR rate 47% for the 51 DLBCL patients in cohort 1. This was a 6-fold higher CR rate compared with historical outcomes.

For the 11 PMBCL/TFL patients in cohort 2, the ORR was 91% and the CR rate was 73% at 3 months or longer.

Both cohorts combined yielded an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

The treatment effect was consistent across key covariates—refractory patients, disease stage, IPI risk score, CD4/CD8 ratio, and steroid and tocilizumab use.

Dr Neelapu described the case of a 62-year-old male with refractory DLBCL who had 4 prior rituximab-based therapies. He had no response to his last 3 therapies combining rituximab with GDP (gemcitabine, cisplatin, and dexamethasone), ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide), or lenalidomide.

After KTE-C19 therapy, the patient has an ongoing CR that has lasted more than 9 months.

Adverse events

Sixty-eight DLBCL patients (93%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). These included 10 patients (14%) with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 18 (25%) with neurologic events.

Eighteen PMBCL/TFL patients (90%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, 2 (10%) with grade 3 or higher CRS and 9 (45%) with grade 3 or higher neurologic events.

CRS and neurological events were generally reversible, Dr Neelapu said. All CRS events resolved except 1 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

In both cohorts combined, 38% of patients received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and 17% received both.

Three neurological events were ongoing at the data cut-off—grade 1 memory impairment, grade 1 tremor, and grade 2 tremor.

There were no cases of cerebral edema.

Three patients died from causes other than progressive disease—1 DLBCL patient and 2 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

Investigators considered the DLBCL patient death (due to hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis) and 1 death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to cardiac arrest) to be treatment-related.

Investigators did not consider the other death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to pulmonary embolism) to be treatment-related.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs in both arms combined included neutropenia (63%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (40%), febrile neutropenia (29%), thrombocytopenia (26%), encephalopathy (19%), hypophosphatemia (17%), and decreased lymphocyte count (17%).

Peak CAR T-cell expansion occurred between 7 and 14 days and was associated with ongoing CRs and grade 3 or greater neurological events, but not with CRS.

AEs were managed effectively across the 22 study sites, Dr Neelapu added, and most sites had no prior CAR T-cell therapy experience.

Dr Neelapu noted that the ZUMA-1 results are consistent with earlier KTE-C19 trials in aggressive NHL.

The primary analysis for this phase 2 study is expected to occur when all treated patients have 6 months of follow-up in the first quarter of 2017.

The study is sponsored by Kite Pharma but is also funded, in part, by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

 

 

Attendees at the

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

 

SAN DIEGO—The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy KTE-C19 has met its primary endpoint at the pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 2 ZUMA-1 trial in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to data presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

DLBCL patients had an overall response rate (ORR) of 76% and a complete response (CR) rate of 47% (P<0.0001) after 3 months or more of follow-up. And most responses were evident by day 30, the researchers report.

ZUMA-1 is the first multicenter trial of an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy in refractory, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

A second NHL cohort of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma (PMBCL/TFL) patients were also treated. Together, the cohorts achieved an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

Sattva Neelapu, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, presented the results as a late-breaking abstract (LBA-6*).

Detailed results of the PMBCL/TFL cohort were presented separately (abstract 998) at the meeting.

Earlier data from the phase 2 study have been reported in Hematology Times.

Phase 2 interim analysis

The study enrolled 111 patients, all of whom underwent leukapheresis. Seven of these patients were not treated, 5 due to serious adverse events (SAEs), 1 due to unavailable product, and 2 due to non-measurable disease.

“Importantly, there was no bridging therapy allowed on the study,” Dr Neelapu pointed out.

Patients then received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²) and fludarabine (30 mg/m²) for 3 days. Two patients experienced SAEs after the conditioning regimen, making it a total of 10 patients who could not be treated.

Two days after the conditioning regimen was completed, investigators dosed 101 patients with KTE-C19 at a target dose of 2 × 10⁶ anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg.

“The majority of patients that were enrolled on the study were treated,” Dr Neelapu emphasized. “In fact, 91% of the 111 patients enrolled were treated and received the target dose of KTE-C19.”

Dr Neelapu noted that the success rate for manufacturing the CAR T cells was 99%, and the average turnaround time from apheresis to delivery to the clinical site was 17 days.

The study called for a pre-specified interim efficacy analysis when 50 patients in cohort 1—DLBCL patients—had at least 3 months of follow-up. This occurred on August 24, 2016, and the data was analyzed as of that date.

The primary endpoint was ORR of P<0.0001 using an exact binomial test comparing observed ORR to a historical control assumption of 20%. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response, overall survival, safety, and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines.

At the time of the pre-specified interim analysis, 93 patients had at least 1 month of follow-up. Fifty-one patients with DLBCL and 11 patients with PMBCL/TFL had at least 3 months of follow-up.

Patient characteristics

Dr Neelapu reported data on 73 DLBCL patients (cohort 1) and 20 PMBCL/TFL patients (cohort 2) evaluable with at least 1 month of follow-up at the time of the presentation.

The median age of all 93 patients was 59 (range, 25-76), and about half were 60 years or older.

