User login
Could home care replace inpatient HSCT?
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Study confirms prognostic impact of MYC partner gene in DLBCL
MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.
The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.
“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.
The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.
After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.
Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).
“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”
Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.
The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.
MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.
The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.
“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.
The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.
After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.
Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).
“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”
Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.
The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.
MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) has negative prognostic significance in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in relation to the MYC partner gene, according to a retrospective study.
The negative prognostic effect of MYC-R was largely limited to patients with MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit status and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner within 24 months following diagnosis.
“The primary objective of the study was to validate the prognostic relevance of [MYC–single hit] and [MYC–double hit/MYC–triple hit] status within the context of the MYC translocation partner (MYC-IG v. MYC-non-IG) in patients with DLBCL morphology,” wrote Andreas Rosenwald, MD, of the University of Würzburg (Germany) and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The researchers identified 5,117 patients who all received R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or R-CHOP–like immunochemotherapy, 2,383 of whom were evaluable for MYC-R and had complete clinical data. The cohort consisted of patients enrolled in various population-based registries and prospective clinical studies throughout North America and Europe.
The team used fluorescence in situ hybridization testing to identify MYC-R, in addition to BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations if MYC-R was detected. Subsequently, these data were correlated with clinical endpoints.
After analysis, the researchers found that MYC-R was detected in 11% of patients. The presence of MYC-R was associated with significantly reduced survival, particularly within the initial 24 months following diagnosis.
Adverse prognostic implications were largely apparent in patients with accompanying rearrangement of BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations (MYC–double-hit/MYC–triple hit status) and an immunoglobulin (IG) partner (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.6; P less than .001).
“These data suggest that little justification exists for altering initial therapeutic approaches in patients with DLBCL whose tumors carry an MYC translocation alone [MYC single hit],” they wrote. “However, for [MYC double hit/MYC triple hit] DLBCL, the major negative prognostic impact and 2-year effect support the practice of optimizing first-line treatment approaches to achieve maximum complete response rates because salvage treatment at relapse is not effective.”
Dr. Rosenwald and colleagues suggested that, in the future, diagnostic approaches should be implemented to detect patients in this high-risk group and that risk-modified treatment strategies should be further developed.
The study was supported by unrestricted grants to the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium from several pharmaceutical companies and Bloodwise. Dr. Rosenwald reported having no conflicts of interest, but several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: : Rosenwald A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00743.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Rituximab, bendamustine look better than chemo alone in MCL
In older patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), first-line therapy with rituximab- and bendamustine-based regimens significantly reduced 1-year mortality rates versus chemotherapy alone, according to a retrospective analysis.
“This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of [rituximab, bortezomib, or bendamustine] in elderly patients newly diagnosed with MCL,” wrote Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied population-based data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. They identified all patients over age 65 years who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2013.
The study cohort included a total of 1,215 patients. Participants were classified into four different groups according to treatment regimen: chemotherapy alone, rituximab plus or minus chemotherapy, bendamustine plus or minus chemotherapy, and bortezomib plus or minus chemotherapy.
At 1-year follow-up, the team analyzed various mortality outcomes, including MCL-specific, all-cause, and noncancer mortality. The bortezomib results were not included in the primary analysis because of small sample size, according to the researchers.
After multivariable analysis, Dr. Fu and colleagues found that 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower for patients receiving rituximab-based regimens, compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.59). There was a similar decline for MCL-specific mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.60).
The 1-year MCL-specific mortality was also significantly reduced in the bendamustine group, compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99).
“Our findings comparing rituximab with chemotherapy alone further confirmed the benefit of adding rituximab to chemotherapy in newly diagnosed older MCL patients,” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the observational design. As a result, selection bias and unmeasured confounding could have influenced the results.
“Future studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of those newly approved novel agents for MCL patients were warranted as more data are available,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Duncan Family Institute, the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fu S et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.014.
In older patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), first-line therapy with rituximab- and bendamustine-based regimens significantly reduced 1-year mortality rates versus chemotherapy alone, according to a retrospective analysis.
“This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of [rituximab, bortezomib, or bendamustine] in elderly patients newly diagnosed with MCL,” wrote Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied population-based data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. They identified all patients over age 65 years who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2013.
The study cohort included a total of 1,215 patients. Participants were classified into four different groups according to treatment regimen: chemotherapy alone, rituximab plus or minus chemotherapy, bendamustine plus or minus chemotherapy, and bortezomib plus or minus chemotherapy.
At 1-year follow-up, the team analyzed various mortality outcomes, including MCL-specific, all-cause, and noncancer mortality. The bortezomib results were not included in the primary analysis because of small sample size, according to the researchers.
After multivariable analysis, Dr. Fu and colleagues found that 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower for patients receiving rituximab-based regimens, compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.59). There was a similar decline for MCL-specific mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.60).
The 1-year MCL-specific mortality was also significantly reduced in the bendamustine group, compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99).
“Our findings comparing rituximab with chemotherapy alone further confirmed the benefit of adding rituximab to chemotherapy in newly diagnosed older MCL patients,” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the observational design. As a result, selection bias and unmeasured confounding could have influenced the results.
“Future studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of those newly approved novel agents for MCL patients were warranted as more data are available,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Duncan Family Institute, the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fu S et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.014.
In older patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), first-line therapy with rituximab- and bendamustine-based regimens significantly reduced 1-year mortality rates versus chemotherapy alone, according to a retrospective analysis.
“This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of [rituximab, bortezomib, or bendamustine] in elderly patients newly diagnosed with MCL,” wrote Shuangshuang Fu, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.
The researchers studied population-based data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. They identified all patients over age 65 years who received a new diagnosis of MCL between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2013.
The study cohort included a total of 1,215 patients. Participants were classified into four different groups according to treatment regimen: chemotherapy alone, rituximab plus or minus chemotherapy, bendamustine plus or minus chemotherapy, and bortezomib plus or minus chemotherapy.