Two-thirds of patients in cohort 1 and three-quarters in cohort 2 were male. Sixty-six percent of cohort 1 and 40% of cohort 2 had an ECOG performance status of 1.

Cohort 1 had a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 44% had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score of 3-4. Cohort 2 had a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 2-12), and 45% had an IPI risk score of 3-4.

Fifty-six DLBCL patients (77%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 15 (21%) had relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Sixteen PMBCL/TFL patients (80%) were refractory to their second or later line of therapy, and 4 (20%) relapsed after autologous stem cell transplant.

Results

Dr Neelapu indicated that patients responded rapidly to treatment, and most responses were evident at the first tumor assessment.

At 3 months’ follow-up or longer, the ORR was 76% and the CR rate 47% for the 51 DLBCL patients in cohort 1. This was a 6-fold higher CR rate compared with historical outcomes.

For the 11 PMBCL/TFL patients in cohort 2, the ORR was 91% and the CR rate was 73% at 3 months or longer.

Both cohorts combined yielded an ORR of 79% and a CR rate of 52%.

The treatment effect was consistent across key covariates—refractory patients, disease stage, IPI risk score, CD4/CD8 ratio, and steroid and tocilizumab use.

Dr Neelapu described the case of a 62-year-old male with refractory DLBCL who had 4 prior rituximab-based therapies. He had no response to his last 3 therapies combining rituximab with GDP (gemcitabine, cisplatin, and dexamethasone), ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide), or lenalidomide.

After KTE-C19 therapy, the patient has an ongoing CR that has lasted more than 9 months.

Adverse events

Sixty-eight DLBCL patients (93%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). These included 10 patients (14%) with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 18 (25%) with neurologic events.

Eighteen PMBCL/TFL patients (90%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, 2 (10%) with grade 3 or higher CRS and 9 (45%) with grade 3 or higher neurologic events.

CRS and neurological events were generally reversible, Dr Neelapu said. All CRS events resolved except 1 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

In both cohorts combined, 38% of patients received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and 17% received both.

Three neurological events were ongoing at the data cut-off—grade 1 memory impairment, grade 1 tremor, and grade 2 tremor.

There were no cases of cerebral edema.

Three patients died from causes other than progressive disease—1 DLBCL patient and 2 in the PMBCL/TFL cohort.

Investigators considered the DLBCL patient death (due to hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis) and 1 death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to cardiac arrest) to be treatment-related.

Investigators did not consider the other death in the PMBCL/TFL arm (due to pulmonary embolism) to be treatment-related.

The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs in both arms combined included neutropenia (63%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (40%), febrile neutropenia (29%), thrombocytopenia (26%), encephalopathy (19%), hypophosphatemia (17%), and decreased lymphocyte count (17%).

Peak CAR T-cell expansion occurred between 7 and 14 days and was associated with ongoing CRs and grade 3 or greater neurological events, but not with CRS.

AEs were managed effectively across the 22 study sites, Dr Neelapu added, and most sites had no prior CAR T-cell therapy experience.

Dr Neelapu noted that the ZUMA-1 results are consistent with earlier KTE-C19 trials in aggressive NHL.

The primary analysis for this phase 2 study is expected to occur when all treated patients have 6 months of follow-up in the first quarter of 2017.

The study is sponsored by Kite Pharma but is also funded, in part, by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

 

 

HSCT preparation

Photo by Chad McNeeley

 

SAN DIEGO—Researchers believe they have identified patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are likely to derive long-term benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT).

The researchers found that CML patients have a low risk of long-term morbidity if they undergo HSCT before the age of 45, are conditioned with busulfan and cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy), and receive a graft from a matched, related donor (MRD).

Jessica Wu, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, presented these findings at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 823*).

Wu noted that allogeneic HSCT is potentially curative for CML, but this method of treatment has been on the decline since the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). And today, few CML patients undergo allo-HSCT.

She said that although TKIs can induce remission in CML patients, the drugs also fail to eradicate leukemia, can produce side effects that impact patients’ quality of life, and come with a significant financial burden (estimated at $92,000 to $138,000 per patient per year).

With this in mind, Wu and her colleagues set out to determine if certain CML patients might benefit from allo-HSCT long-term. The team also wanted to quantify overall and cause-specific late mortality after allo-HSCT and the long-term burden of severe/life-threatening chronic health conditions after allo-HSCT.

Patient population

The researchers studied 637 CML patients treated with allo-HSCT between 1981 and 2010 at City of Hope in Duarte, California, or the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis/Saint Paul. The patients had to have survived at least 2 years post-transplant.

About 60% of patients were male, and 67% were non-Hispanic white. Their median age at HSCT was 36.4 years, and 65% received an MRD graft. Nineteen percent of patients were transplanted in 1980-1989, 52% were transplanted in 1990-1999, and 29% were transplanted in 2000-2010.

Fifty-eight percent of patients received Cy/total body irradiation (TBI), 18% received Bu/Cy, and 3% received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC).

Sixty-one percent of patients had chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD), and 32% had high-risk disease at the time of HSCT.