At 1-year follow-up, the team analyzed various mortality outcomes, including MCL-specific, all-cause, and noncancer mortality. The bortezomib results were not included in the primary analysis because of small sample size, according to the researchers.
After multivariable analysis, Dr. Fu and colleagues found that 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower for patients receiving rituximab-based regimens, compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.59). There was a similar decline for MCL-specific mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.60).
The 1-year MCL-specific mortality was also significantly reduced in the bendamustine group, compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99).
“Our findings comparing rituximab with chemotherapy alone further confirmed the benefit of adding rituximab to chemotherapy in newly diagnosed older MCL patients,” they wrote.
The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the observational design. As a result, selection bias and unmeasured confounding could have influenced the results.
“Future studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of those newly approved novel agents for MCL patients were warranted as more data are available,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Duncan Family Institute, the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Fu S et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 Aug 30. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.08.014.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA & LEUKEMIA
CK doesn’t seem to affect OS in CLL patients taking idelalisib
The presence of complex karyotype (CK) does not affect survival in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who are treated with idelalisib, according to a new analysis.
Researchers analyzed data from two clinical trials of idelalisib, given alone or in combination with rituximab, and found no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with and without CK.
Karl-Anton Kreuzer, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany), and colleagues described these findings in a letter to Leukemia.
The researchers evaluated patients with previously treated CLL who were enrolled in a phase 3 trial and received either idelalisib plus rituximab or rituximab plus placebo. Patients from either treatment arm could enroll in an extension study of idelalisib monotherapy.
There were 220 patients randomized to idelalisib plus rituximab (n = 110) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 110) in the primary study, and 161 of these patients were enrolled in the extension study.
The final analysis included 120 patients who were successfully karyotyped – 63 from the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 57 from the placebo-rituximab arm. Less than half of patients in each arm were CK-positive – 41% (26/63) of the idelalisib arm and 42% (24/57) of the placebo arm.
The researchers wrote that baseline characteristics were “mostly balanced” between the CK-positive and CK-negative groups in each treatment arm. The only significant difference was that fewer CK-positive patients in the placebo arm had a creatinine clearance of 30-59 mL/min (P = .0324).
Results
There were no significant differences in outcomes between CK-positive and CK-negative patients who received idelalisib and rituximab. The overall response rate was 81% in CK-positive patients and 89% in CK-negative patients (P = .3509). The median progression-free survival was 20.9 months and 19.4 months, respectively (P = .5848).
The median OS was 28.3 months in the CK-positive group and 49.7 months in the CK-negative group (P = .2099). The copresence of CK and del(17p), TP53 mutation, or del(11q) didn’t significantly affect OS, the researchers noted.
Among all CK-positive patients, the median OS was 28.3 months in the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 9.2 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (P = .0412).
“Our analysis suggests that CK-positive patients treated with idelalisib/rituximab did not exhibit a significantly shortened survival compared with those who were CK negative,” the researchers wrote. “In addition, the primary beneficial effect of adding idelalisib to rituximab treatment in [relapsed/refractory] CLL patients with CK was reflected in OS prolongation compared to those who received only rituximab.”
The researchers noted that this study has limitations, so prospective clinical trials are needed to guide treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory CLL and CK.
Both trials of idelalisib were sponsored by Gilead. The researchers reported relationships, including employment, with Gilead and other companies. They also disclosed funding from the German government and from nonprofit organizations in Germany.
SOURCE: Kreuzer K-A et al. Leukemia. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0533-6.
The presence of complex karyotype (CK) does not affect survival in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who are treated with idelalisib, according to a new analysis.
Researchers analyzed data from two clinical trials of idelalisib, given alone or in combination with rituximab, and found no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with and without CK.
Karl-Anton Kreuzer, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany), and colleagues described these findings in a letter to Leukemia.
The researchers evaluated patients with previously treated CLL who were enrolled in a phase 3 trial and received either idelalisib plus rituximab or rituximab plus placebo. Patients from either treatment arm could enroll in an extension study of idelalisib monotherapy.
There were 220 patients randomized to idelalisib plus rituximab (n = 110) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 110) in the primary study, and 161 of these patients were enrolled in the extension study.
The final analysis included 120 patients who were successfully karyotyped – 63 from the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 57 from the placebo-rituximab arm. Less than half of patients in each arm were CK-positive – 41% (26/63) of the idelalisib arm and 42% (24/57) of the placebo arm.
The researchers wrote that baseline characteristics were “mostly balanced” between the CK-positive and CK-negative groups in each treatment arm. The only significant difference was that fewer CK-positive patients in the placebo arm had a creatinine clearance of 30-59 mL/min (P = .0324).
Results
There were no significant differences in outcomes between CK-positive and CK-negative patients who received idelalisib and rituximab. The overall response rate was 81% in CK-positive patients and 89% in CK-negative patients (P = .3509). The median progression-free survival was 20.9 months and 19.4 months, respectively (P = .5848).
The median OS was 28.3 months in the CK-positive group and 49.7 months in the CK-negative group (P = .2099). The copresence of CK and del(17p), TP53 mutation, or del(11q) didn’t significantly affect OS, the researchers noted.
Among all CK-positive patients, the median OS was 28.3 months in the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 9.2 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (P = .0412).
“Our analysis suggests that CK-positive patients treated with idelalisib/rituximab did not exhibit a significantly shortened survival compared with those who were CK negative,” the researchers wrote. “In addition, the primary beneficial effect of adding idelalisib to rituximab treatment in [relapsed/refractory] CLL patients with CK was reflected in OS prolongation compared to those who received only rituximab.”
The researchers noted that this study has limitations, so prospective clinical trials are needed to guide treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory CLL and CK.
Both trials of idelalisib were sponsored by Gilead. The researchers reported relationships, including employment, with Gilead and other companies. They also disclosed funding from the German government and from nonprofit organizations in Germany.
SOURCE: Kreuzer K-A et al. Leukemia. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0533-6.
The presence of complex karyotype (CK) does not affect survival in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who are treated with idelalisib, according to a new analysis.
Researchers analyzed data from two clinical trials of idelalisib, given alone or in combination with rituximab, and found no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients with and without CK.
Karl-Anton Kreuzer, MD, of the University of Cologne (Germany), and colleagues described these findings in a letter to Leukemia.
The researchers evaluated patients with previously treated CLL who were enrolled in a phase 3 trial and received either idelalisib plus rituximab or rituximab plus placebo. Patients from either treatment arm could enroll in an extension study of idelalisib monotherapy.
There were 220 patients randomized to idelalisib plus rituximab (n = 110) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 110) in the primary study, and 161 of these patients were enrolled in the extension study.
The final analysis included 120 patients who were successfully karyotyped – 63 from the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 57 from the placebo-rituximab arm. Less than half of patients in each arm were CK-positive – 41% (26/63) of the idelalisib arm and 42% (24/57) of the placebo arm.
The researchers wrote that baseline characteristics were “mostly balanced” between the CK-positive and CK-negative groups in each treatment arm. The only significant difference was that fewer CK-positive patients in the placebo arm had a creatinine clearance of 30-59 mL/min (P = .0324).
Results
There were no significant differences in outcomes between CK-positive and CK-negative patients who received idelalisib and rituximab. The overall response rate was 81% in CK-positive patients and 89% in CK-negative patients (P = .3509). The median progression-free survival was 20.9 months and 19.4 months, respectively (P = .5848).
The median OS was 28.3 months in the CK-positive group and 49.7 months in the CK-negative group (P = .2099). The copresence of CK and del(17p), TP53 mutation, or del(11q) didn’t significantly affect OS, the researchers noted.
Among all CK-positive patients, the median OS was 28.3 months in the idelalisib-rituximab arm and 9.2 months in the placebo-rituximab arm (P = .0412).
“Our analysis suggests that CK-positive patients treated with idelalisib/rituximab did not exhibit a significantly shortened survival compared with those who were CK negative,” the researchers wrote. “In addition, the primary beneficial effect of adding idelalisib to rituximab treatment in [relapsed/refractory] CLL patients with CK was reflected in OS prolongation compared to those who received only rituximab.”
The researchers noted that this study has limitations, so prospective clinical trials are needed to guide treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory CLL and CK.
Both trials of idelalisib were sponsored by Gilead. The researchers reported relationships, including employment, with Gilead and other companies. They also disclosed funding from the German government and from nonprofit organizations in Germany.
SOURCE: Kreuzer K-A et al. Leukemia. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0533-6.
FROM LEUKEMIA
Ibrutinib-rituximab induction yields ‘unprecedented’ responses in MCL
LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.
Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.
“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.
The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.
In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.
In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.
Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.
Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).
After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).
In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).
Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.
Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.
Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.
Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.
He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.
The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.
LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.
Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.
“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.
The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.
In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.
In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.
Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.
Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).
After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).
In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).
Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.
Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.
Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.
Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.
He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.
The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.
LUGANO, Switzerland – In younger patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, the chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib and rituximab followed by a short course of chemotherapy was associated with an “unprecedented” 3-year progression-free survival rate, investigators in the phase 2 WINDOW-1 trial reported.
Among 50 patients aged 65 years and younger who received ibrutinib and rituximab until they achieved a complete or partial response, followed by four cycles of chemotherapy with rituximab plus hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone) and rituximab plus methotrexate, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 88%, said Michael Wang, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Additionally, for patients with the low-risk features, the 3-year PFS rate was 90%.
“Chemo-free ibrutinib-rituximab induced unprecedented – unprecedented – efficacy before chemo consolidation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
Dr. Wang presented data from an interim analysis of the investigator-initiated single-center trial. Fifty patients aged 65 years or younger with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), good performance status, and good organ function were enrolled.
The patients were treated with ibrutinib and rituximab for two cycles and then evaluated for response with PET-CT scan, bone marrow biopsy, and for some patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy with random biopsies.
In the induction phase, patients received ibrutinib daily on days 1-28 and rituximab intravenously over 6-8 hours on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and then over 4 hours on day 1 of cycles 3-12. The treatment was repeated every 28 days for up to 12 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or until patients achieved a complete response.
In the consolidation phase, patients received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; oral or IV dexamethasone on days 1-4; cyclophosphamide IV over 3 hours twice daily on days 2-4; doxorubicin IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5; and vincristine IV over 15-30 minutes on day 5 of cycles one, three, five, and seven. Patients also received rituximab IV over 6 hours on day 1; methotrexate IV over 24 hours on day 2; and cytarabine IV over 2 hours twice daily on days 3 and 4 of cycles two, four, six, and eight. Treatments were repeated every 28 days for up to eight cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients who had a complete response (CR) after two cycles of induction and those who had disease progression on induction went on to consolidation. Patients with partial responses (PR) to induction continued on ibrutinib/rituximab until either the loss of a PR or best response for up to 12 cycles, with those who achieved a CR then moving on to consolidation.
Patients who had a CR after induction received four cycles of R-hyperCVAD, no subsequent stem cell transplant, and no maintenance therapy. Patients who had a PR after induction received two cycles of R-hyperCVAD, were reassessed, and then continued on R-hyperCVAD until CR or for up to eight total cycles.
Patients with either stable disease or progression during R-hyperCVAD were taken off the study.
Of the 50 patients enrolled, all 50 were evaluable for part A (induction), and 48 were evaluable after induction and consolidation (two patients withdrew for personal reasons).
After a median follow-up of 36 months, the overall response rate (ORR) following induction was 100%, consisting of 46 CRs (92%) and four PRs (8%).
In an intention-to-treat analysis (including the two patients who withdrew), the ORR was 96%, consisting of CRs in 47 patients (94%) and a PR in 1 patient (2%).
Neither the median PFS nor median overall survival had been reached at the time of data cutoff, and no patients have died.
Of the 50 enrolled patients, four experienced disease progression after 17, 24, 34, and 35 months of treatment. The patients with disease progression included one with Ki-67 of less than 30%, and three with KI-67 of 30% or greater.