Survival

The patients were followed for a median of 16.7 years. Thirty percent (n=192) died after surviving at least 2 years post-HSCT.

The median time to death was 8.3 years (range, 2-29.5), and the median age at death was 49.2 (range, 7.8-69.8). At 20 years from HSCT, the overall survival was 68.6%.

HSCT recipients had a 4.4-fold increased risk of death compared with the age-, sex-, and race-matched general population.

“Non-relapse mortality was the major contributor to late mortality, with infection, second malignancies, and cGVHD being the most common causes of death,” Wu said.

Non-relapse mortality was 20%, and relapse-related mortality was 4%. Eight percent of patients died of infection, 6.3% died of cGVHD, and 3.7% died of second malignancies.

Health outcomes

Patients who were still alive at the time of the study were asked to complete the BMTSS-2 health questionnaire, which was used to examine the risk of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions.


A total of 288 patients completed the questionnaire, as did a sibling comparison group of 404 individuals.

Among the patients, the median age at allo-HSCT was 37.5 (range, 3.6-71.4), and the median duration of follow-up was 13.9 years (range, 2-34.6).

Sixty-two percent of patients received an MRD graft, and 38% had a matched, unrelated donor. Eighty-three percent of patients had TBI-based conditioning, 16% received Bu/Cy, and 2.7% received RIC.

The prevalence of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions was significantly higher among patients than among siblings—38% and 24%, respectively (P<0.0001).

The odds ratio (OR)—adjusted for age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status—was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The cumulative incidence of any grade 3/4 condition at 20 years after HSCT was 47.2% among patients. Common conditions were diabetes (14.9%), second malignancies (12.6%), and coronary artery disease (10%).

The researchers found the risk of grade 3/4 morbidity was significantly higher for the following patient groups:

• Those age 45 and older (hazard ratio [HR]=3.3, P<0.0001)
• Patients with a matched, unrelated donor (HR=3.0, P<0.0001)
• Those who received peripheral blood or cord blood grafts as opposed to bone marrow (HR=2.7, P=0.006).

(This analysis was adjusted for race/ethnicity, sex, education, household income, insurance, cGVHD, and conditioning regimen).

Lower risk

To identify subpopulations with a reduced risk of long-term morbidity, the researchers calculated the risk in various CML patient groups compared to siblings.

The overall OR for CML patients compared with siblings was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The OR for patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45 and had an MRD was 1.5 (P=0.1).

The OR for CML patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45, had an MRD, and received Bu/Cy conditioning was 0.8 (P=0.7).

“[W]e found that patients who received a matched, related donor transplant under the age of 45, with busulfan/cyclophosphamide, carried the same burden of morbidity as the sibling cohort,” Wu said. “These findings could help inform decisions regarding therapeutic options for the management of CML.”

Wu noted that the limited sample size in this study prevented the researchers from examining outcomes with RIC. And a lack of data at analysis prevented them from examining pre-HSCT and post-HSCT management of CML, the interval between diagnosis and HSCT, and the life-long economic burden of allo-HSCT.

However, she said data collection is ongoing, and the researchers hope to address some of these limitations.

*Information presented at the meeting differs from the abstract.

 

 

HSCT preparation

Photo by Chad McNeeley

 

SAN DIEGO—Researchers believe they have identified patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are likely to derive long-term benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT).

The researchers found that CML patients have a low risk of long-term morbidity if they undergo HSCT before the age of 45, are conditioned with busulfan and cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy), and receive a graft from a matched, related donor (MRD).

Jessica Wu, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, presented these findings at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 823*).

Wu noted that allogeneic HSCT is potentially curative for CML, but this method of treatment has been on the decline since the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). And today, few CML patients undergo allo-HSCT.

She said that although TKIs can induce remission in CML patients, the drugs also fail to eradicate leukemia, can produce side effects that impact patients’ quality of life, and come with a significant financial burden (estimated at $92,000 to $138,000 per patient per year).

With this in mind, Wu and her colleagues set out to determine if certain CML patients might benefit from allo-HSCT long-term. The team also wanted to quantify overall and cause-specific late mortality after allo-HSCT and the long-term burden of severe/life-threatening chronic health conditions after allo-HSCT.

Patient population

The researchers studied 637 CML patients treated with allo-HSCT between 1981 and 2010 at City of Hope in Duarte, California, or the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis/Saint Paul. The patients had to have survived at least 2 years post-transplant.

About 60% of patients were male, and 67% were non-Hispanic white. Their median age at HSCT was 36.4 years, and 65% received an MRD graft. Nineteen percent of patients were transplanted in 1980-1989, 52% were transplanted in 1990-1999, and 29% were transplanted in 2000-2010.

Fifty-eight percent of patients received Cy/total body irradiation (TBI), 18% received Bu/Cy, and 3% received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC).

Sixty-one percent of patients had chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD), and 32% had high-risk disease at the time of HSCT.

Survival

The patients were followed for a median of 16.7 years. Thirty percent (n=192) died after surviving at least 2 years post-HSCT.

The median time to death was 8.3 years (range, 2-29.5), and the median age at death was 49.2 (range, 7.8-69.8). At 20 years from HSCT, the overall survival was 68.6%.