Grade 3-4 toxicities during induction including myelosuppression in 4%; fatigue, myalgia, and rashes in 8% each; and oral mucositis in 4%.
Dr. Wang said that future studies on minimal residual disease and clonal evolution are ongoing, and that data on more patients will be presented at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, scheduled for December 2019.
He also noted that the WINDOW-2 trial, in which ibrutinib and rituximab are followed by veneotclax and hyper-CVAD chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed MCL, is open and rapidly enrolling patients.
The study is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and other companies.
SOURCE: Wang M et al. ICML-15, Abstract 12.
REPORTING FROM 15-ICML
Calquence earns breakthrough designation for CLL monotherapy
The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor is already approved for the treatment of adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy, and multiple trials are underway to evaluate the drug’s use in a variety of B-cell malignancies, according to the drug’s sponsor, AstraZeneca.
The current designation was based on preliminary results from two phase 3 trials – ELEVATE-TN and ASCEND. In the three-arm ELEVATE-TN trial, researchers evaluated acalabrutinib alone or in combination with obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated patients with CLL. In the two-arm ASCEND trial, previously treated patients with CLL were randomized to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy or the physician’s choice of either rituximab plus idelalisib or rituximab plus bendamustine.
Interim analyses of the two trials showed that acalabrutinib alone, or in combination, significantly improved progression-free survival without raising safety concerns.
Breakthrough therapy designation allows for an expedited review by the FDA for treatments aimed at treating serious conditions where there is preliminary clinical evidence showing a substantial improvement over an available therapy or a clinically significant endpoint.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor is already approved for the treatment of adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy, and multiple trials are underway to evaluate the drug’s use in a variety of B-cell malignancies, according to the drug’s sponsor, AstraZeneca.
The current designation was based on preliminary results from two phase 3 trials – ELEVATE-TN and ASCEND. In the three-arm ELEVATE-TN trial, researchers evaluated acalabrutinib alone or in combination with obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated patients with CLL. In the two-arm ASCEND trial, previously treated patients with CLL were randomized to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy or the physician’s choice of either rituximab plus idelalisib or rituximab plus bendamustine.
Interim analyses of the two trials showed that acalabrutinib alone, or in combination, significantly improved progression-free survival without raising safety concerns.
Breakthrough therapy designation allows for an expedited review by the FDA for treatments aimed at treating serious conditions where there is preliminary clinical evidence showing a substantial improvement over an available therapy or a clinically significant endpoint.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor is already approved for the treatment of adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy, and multiple trials are underway to evaluate the drug’s use in a variety of B-cell malignancies, according to the drug’s sponsor, AstraZeneca.
The current designation was based on preliminary results from two phase 3 trials – ELEVATE-TN and ASCEND. In the three-arm ELEVATE-TN trial, researchers evaluated acalabrutinib alone or in combination with obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated patients with CLL. In the two-arm ASCEND trial, previously treated patients with CLL were randomized to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy or the physician’s choice of either rituximab plus idelalisib or rituximab plus bendamustine.
Interim analyses of the two trials showed that acalabrutinib alone, or in combination, significantly improved progression-free survival without raising safety concerns.
Breakthrough therapy designation allows for an expedited review by the FDA for treatments aimed at treating serious conditions where there is preliminary clinical evidence showing a substantial improvement over an available therapy or a clinically significant endpoint.
Obinutuzumab-lenalidomide combo shows promise in relapsed/refractory FL
Obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide showed manageable safety and activity in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“The results of this phase 2 study show that induction therapy with obinutuzumab and lenalidomide followed by maintenance therapy with obinutuzumab is effective for many patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma,” wrote Franck Morschhauser, MD, PhD, of the University of Lille, France, and colleagues. The results were published in The Lancet Haematology.
The multicenter, single-arm study comprised 89 patients, 88 of whom were assessed for safety and 86 for efficacy. All eligible study patients received a minimum of one prior rituximab-based therapy before receiving obinutuzumab.
Study participants received intravenous obinutuzumab 1,000 mg for six 28-day cycles, in addition to oral lenalidomide 20 mg as induction therapy.
Maintenance therapy (year 1) consisted of oral lenalidomide 10 mg on days 2-22 of each cycle for a maximum of 12 28-day cycles plus obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on day 1 of alternate cycles (total of six infusions). Maintenance therapy (year 2) consisted of obinutuzumab 1,000 mg alone on day 1 for six 56-day cycles.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at the end of induction therapy. Secondary outcomes included various survival parameters and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at induction end was 79% (95% confidence interval, 69-87). In addition, 38% of patients (95% CI, 28-50) had achieved a complete response at the end of induction therapy.
The progression-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival rates were 65% (95% CI, 54-74), 62% (95% CI, 51-72), and 87% (95% CI, 78-93), respectively, at 2 years (no P values were reported).
“The results suggest that obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide is active as shown by 2-year outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) in the overall patient group,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, basal cell carcinoma (6%), febrile neutropenia (5%), and infusion-related reactions (3%) were the most frequently reported serious toxicities. One patient died because of therapy-related febrile neutropenia.
The Lymphoma Academic Research Organisation, Celgene, and Roche funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Jul 8. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30089-4.
Obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide showed manageable safety and activity in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“The results of this phase 2 study show that induction therapy with obinutuzumab and lenalidomide followed by maintenance therapy with obinutuzumab is effective for many patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma,” wrote Franck Morschhauser, MD, PhD, of the University of Lille, France, and colleagues. The results were published in The Lancet Haematology.
The multicenter, single-arm study comprised 89 patients, 88 of whom were assessed for safety and 86 for efficacy. All eligible study patients received a minimum of one prior rituximab-based therapy before receiving obinutuzumab.
Study participants received intravenous obinutuzumab 1,000 mg for six 28-day cycles, in addition to oral lenalidomide 20 mg as induction therapy.
Maintenance therapy (year 1) consisted of oral lenalidomide 10 mg on days 2-22 of each cycle for a maximum of 12 28-day cycles plus obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on day 1 of alternate cycles (total of six infusions). Maintenance therapy (year 2) consisted of obinutuzumab 1,000 mg alone on day 1 for six 56-day cycles.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at the end of induction therapy. Secondary outcomes included various survival parameters and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at induction end was 79% (95% confidence interval, 69-87). In addition, 38% of patients (95% CI, 28-50) had achieved a complete response at the end of induction therapy.
The progression-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival rates were 65% (95% CI, 54-74), 62% (95% CI, 51-72), and 87% (95% CI, 78-93), respectively, at 2 years (no P values were reported).
“The results suggest that obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide is active as shown by 2-year outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) in the overall patient group,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, basal cell carcinoma (6%), febrile neutropenia (5%), and infusion-related reactions (3%) were the most frequently reported serious toxicities. One patient died because of therapy-related febrile neutropenia.
The Lymphoma Academic Research Organisation, Celgene, and Roche funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Jul 8. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30089-4.
Obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide showed manageable safety and activity in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“The results of this phase 2 study show that induction therapy with obinutuzumab and lenalidomide followed by maintenance therapy with obinutuzumab is effective for many patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma,” wrote Franck Morschhauser, MD, PhD, of the University of Lille, France, and colleagues. The results were published in The Lancet Haematology.
The multicenter, single-arm study comprised 89 patients, 88 of whom were assessed for safety and 86 for efficacy. All eligible study patients received a minimum of one prior rituximab-based therapy before receiving obinutuzumab.
Study participants received intravenous obinutuzumab 1,000 mg for six 28-day cycles, in addition to oral lenalidomide 20 mg as induction therapy.
Maintenance therapy (year 1) consisted of oral lenalidomide 10 mg on days 2-22 of each cycle for a maximum of 12 28-day cycles plus obinutuzumab 1,000 mg on day 1 of alternate cycles (total of six infusions). Maintenance therapy (year 2) consisted of obinutuzumab 1,000 mg alone on day 1 for six 56-day cycles.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at the end of induction therapy. Secondary outcomes included various survival parameters and safety.
After analysis, the researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved an overall response at induction end was 79% (95% confidence interval, 69-87). In addition, 38% of patients (95% CI, 28-50) had achieved a complete response at the end of induction therapy.
The progression-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival rates were 65% (95% CI, 54-74), 62% (95% CI, 51-72), and 87% (95% CI, 78-93), respectively, at 2 years (no P values were reported).
“The results suggest that obinutuzumab plus lenalidomide is active as shown by 2-year outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) in the overall patient group,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, basal cell carcinoma (6%), febrile neutropenia (5%), and infusion-related reactions (3%) were the most frequently reported serious toxicities. One patient died because of therapy-related febrile neutropenia.
The Lymphoma Academic Research Organisation, Celgene, and Roche funded the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Morschhauser F et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Jul 8. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30089-4.
FROM THE LANCET HAEMATOLOGY
Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab shows positive outcomes in PMBL
Combination brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab showed manageable safety and high activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“We evaluated whether the combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] was safe and synergistically effective in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL,” Pier Luigi Zinzani, MD, PhD, of the University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The CheckMate 436 study is a multicenter, open-label, phase 1-2 study that included patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or had two or more previous chemotherapy regimens for those ineligible for ASCT.
The phase 2 component evaluated the safety and efficacy of the two-drug combo in an expansion cohort of 30 patients. Study participants received intravenous brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg and nivolumab at 240 mg every 3 weeks until cancer progression or intolerable adverse effects.
The primary outcomes were the investigator-evaluated objective response rate and safety. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, complete remission rate, overall duration of response, among other measures.
After analysis, the researchers reported that 53% of patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicities following a median of five treatment cycles. The most common treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (30%) and peripheral neuropathy (27%).
Five patients died during the study follow-up, four because of disease progression and one as a result of sepsis that was not considered related to treatment.
At a median follow-up of 11.1 months, the objective response rate was 73% in study participants, including 11 patients (37%) who achieved a complete response and 11 patients (37%) who had a partial response. An additional three patients had stable disease.
The median progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival were not reached in this study.
“The combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] may be synergistic and is highly active in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL, serving as a potential bridge to other consolidative therapies of curative intent,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seattle Genetics. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Zinzani PL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01492.
Combination brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab showed manageable safety and high activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“We evaluated whether the combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] was safe and synergistically effective in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL,” Pier Luigi Zinzani, MD, PhD, of the University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The CheckMate 436 study is a multicenter, open-label, phase 1-2 study that included patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or had two or more previous chemotherapy regimens for those ineligible for ASCT.
The phase 2 component evaluated the safety and efficacy of the two-drug combo in an expansion cohort of 30 patients. Study participants received intravenous brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg and nivolumab at 240 mg every 3 weeks until cancer progression or intolerable adverse effects.
The primary outcomes were the investigator-evaluated objective response rate and safety. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, complete remission rate, overall duration of response, among other measures.
After analysis, the researchers reported that 53% of patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicities following a median of five treatment cycles. The most common treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (30%) and peripheral neuropathy (27%).
Five patients died during the study follow-up, four because of disease progression and one as a result of sepsis that was not considered related to treatment.
At a median follow-up of 11.1 months, the objective response rate was 73% in study participants, including 11 patients (37%) who achieved a complete response and 11 patients (37%) who had a partial response. An additional three patients had stable disease.
The median progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival were not reached in this study.
“The combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] may be synergistic and is highly active in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL, serving as a potential bridge to other consolidative therapies of curative intent,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seattle Genetics. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Zinzani PL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01492.
Combination brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab showed manageable safety and high activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL), according to results from a phase 2 trial.
“We evaluated whether the combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] was safe and synergistically effective in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL,” Pier Luigi Zinzani, MD, PhD, of the University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The CheckMate 436 study is a multicenter, open-label, phase 1-2 study that included patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or had two or more previous chemotherapy regimens for those ineligible for ASCT.