HSCT recipients had a 4.4-fold increased risk of death compared with the age-, sex-, and race-matched general population.

“Non-relapse mortality was the major contributor to late mortality, with infection, second malignancies, and cGVHD being the most common causes of death,” Wu said.

Non-relapse mortality was 20%, and relapse-related mortality was 4%. Eight percent of patients died of infection, 6.3% died of cGVHD, and 3.7% died of second malignancies.

Health outcomes

Patients who were still alive at the time of the study were asked to complete the BMTSS-2 health questionnaire, which was used to examine the risk of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions.


A total of 288 patients completed the questionnaire, as did a sibling comparison group of 404 individuals.

Among the patients, the median age at allo-HSCT was 37.5 (range, 3.6-71.4), and the median duration of follow-up was 13.9 years (range, 2-34.6).

Sixty-two percent of patients received an MRD graft, and 38% had a matched, unrelated donor. Eighty-three percent of patients had TBI-based conditioning, 16% received Bu/Cy, and 2.7% received RIC.

The prevalence of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions was significantly higher among patients than among siblings—38% and 24%, respectively (P<0.0001).

The odds ratio (OR)—adjusted for age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status—was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The cumulative incidence of any grade 3/4 condition at 20 years after HSCT was 47.2% among patients. Common conditions were diabetes (14.9%), second malignancies (12.6%), and coronary artery disease (10%).

The researchers found the risk of grade 3/4 morbidity was significantly higher for the following patient groups:

• Those age 45 and older (hazard ratio [HR]=3.3, P<0.0001)
• Patients with a matched, unrelated donor (HR=3.0, P<0.0001)
• Those who received peripheral blood or cord blood grafts as opposed to bone marrow (HR=2.7, P=0.006).

(This analysis was adjusted for race/ethnicity, sex, education, household income, insurance, cGVHD, and conditioning regimen).

Lower risk

To identify subpopulations with a reduced risk of long-term morbidity, the researchers calculated the risk in various CML patient groups compared to siblings.

The overall OR for CML patients compared with siblings was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The OR for patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45 and had an MRD was 1.5 (P=0.1).

The OR for CML patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45, had an MRD, and received Bu/Cy conditioning was 0.8 (P=0.7).

“[W]e found that patients who received a matched, related donor transplant under the age of 45, with busulfan/cyclophosphamide, carried the same burden of morbidity as the sibling cohort,” Wu said. “These findings could help inform decisions regarding therapeutic options for the management of CML.”

Wu noted that the limited sample size in this study prevented the researchers from examining outcomes with RIC. And a lack of data at analysis prevented them from examining pre-HSCT and post-HSCT management of CML, the interval between diagnosis and HSCT, and the life-long economic burden of allo-HSCT.

However, she said data collection is ongoing, and the researchers hope to address some of these limitations.

*Information presented at the meeting differs from the abstract.

 

 

HSCT preparation

Photo by Chad McNeeley

 

SAN DIEGO—Researchers believe they have identified patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are likely to derive long-term benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT).

The researchers found that CML patients have a low risk of long-term morbidity if they undergo HSCT before the age of 45, are conditioned with busulfan and cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy), and receive a graft from a matched, related donor (MRD).

Jessica Wu, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, presented these findings at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 823*).

Wu noted that allogeneic HSCT is potentially curative for CML, but this method of treatment has been on the decline since the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). And today, few CML patients undergo allo-HSCT.

She said that although TKIs can induce remission in CML patients, the drugs also fail to eradicate leukemia, can produce side effects that impact patients’ quality of life, and come with a significant financial burden (estimated at $92,000 to $138,000 per patient per year).

With this in mind, Wu and her colleagues set out to determine if certain CML patients might benefit from allo-HSCT long-term. The team also wanted to quantify overall and cause-specific late mortality after allo-HSCT and the long-term burden of severe/life-threatening chronic health conditions after allo-HSCT.

Patient population

The researchers studied 637 CML patients treated with allo-HSCT between 1981 and 2010 at City of Hope in Duarte, California, or the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis/Saint Paul. The patients had to have survived at least 2 years post-transplant.

About 60% of patients were male, and 67% were non-Hispanic white. Their median age at HSCT was 36.4 years, and 65% received an MRD graft. Nineteen percent of patients were transplanted in 1980-1989, 52% were transplanted in 1990-1999, and 29% were transplanted in 2000-2010.

Fifty-eight percent of patients received Cy/total body irradiation (TBI), 18% received Bu/Cy, and 3% received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC).

Sixty-one percent of patients had chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD), and 32% had high-risk disease at the time of HSCT.

Survival

The patients were followed for a median of 16.7 years. Thirty percent (n=192) died after surviving at least 2 years post-HSCT.

The median time to death was 8.3 years (range, 2-29.5), and the median age at death was 49.2 (range, 7.8-69.8). At 20 years from HSCT, the overall survival was 68.6%.

HSCT recipients had a 4.4-fold increased risk of death compared with the age-, sex-, and race-matched general population.