The phase 2 component evaluated the safety and efficacy of the two-drug combo in an expansion cohort of 30 patients. Study participants received intravenous brentuximab vedotin at 1.8 mg/kg and nivolumab at 240 mg every 3 weeks until cancer progression or intolerable adverse effects.
The primary outcomes were the investigator-evaluated objective response rate and safety. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, complete remission rate, overall duration of response, among other measures.
After analysis, the researchers reported that 53% of patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicities following a median of five treatment cycles. The most common treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (30%) and peripheral neuropathy (27%).
Five patients died during the study follow-up, four because of disease progression and one as a result of sepsis that was not considered related to treatment.
At a median follow-up of 11.1 months, the objective response rate was 73% in study participants, including 11 patients (37%) who achieved a complete response and 11 patients (37%) who had a partial response. An additional three patients had stable disease.
The median progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival were not reached in this study.
“The combination of nivolumab and [brentuximab vedotin] may be synergistic and is highly active in patients with [relapsed/refractory] PMBL, serving as a potential bridge to other consolidative therapies of curative intent,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seattle Genetics. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
SOURCE: Zinzani PL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01492.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab showed manageable safety and positive activity in patients with relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL).
Major finding: At 11.1 months, the objective response rate was 73% in study participants, including 37% of patients who achieved a complete response and 37% who had a partial response.
Study details: A phase 2 study of 30 patients with relapsed/refractory PMBL.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seattle Genetics. The authors reported financial affiliations with the study sponsors and several other companies.
Source: Zinzani PL et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01492.
Zanubrutinib may be poised to challenge ibrutinib for CLL
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib appears safe and effective for patients with B-cell malignancies, according to results from a phase 1 trial.
Among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), the overall response rate was 96.2%, reported Constantine Si Lun Tam, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and colleagues.
“Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111) is a highly specific next-generation BTK inhibitor with favorable oral bioavailability, as shown in preclinical studies,” the investigators wrote in Blood. “Compared with ibrutinib, zanubrutinib has shown greater selectivity for BTK and fewer off-target effects in multiple in vitro enzymatic and cell-based assays.”
The current, open-label trial involved 144 patients with B-cell malignancies. To determine optimal dosing, the investigators recruited 17 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies who had received at least one prior therapy. The dose expansion part of the study assessed responses in multiple cohorts, including patients with CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, including maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy findings were also reported.
During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, so the highest dose – 320 mg once daily or 160 mg twice daily – was selected for further testing.
The investigators highlighted efficacy and safety findings from 94 patients with CLL/SLL who were involved in dose expansion. Although nearly one-quarter (23.4%) were treatment-naive, the median number of prior therapies was two, and some patients had high-risk features, such as adverse cytogenetics, including 19.1% with a TP53 mutation and 23.3% with a 17p deletion. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, 94.7% of these patients were still undergoing treatment.
Out of the initial 94 patients with CLL/SLL, 78 were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate was 96.2%, including two (2.6%) complete responses, 63 (80.8%) partial responses, and 10 (12.8%) partial responses with lymphocytosis. The median progression-free survival had not been reached, and the 12-month estimated progression-free survival was 100%.
In regard to safety, the most common adverse events were contusion (35.1%), upper respiratory tract infection (33.0%), cough (25.5%), diarrhea (21.3%), fatigue (19.1%), back pain (14.9%), hematuria (14.9%), headache (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), rash (12.8%), arthralgia (11.7%), muscle spasms (11.7%), and urinary tract infection (10.6%).
A number of other adverse events were reported, although these occurred in less than 10% of patients.
More than one-third of patients (36.2%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, with neutropenia being most common (6.4%), followed by pneumonia , hypertension, and anemia, which each occurred in 2.1% of patients, and less commonly, back pain, nausea, urinary tract infection, purpura, cellulitis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, which each occurred in 1.1% of patients.
“In this first-in-human study, zanubrutinib demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive CLL/SLL, with good tolerability,” the investigators concluded. “Two ongoing randomized studies of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib (NCT03053440 and NCT03734016) aim to determine whether consistent, continuous BTK blockade with a selective inhibitor results in fewer off-target effects and translates into improvements in disease control.”
The study was funded by BeiGene USA, which is developing the drug. The investigators reported relationships with the study sponsor, as well as Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and others.
SOURCE: Tam CSL et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001160.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib appears safe and effective for patients with B-cell malignancies, according to results from a phase 1 trial.
Among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), the overall response rate was 96.2%, reported Constantine Si Lun Tam, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and colleagues.
“Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111) is a highly specific next-generation BTK inhibitor with favorable oral bioavailability, as shown in preclinical studies,” the investigators wrote in Blood. “Compared with ibrutinib, zanubrutinib has shown greater selectivity for BTK and fewer off-target effects in multiple in vitro enzymatic and cell-based assays.”
The current, open-label trial involved 144 patients with B-cell malignancies. To determine optimal dosing, the investigators recruited 17 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies who had received at least one prior therapy. The dose expansion part of the study assessed responses in multiple cohorts, including patients with CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, including maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy findings were also reported.
During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, so the highest dose – 320 mg once daily or 160 mg twice daily – was selected for further testing.
The investigators highlighted efficacy and safety findings from 94 patients with CLL/SLL who were involved in dose expansion. Although nearly one-quarter (23.4%) were treatment-naive, the median number of prior therapies was two, and some patients had high-risk features, such as adverse cytogenetics, including 19.1% with a TP53 mutation and 23.3% with a 17p deletion. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, 94.7% of these patients were still undergoing treatment.
Out of the initial 94 patients with CLL/SLL, 78 were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate was 96.2%, including two (2.6%) complete responses, 63 (80.8%) partial responses, and 10 (12.8%) partial responses with lymphocytosis. The median progression-free survival had not been reached, and the 12-month estimated progression-free survival was 100%.
In regard to safety, the most common adverse events were contusion (35.1%), upper respiratory tract infection (33.0%), cough (25.5%), diarrhea (21.3%), fatigue (19.1%), back pain (14.9%), hematuria (14.9%), headache (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), rash (12.8%), arthralgia (11.7%), muscle spasms (11.7%), and urinary tract infection (10.6%).
A number of other adverse events were reported, although these occurred in less than 10% of patients.
More than one-third of patients (36.2%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, with neutropenia being most common (6.4%), followed by pneumonia , hypertension, and anemia, which each occurred in 2.1% of patients, and less commonly, back pain, nausea, urinary tract infection, purpura, cellulitis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, which each occurred in 1.1% of patients.
“In this first-in-human study, zanubrutinib demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive CLL/SLL, with good tolerability,” the investigators concluded. “Two ongoing randomized studies of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib (NCT03053440 and NCT03734016) aim to determine whether consistent, continuous BTK blockade with a selective inhibitor results in fewer off-target effects and translates into improvements in disease control.”
The study was funded by BeiGene USA, which is developing the drug. The investigators reported relationships with the study sponsor, as well as Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and others.
SOURCE: Tam CSL et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001160.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib appears safe and effective for patients with B-cell malignancies, according to results from a phase 1 trial.
Among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), the overall response rate was 96.2%, reported Constantine Si Lun Tam, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and colleagues.
“Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111) is a highly specific next-generation BTK inhibitor with favorable oral bioavailability, as shown in preclinical studies,” the investigators wrote in Blood. “Compared with ibrutinib, zanubrutinib has shown greater selectivity for BTK and fewer off-target effects in multiple in vitro enzymatic and cell-based assays.”
The current, open-label trial involved 144 patients with B-cell malignancies. To determine optimal dosing, the investigators recruited 17 patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies who had received at least one prior therapy. The dose expansion part of the study assessed responses in multiple cohorts, including patients with CLL/SLL, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, including maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy findings were also reported.
During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, so the highest dose – 320 mg once daily or 160 mg twice daily – was selected for further testing.
The investigators highlighted efficacy and safety findings from 94 patients with CLL/SLL who were involved in dose expansion. Although nearly one-quarter (23.4%) were treatment-naive, the median number of prior therapies was two, and some patients had high-risk features, such as adverse cytogenetics, including 19.1% with a TP53 mutation and 23.3% with a 17p deletion. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, 94.7% of these patients were still undergoing treatment.
Out of the initial 94 patients with CLL/SLL, 78 were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate was 96.2%, including two (2.6%) complete responses, 63 (80.8%) partial responses, and 10 (12.8%) partial responses with lymphocytosis. The median progression-free survival had not been reached, and the 12-month estimated progression-free survival was 100%.
In regard to safety, the most common adverse events were contusion (35.1%), upper respiratory tract infection (33.0%), cough (25.5%), diarrhea (21.3%), fatigue (19.1%), back pain (14.9%), hematuria (14.9%), headache (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), rash (12.8%), arthralgia (11.7%), muscle spasms (11.7%), and urinary tract infection (10.6%).
A number of other adverse events were reported, although these occurred in less than 10% of patients.
More than one-third of patients (36.2%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, with neutropenia being most common (6.4%), followed by pneumonia , hypertension, and anemia, which each occurred in 2.1% of patients, and less commonly, back pain, nausea, urinary tract infection, purpura, cellulitis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, which each occurred in 1.1% of patients.
“In this first-in-human study, zanubrutinib demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive CLL/SLL, with good tolerability,” the investigators concluded. “Two ongoing randomized studies of zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib (NCT03053440 and NCT03734016) aim to determine whether consistent, continuous BTK blockade with a selective inhibitor results in fewer off-target effects and translates into improvements in disease control.”
The study was funded by BeiGene USA, which is developing the drug. The investigators reported relationships with the study sponsor, as well as Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, and others.
SOURCE: Tam CSL et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001160.
FROM BLOOD
Ibrutinib/rituximab effective, safe as frontline treatment for older patients with MCL
LUGANO, SWITZERLAND – The chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and rituximab is highly effective as frontline therapy for older, transplant-ineligible patients with nonblastoid mantle cell lymphoma, according to investigators.
In a phase 2 study of patients with a median age of 71 years, 38 of 41 patients (93%) had an objective response, and the regimen was both safe and easy to administer, reported Preetesh Jain, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“The adverse event profile was generally favorable, with specific monitoring recommended for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and a history of atrial fibrillation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 48 patients aged 65 years and older with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), of whom 41 were evaluable for the primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and safety. The patients had good performance status and normal organ function, with the largest tumor size less than 10 cm. Patients with atrial fibrillation could participate, if the fibrillation was controlled. Patients with Ki-67 protein levels of 50% or greater and blastoid/pleomorphic histology were excluded.
Patients were treated with ibrutinib 560 mg orally daily for each 28-day cycle, with therapy continued until disease progression, or until therapy was stopped for any other reason. Patients also received intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus or minus one day for cycle 1, on day 1 of cycles 3-8, and on day 1 of every other cycle for up to 2 years.
Of the 41 patients evaluable for response, 26 (64%) had a complete response (CR) and 12 (29%) had a partial response. Three additional patients had stable disease, for an objective response rate of 93%.
Of 34 patients with PET scans, all had negative scans. Of 37 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, 21 (58%) were MRD negative.
Patients with low or intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) scores had a higher ORR (100% vs. 89% for patients with high MIPI scores), and patients with low Ki-67 levels had a higher response rate than that of patients with KI-67 of 30% or greater (80% vs. 87%).
Neither median 3-year progression-free survival nor median 3-year overall survival have been reached, with respective 3-year rates of 87% and 95%.
Four patients experienced disease progression at 4, 10, 13 and 33 months of treatment. Three of these patients had disease that had transformed to blastoid/pleomorphic variant, two had Ki-67 of 30% or greater, one had mutations in TP53, and one had FAT1 and SF3B1 mutations.
Two patients died after ibrutinib therapy, one who had discontinued therapy because of bleeding, and the other who died on treatment at 13 months from transformed disease. Both of these patients had high Ki-67 levels.
Grade 3 or 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia in four patients, and thrombocytopenia in two patients. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 anemia.