“Non-relapse mortality was the major contributor to late mortality, with infection, second malignancies, and cGVHD being the most common causes of death,” Wu said.

Non-relapse mortality was 20%, and relapse-related mortality was 4%. Eight percent of patients died of infection, 6.3% died of cGVHD, and 3.7% died of second malignancies.

Health outcomes

Patients who were still alive at the time of the study were asked to complete the BMTSS-2 health questionnaire, which was used to examine the risk of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions.


A total of 288 patients completed the questionnaire, as did a sibling comparison group of 404 individuals.

Among the patients, the median age at allo-HSCT was 37.5 (range, 3.6-71.4), and the median duration of follow-up was 13.9 years (range, 2-34.6).

Sixty-two percent of patients received an MRD graft, and 38% had a matched, unrelated donor. Eighty-three percent of patients had TBI-based conditioning, 16% received Bu/Cy, and 2.7% received RIC.

The prevalence of grade 3/4 chronic health conditions was significantly higher among patients than among siblings—38% and 24%, respectively (P<0.0001).

The odds ratio (OR)—adjusted for age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status—was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The cumulative incidence of any grade 3/4 condition at 20 years after HSCT was 47.2% among patients. Common conditions were diabetes (14.9%), second malignancies (12.6%), and coronary artery disease (10%).

The researchers found the risk of grade 3/4 morbidity was significantly higher for the following patient groups:

• Those age 45 and older (hazard ratio [HR]=3.3, P<0.0001)
• Patients with a matched, unrelated donor (HR=3.0, P<0.0001)
• Those who received peripheral blood or cord blood grafts as opposed to bone marrow (HR=2.7, P=0.006).

(This analysis was adjusted for race/ethnicity, sex, education, household income, insurance, cGVHD, and conditioning regimen).

Lower risk

To identify subpopulations with a reduced risk of long-term morbidity, the researchers calculated the risk in various CML patient groups compared to siblings.

The overall OR for CML patients compared with siblings was 2.7 (P<0.0001).

The OR for patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45 and had an MRD was 1.5 (P=0.1).

The OR for CML patients in first chronic phase who underwent HSCT before the age of 45, had an MRD, and received Bu/Cy conditioning was 0.8 (P=0.7).

“[W]e found that patients who received a matched, related donor transplant under the age of 45, with busulfan/cyclophosphamide, carried the same burden of morbidity as the sibling cohort,” Wu said. “These findings could help inform decisions regarding therapeutic options for the management of CML.”

Wu noted that the limited sample size in this study prevented the researchers from examining outcomes with RIC. And a lack of data at analysis prevented them from examining pre-HSCT and post-HSCT management of CML, the interval between diagnosis and HSCT, and the life-long economic burden of allo-HSCT.

However, she said data collection is ongoing, and the researchers hope to address some of these limitations.

*Information presented at the meeting differs from the abstract.

SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.

SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.

SAN DIEGO – A multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially unchanged for 4 decades.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial is based on a simple but radical goal – turn around genomic tests of bone marrow biopsies within 7 days to allow targeted therapy, said lead investigator Brian Druker, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute in Portland.

SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.

Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.

Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.

“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).

The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
 

Maintenance after first-line therapy

In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).

Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10^-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10^-4 to less than 10^-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.

Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.

Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.

The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.

Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.

At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.

Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10^-2 but more than 10^-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10^-2 (HR 0.165).

There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
 

Maintenance after second-line therapy

In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).

This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.

At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).

The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).

In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.

CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.

Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.

Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.

“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).

The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
 

Maintenance after first-line therapy

In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).

Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10^-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10^-4 to less than 10^-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.

Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.

Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.

The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.

Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.

At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.

Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10^-2 but more than 10^-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10^-2 (HR 0.165).

There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
 

Maintenance after second-line therapy

In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).

This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.

At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).

The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).

In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.

CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – Lenalidomide, a mainstay of maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma, is now making inroads into maintenance therapy following first- and second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported in two phase III studies.

Among patients with previously untreated CLL who were at high risk for early disease progression following standard chemotherapy, lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance therapy was associated with an 80% reduction in the relative risk for disease progression compared with placebo, reported Anna Fink, MD, of the University of Cologne, Germany, and her colleagues in the German CLL Study Group.

Similarly, lenalidomide maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo among patients with CLL who had at least partial responses to second-line therapy, reported Anna Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, and her colleagues in the CONTINUUM trial.

“Lenalidomide maintenance therapy significantly improved progression-free survival, from just about 9 months to almost 40 months when given to patients with CLL who responded to second-line therapy,” Dr. Schuh said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Both studies were unblinded because of the superiority of lenalidomide after prespecified analyses, on the recommendation of the respective data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs).

The PFS advantage with lenalidomide seen in each study did not translate into differences in overall survival in either study, however.
 

Maintenance after first-line therapy

In the CLLM1 trial, Dr. Fink and her colleagues enrolled physically fit, previously untreated patients with CLL and delivered chemoimmunotherapy at the investigator’s choice: either FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab), FR (fludarabine and rituximab), FC (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide), or BR (bendamustine and rituximab).

Patients who had at least a partial response after a minimum of four cycles were identified as being at high risk for progression if they had minimal residual disease (MRD) levels of at least 10^-2 cells, or MRD levels from 10^-4 to less than 10^-2 combined with either an unmutated IGHV gene status, del(17p) or TP53 mutation at baseline.

Of 468 screened patients, 89 were deemed to have high risk disease, and these patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to maintenance with lenalidomide given 5 mg orally for the first cycle and escalated to a target dose of 15 mg by the seventh cycle, or to placebo.

Additional dose escalations could be performed based on MRD assessments every 6 months, with the drug continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients also were assigned to daily low-dose aspirin or to an anticoagulation agent depending on their individual risk for thromboembolic events.

The study was stopped and unblinded after a planned interim analysis showed that the difference in PFS met the stopping boundary for efficacy.

Ultimately, 56 patients assigned to lenalidomide received study treatment, as did 29 assigned to placebo.

At a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median PFS according to independent review was not reached for lenalidomide, vs. 13.3 months for placebo. Lenalidomide was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.148 (P less than .00001), and a relative risk reduction of 80%.

Lenalidomide was also significantly better for PFS in analysis by MRD at baseline, with a PFS of 19.4 months for placebo vs. not reached among patients with less than 10^-2 but more than 10^-4 cells (HR, 0.125) and 3.7 vs. 32.3 months, respectively, for patients with MRD greater than 10^-2 (HR 0.165).

There were three deaths (two in patients on placebo), and at the last analysis there was no difference in overall survival. In all, 42.9% of patients on lenalidomide discontinued because of adverse events, compared with 72.4% of those on placebo.
 

Maintenance after second-line therapy

In CONTINUUM, patients with at least a partial response after two prior lines of therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2 were enrolled and randomized to receive either lenalidomide (160 patients) at a starting dose of 2.5 mg/day for the first 28-day cycle, 5 mg/day from cycle 2, and, if well tolerated, up to 10 mg/day from cycle 7 on, or to placebo (154 patients).

This study, as noted before, was also unblinded at the time of the primary analysis as recommended by the DSMB, after a prespecified number of events had occurred.

At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median PFS, a co-primary endpoint with OS, was 33.9 months in the lenalidomide arm, compared with 9.2 months in the placebo arm, translating into a HR for lenalidomide of 0.40 (P less than .001).

The lenalidomide advantage also was seen in a subgroup analysis by age, prior response to chemotherapy, and number of factors for poor prognosis. Of note, among patients older than age 70, the PFS with lenalidomide was 52.5 months, compared with 7.3 months for placebo (HR 0.34, P = .005).

In a second PFS analysis conducted after 71 months of follow-up, lenalidomide remained superior, with a median PFS of 57.5 months vs. 32.7 months in the placebo arm. As noted, there was no difference in overall survival in this study.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring more frequently with lenalidomide were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, pneumonia, fatigue, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. There was no difference in the incidence of second primary malignancies, however.

CLLM1 was sponsored by the German CLL Study Group with support from Celgene. CONTINUUM was supported by Celgene. Dr. Fink disclosed research funding from the company, and travel grants and honoraria from others. Dr. Schuh disclosed honoraria from and consulting with Celgene and other companies.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

© Todd Buchanan 2016

SAN DIEGO—Daratumumab added to standard of care regimens drives deep clinical responses beyond complete response (CR), a magnitude that is “unprecedented” in the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) setting, according to a speaker at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Investigators added daratumumab to lenalidomide/dexamethasone in the POLLUX trial and to bortezomib/dexamethasone in the CASTOR trial.

In both phase 3 trials, the addition of daratumumab resulted in significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when compared to control groups.

“The magnitude of daratumumab-induced MRD negativity in the relapsed setting is unprecedented and, for me, was not expected,” said Hervé Avet-Loiseau, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rangueil, Unité de Genomique du Myelome in Toulouse, France.

Dr Avet-Loiseau presented the MRD findings from CASTOR and POLLUX at the ASH Annual Meeting as abstract 246.*

He noted that, based on these studies, daratumumab received US Food and Drug Administration approvals for use in combination with standard of care regimens for MM patients who had received 1 or more prior lines of treatment.

Daratumumab had been previously approved as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory MM.

Study designs and findings from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials have been described earlier in Hematology Times.

Dr Avet-Loiseau provided updated PFS figures for the 2 studies.

At 18 months’ follow-up in the POLLUX study, the PFS rate for patients treated with daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was 76%, compared to 49% in the lenalidomide/dexamethasone arm (P<0.0001).

At 12 months’ follow-up in the CASTOR study, the PFS with daratumumab was 60%, compared to 22% for bortezomib/dexamethasone (P<0.0001).

MRD criteria

In both studies, MRD assessments were conducted at suspected complete response (CR). Assessments were also conducted at 3 months and 6 months after CR in the POLLUX study and at 6 months and 12 months after the first study dose in the CASTOR study.

For the assessment of MRD, investigators used bone marrow aspirate samples and the ClonoSEQ^TM NGS-based assay.

Investigators evaluated MRD at 3 sensitivity thresholds: 10^-4, 10^-5, and 10^-6.