Grade 3 or 4 nonhematological adverse events were fatigue, myalgia, and atrial fibrillation in seven patients each, diarrhea in six patients, and petechiae/bleeding in three patients.
Patients will continue to be followed for late adverse events, secondary cancers, and relapses, and further studies on clonal evolution, mutation profiling, and MRD are ongoing and will be reported at a later date, Dr. Jain said.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Dr. Jain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jain P et al. 15-ICML. Abstract 011.
LUGANO, SWITZERLAND – The chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and rituximab is highly effective as frontline therapy for older, transplant-ineligible patients with nonblastoid mantle cell lymphoma, according to investigators.
In a phase 2 study of patients with a median age of 71 years, 38 of 41 patients (93%) had an objective response, and the regimen was both safe and easy to administer, reported Preetesh Jain, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“The adverse event profile was generally favorable, with specific monitoring recommended for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and a history of atrial fibrillation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 48 patients aged 65 years and older with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), of whom 41 were evaluable for the primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and safety. The patients had good performance status and normal organ function, with the largest tumor size less than 10 cm. Patients with atrial fibrillation could participate, if the fibrillation was controlled. Patients with Ki-67 protein levels of 50% or greater and blastoid/pleomorphic histology were excluded.
Patients were treated with ibrutinib 560 mg orally daily for each 28-day cycle, with therapy continued until disease progression, or until therapy was stopped for any other reason. Patients also received intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus or minus one day for cycle 1, on day 1 of cycles 3-8, and on day 1 of every other cycle for up to 2 years.
Of the 41 patients evaluable for response, 26 (64%) had a complete response (CR) and 12 (29%) had a partial response. Three additional patients had stable disease, for an objective response rate of 93%.
Of 34 patients with PET scans, all had negative scans. Of 37 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, 21 (58%) were MRD negative.
Patients with low or intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) scores had a higher ORR (100% vs. 89% for patients with high MIPI scores), and patients with low Ki-67 levels had a higher response rate than that of patients with KI-67 of 30% or greater (80% vs. 87%).
Neither median 3-year progression-free survival nor median 3-year overall survival have been reached, with respective 3-year rates of 87% and 95%.
Four patients experienced disease progression at 4, 10, 13 and 33 months of treatment. Three of these patients had disease that had transformed to blastoid/pleomorphic variant, two had Ki-67 of 30% or greater, one had mutations in TP53, and one had FAT1 and SF3B1 mutations.
Two patients died after ibrutinib therapy, one who had discontinued therapy because of bleeding, and the other who died on treatment at 13 months from transformed disease. Both of these patients had high Ki-67 levels.
Grade 3 or 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia in four patients, and thrombocytopenia in two patients. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 anemia.
Grade 3 or 4 nonhematological adverse events were fatigue, myalgia, and atrial fibrillation in seven patients each, diarrhea in six patients, and petechiae/bleeding in three patients.
Patients will continue to be followed for late adverse events, secondary cancers, and relapses, and further studies on clonal evolution, mutation profiling, and MRD are ongoing and will be reported at a later date, Dr. Jain said.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Dr. Jain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jain P et al. 15-ICML. Abstract 011.
LUGANO, SWITZERLAND – The chemotherapy-free combination of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) and rituximab is highly effective as frontline therapy for older, transplant-ineligible patients with nonblastoid mantle cell lymphoma, according to investigators.
In a phase 2 study of patients with a median age of 71 years, 38 of 41 patients (93%) had an objective response, and the regimen was both safe and easy to administer, reported Preetesh Jain, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“The adverse event profile was generally favorable, with specific monitoring recommended for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and a history of atrial fibrillation,” he said at the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma.
The investigators enrolled 48 patients aged 65 years and older with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), of whom 41 were evaluable for the primary endpoints of overall response rate (ORR) and safety. The patients had good performance status and normal organ function, with the largest tumor size less than 10 cm. Patients with atrial fibrillation could participate, if the fibrillation was controlled. Patients with Ki-67 protein levels of 50% or greater and blastoid/pleomorphic histology were excluded.
Patients were treated with ibrutinib 560 mg orally daily for each 28-day cycle, with therapy continued until disease progression, or until therapy was stopped for any other reason. Patients also received intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus or minus one day for cycle 1, on day 1 of cycles 3-8, and on day 1 of every other cycle for up to 2 years.
Of the 41 patients evaluable for response, 26 (64%) had a complete response (CR) and 12 (29%) had a partial response. Three additional patients had stable disease, for an objective response rate of 93%.
Of 34 patients with PET scans, all had negative scans. Of 37 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, 21 (58%) were MRD negative.
Patients with low or intermediate Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) scores had a higher ORR (100% vs. 89% for patients with high MIPI scores), and patients with low Ki-67 levels had a higher response rate than that of patients with KI-67 of 30% or greater (80% vs. 87%).
Neither median 3-year progression-free survival nor median 3-year overall survival have been reached, with respective 3-year rates of 87% and 95%.
Four patients experienced disease progression at 4, 10, 13 and 33 months of treatment. Three of these patients had disease that had transformed to blastoid/pleomorphic variant, two had Ki-67 of 30% or greater, one had mutations in TP53, and one had FAT1 and SF3B1 mutations.
Two patients died after ibrutinib therapy, one who had discontinued therapy because of bleeding, and the other who died on treatment at 13 months from transformed disease. Both of these patients had high Ki-67 levels.
Grade 3 or 4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia in four patients, and thrombocytopenia in two patients. There were no cases of grade 3 or 4 anemia.
Grade 3 or 4 nonhematological adverse events were fatigue, myalgia, and atrial fibrillation in seven patients each, diarrhea in six patients, and petechiae/bleeding in three patients.
Patients will continue to be followed for late adverse events, secondary cancers, and relapses, and further studies on clonal evolution, mutation profiling, and MRD are ongoing and will be reported at a later date, Dr. Jain said.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Dr. Jain reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Jain P et al. 15-ICML. Abstract 011.
REPORTING FROM 15-ICML