And they used a stringent, unbiased evaluation, Dr Avet-Loiseau said. Any patient in the intent-to-treat population who was not assessed to be MRD negative was scored as MRD positive.

And the minimum cell input equivalent to the sensitivity threshold was required to determine MRD negativity.

MRD results

In the POLLUX study, 24.8% of patients achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-5 cutoff, and 11.9% achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-6 cutoff with the daratumumab combination.

This compared to 5.7% and 2.5% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively, without daratumumab (P<0.0001).

In the CASTOR study, the daratumumab-treated patients achieved 10.4% and 4.4% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively.

This compared to 2.4% and 0.8% MRD negativity in the control arm at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs (P<0.005 and P<0.05), respectively.

“So, definitely, the addition of daratumumab improved the MRD negativity rate in both studies,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“If you just look at the patients who did achieve CR in the POLLUX study, almost 50% of the patients [treated with daratumumab] achieved CR, and half of them were MRD negative at the cutoff of 10^-5.”

In the CASTOR study, 25% of the patients treated with daratumumab achieved a CR. The MRD negativity rate was one-third in these patients.

“So again, we have consistently higher MRD negative rates in patients who achieve CR when they were treated in the daratumumab arms,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“What is interesting, I think, is that the achievement of molecular CR was very rapid. [A]t 3 months, some patients did already achieve MRD negativity, and so we continued to see an improvement. [W]e still continue to see some achievement of MRD negativity.”

Investigators continue to follow the patients annually.

The investigators also analyzed MRD at 10^-5 by cytogenetic risk and did not observe any MRD negativity in the control arm in either the POLLUX or CASTOR study.

“In contrast, we did observe some significant MRD negativity in the experimental arm with daratumumab—18% (POLLUX) and 14% (CASTOR) in high-risk patients,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said. “The most important prognostic factor is to achieve MRD negativity.”

However, even for patients who did not achieve MRD negativity, the PFS was much better in the experimental arms than in the control arms, he added.

This study, presented as a “Best of ASH” abstract, was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

© Todd Buchanan 2016

SAN DIEGO—Daratumumab added to standard of care regimens drives deep clinical responses beyond complete response (CR), a magnitude that is “unprecedented” in the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) setting, according to a speaker at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Investigators added daratumumab to lenalidomide/dexamethasone in the POLLUX trial and to bortezomib/dexamethasone in the CASTOR trial.

In both phase 3 trials, the addition of daratumumab resulted in significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when compared to control groups.

“The magnitude of daratumumab-induced MRD negativity in the relapsed setting is unprecedented and, for me, was not expected,” said Hervé Avet-Loiseau, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rangueil, Unité de Genomique du Myelome in Toulouse, France.

Dr Avet-Loiseau presented the MRD findings from CASTOR and POLLUX at the ASH Annual Meeting as abstract 246.*

He noted that, based on these studies, daratumumab received US Food and Drug Administration approvals for use in combination with standard of care regimens for MM patients who had received 1 or more prior lines of treatment.

Daratumumab had been previously approved as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory MM.

Study designs and findings from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials have been described earlier in Hematology Times.

Dr Avet-Loiseau provided updated PFS figures for the 2 studies.

At 18 months’ follow-up in the POLLUX study, the PFS rate for patients treated with daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was 76%, compared to 49% in the lenalidomide/dexamethasone arm (P<0.0001).

At 12 months’ follow-up in the CASTOR study, the PFS with daratumumab was 60%, compared to 22% for bortezomib/dexamethasone (P<0.0001).

MRD criteria

In both studies, MRD assessments were conducted at suspected complete response (CR). Assessments were also conducted at 3 months and 6 months after CR in the POLLUX study and at 6 months and 12 months after the first study dose in the CASTOR study.

For the assessment of MRD, investigators used bone marrow aspirate samples and the ClonoSEQ^TM NGS-based assay.

Investigators evaluated MRD at 3 sensitivity thresholds: 10^-4, 10^-5, and 10^-6.

And they used a stringent, unbiased evaluation, Dr Avet-Loiseau said. Any patient in the intent-to-treat population who was not assessed to be MRD negative was scored as MRD positive.

And the minimum cell input equivalent to the sensitivity threshold was required to determine MRD negativity.

MRD results

In the POLLUX study, 24.8% of patients achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-5 cutoff, and 11.9% achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-6 cutoff with the daratumumab combination.

This compared to 5.7% and 2.5% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively, without daratumumab (P<0.0001).

In the CASTOR study, the daratumumab-treated patients achieved 10.4% and 4.4% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively.

This compared to 2.4% and 0.8% MRD negativity in the control arm at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs (P<0.005 and P<0.05), respectively.

“So, definitely, the addition of daratumumab improved the MRD negativity rate in both studies,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“If you just look at the patients who did achieve CR in the POLLUX study, almost 50% of the patients [treated with daratumumab] achieved CR, and half of them were MRD negative at the cutoff of 10^-5.”

In the CASTOR study, 25% of the patients treated with daratumumab achieved a CR. The MRD negativity rate was one-third in these patients.

“So again, we have consistently higher MRD negative rates in patients who achieve CR when they were treated in the daratumumab arms,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“What is interesting, I think, is that the achievement of molecular CR was very rapid. [A]t 3 months, some patients did already achieve MRD negativity, and so we continued to see an improvement. [W]e still continue to see some achievement of MRD negativity.”

Investigators continue to follow the patients annually.

The investigators also analyzed MRD at 10^-5 by cytogenetic risk and did not observe any MRD negativity in the control arm in either the POLLUX or CASTOR study.

“In contrast, we did observe some significant MRD negativity in the experimental arm with daratumumab—18% (POLLUX) and 14% (CASTOR) in high-risk patients,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said. “The most important prognostic factor is to achieve MRD negativity.”

However, even for patients who did not achieve MRD negativity, the PFS was much better in the experimental arms than in the control arms, he added.

This study, presented as a “Best of ASH” abstract, was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

2016 ASH Annual Meeting

© Todd Buchanan 2016

SAN DIEGO—Daratumumab added to standard of care regimens drives deep clinical responses beyond complete response (CR), a magnitude that is “unprecedented” in the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) setting, according to a speaker at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

Investigators added daratumumab to lenalidomide/dexamethasone in the POLLUX trial and to bortezomib/dexamethasone in the CASTOR trial.

In both phase 3 trials, the addition of daratumumab resulted in significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity when compared to control groups.

“The magnitude of daratumumab-induced MRD negativity in the relapsed setting is unprecedented and, for me, was not expected,” said Hervé Avet-Loiseau, MD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rangueil, Unité de Genomique du Myelome in Toulouse, France.

Dr Avet-Loiseau presented the MRD findings from CASTOR and POLLUX at the ASH Annual Meeting as abstract 246.*

He noted that, based on these studies, daratumumab received US Food and Drug Administration approvals for use in combination with standard of care regimens for MM patients who had received 1 or more prior lines of treatment.

Daratumumab had been previously approved as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory MM.

Study designs and findings from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials have been described earlier in Hematology Times.

Dr Avet-Loiseau provided updated PFS figures for the 2 studies.

At 18 months’ follow-up in the POLLUX study, the PFS rate for patients treated with daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was 76%, compared to 49% in the lenalidomide/dexamethasone arm (P<0.0001).

At 12 months’ follow-up in the CASTOR study, the PFS with daratumumab was 60%, compared to 22% for bortezomib/dexamethasone (P<0.0001).

MRD criteria

In both studies, MRD assessments were conducted at suspected complete response (CR). Assessments were also conducted at 3 months and 6 months after CR in the POLLUX study and at 6 months and 12 months after the first study dose in the CASTOR study.

For the assessment of MRD, investigators used bone marrow aspirate samples and the ClonoSEQ^TM NGS-based assay.

Investigators evaluated MRD at 3 sensitivity thresholds: 10^-4, 10^-5, and 10^-6.

And they used a stringent, unbiased evaluation, Dr Avet-Loiseau said. Any patient in the intent-to-treat population who was not assessed to be MRD negative was scored as MRD positive.

And the minimum cell input equivalent to the sensitivity threshold was required to determine MRD negativity.

MRD results

In the POLLUX study, 24.8% of patients achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-5 cutoff, and 11.9% achieved MRD negativity at the 10^-6 cutoff with the daratumumab combination.

This compared to 5.7% and 2.5% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively, without daratumumab (P<0.0001).

In the CASTOR study, the daratumumab-treated patients achieved 10.4% and 4.4% MRD negativity at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs, respectively.

This compared to 2.4% and 0.8% MRD negativity in the control arm at the 10^-5 and 10^-6 cutoffs (P<0.005 and P<0.05), respectively.

“So, definitely, the addition of daratumumab improved the MRD negativity rate in both studies,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“If you just look at the patients who did achieve CR in the POLLUX study, almost 50% of the patients [treated with daratumumab] achieved CR, and half of them were MRD negative at the cutoff of 10^-5.”

In the CASTOR study, 25% of the patients treated with daratumumab achieved a CR. The MRD negativity rate was one-third in these patients.

“So again, we have consistently higher MRD negative rates in patients who achieve CR when they were treated in the daratumumab arms,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said.

“What is interesting, I think, is that the achievement of molecular CR was very rapid. [A]t 3 months, some patients did already achieve MRD negativity, and so we continued to see an improvement. [W]e still continue to see some achievement of MRD negativity.”

Investigators continue to follow the patients annually.

The investigators also analyzed MRD at 10^-5 by cytogenetic risk and did not observe any MRD negativity in the control arm in either the POLLUX or CASTOR study.

“In contrast, we did observe some significant MRD negativity in the experimental arm with daratumumab—18% (POLLUX) and 14% (CASTOR) in high-risk patients,” Dr Avet-Loiseau said. “The most important prognostic factor is to achieve MRD negativity.”

However, even for patients who did not achieve MRD negativity, the PFS was much better in the experimental arms than in the control arms, he added.

This study, presented as a “Best of ASH” abstract, was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.