Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospective validation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated models

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

Model 1 included the following variables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospective validation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated models

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

Model 1 included the following variables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospective validation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated models

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

Model 1 included the following variables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Antić did not report any conflicts of interest.

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

Photo from Novartis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from Novartis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from Novartis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of NCCN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of NCCN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo courtesy of NCCN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

©Ed Uthman/Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sworcester@mdedge.com

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

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mschneider@mdedge.com

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

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

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mschneider@mdedge.com

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

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

Patho/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mschneider@mdedge.com

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

Photo from Sarah Cannon

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

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

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

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

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

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from Sarah Cannon

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

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

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

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

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

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from Sarah Cannon

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported the results in Blood.

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

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

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

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

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

They were followed for a median of 22.4 months.

Patient characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly all patients in both arms experienced an AE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mantle cell lymphoma

Long-term results of a phase 2 clinical trial of the lenalidomide and rituximab combination as first-line therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) show continued durable responses with manageable toxicities after 5 years.

With a median follow-up of 64 months, 21 of 33 patients with initial responses remained in durable, minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative remission following induction with lenalidomide and rituximab and maintenance with those same two agents for at least 3 years.

The patients with durable responses included five who opted to discontinue maintenance after 3 years, reported Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Cornell University in New York, and her colleagues.

“Our long-term data provide proof of concept that an outpatient-based induction and maintenance strategy free of conventional chemotherapy is effective, safe, and feasible as first-line therapy for MCL,” they wrote.

Their report was published in Blood.

In the multicenter, phase 2 single-arm study (NCT01472562), 38 patients with untreated MCL were enrolled and treated with lenalidomide 20 mg daily on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle for 12 cycles during induction, followed by dose reduction to 15 mg during the maintenance phase.

Patients also received standard dose rituximab 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1, then once every other cycle.

Patients remained on treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or study withdrawal. Patients who remained in remission after 3 years, based on routine surveillance CT scans, had the option to discontinue maintenance.

Results

Of the original 38 patients enrolled, 36 were evaluable for response, including 23 with a complete response (CR) and 10 with a partial response.

At the 64-month median follow-up, neither the median progression-free survival (PFS) nor duration of response had been reached.

Overall, 21 of the 33 patients with responses (64%) had ongoing responses, including six patients with responses beyond 6 years.

Estimated 3-year and 5-year PFS rates were 80.3% and 63.9%, respectively. Respective estimated 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.5% and 77.4%.

Mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index (MIPI) scores were not associated with either response or PFS rates, but patients with high-risk MIPI scores were significantly more likely to have worse overall survival (P=0.04).

Safety

Grade 3 or greater hematologic toxicities included neutropenia in 42% of patients in both induction and maintenance, anemia in 8% and 3%, thrombocytopenia in 11% and 5%, and febrile neutropenia in 3% and 5%.

Secondary primary malignancies occurred in six patients. These included five noninvasive skin cancers requiring only local therapy without the need for study interruption.

Two patients, including one with a skin cancer, died from the secondary malignancies, including one from Merkel cell carcinoma and one from pancreatic cancer.

“The efficacy and survival outcome observed in our study compared favorably to those reported with lenalidomide either as single agent, or in combination with rituximab in relapsed and refractory setting,” the investigators wrote, “lending support for prioritizing novel agents such as lenalidomide early in the treatment sequence, to compare to conventional chemotherapy-based approach.”

The study was supported in part by Celgene Corporation, a Clinical Translational Science Center grant, and the Lymphoma Foundation. 

Mantle cell lymphoma

Long-term results of a phase 2 clinical trial of the lenalidomide and rituximab combination as first-line therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) show continued durable responses with manageable toxicities after 5 years.

With a median follow-up of 64 months, 21 of 33 patients with initial responses remained in durable, minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative remission following induction with lenalidomide and rituximab and maintenance with those same two agents for at least 3 years.

The patients with durable responses included five who opted to discontinue maintenance after 3 years, reported Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Cornell University in New York, and her colleagues.

“Our long-term data provide proof of concept that an outpatient-based induction and maintenance strategy free of conventional chemotherapy is effective, safe, and feasible as first-line therapy for MCL,” they wrote.

Their report was published in Blood.

In the multicenter, phase 2 single-arm study (NCT01472562), 38 patients with untreated MCL were enrolled and treated with lenalidomide 20 mg daily on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle for 12 cycles during induction, followed by dose reduction to 15 mg during the maintenance phase.

Patients also received standard dose rituximab 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1, then once every other cycle.

Patients remained on treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or study withdrawal. Patients who remained in remission after 3 years, based on routine surveillance CT scans, had the option to discontinue maintenance.

Results

Of the original 38 patients enrolled, 36 were evaluable for response, including 23 with a complete response (CR) and 10 with a partial response.

At the 64-month median follow-up, neither the median progression-free survival (PFS) nor duration of response had been reached.

Overall, 21 of the 33 patients with responses (64%) had ongoing responses, including six patients with responses beyond 6 years.

Estimated 3-year and 5-year PFS rates were 80.3% and 63.9%, respectively. Respective estimated 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.5% and 77.4%.

Mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index (MIPI) scores were not associated with either response or PFS rates, but patients with high-risk MIPI scores were significantly more likely to have worse overall survival (P=0.04).

Safety

Grade 3 or greater hematologic toxicities included neutropenia in 42% of patients in both induction and maintenance, anemia in 8% and 3%, thrombocytopenia in 11% and 5%, and febrile neutropenia in 3% and 5%.

Secondary primary malignancies occurred in six patients. These included five noninvasive skin cancers requiring only local therapy without the need for study interruption.

Two patients, including one with a skin cancer, died from the secondary malignancies, including one from Merkel cell carcinoma and one from pancreatic cancer.

“The efficacy and survival outcome observed in our study compared favorably to those reported with lenalidomide either as single agent, or in combination with rituximab in relapsed and refractory setting,” the investigators wrote, “lending support for prioritizing novel agents such as lenalidomide early in the treatment sequence, to compare to conventional chemotherapy-based approach.”

The study was supported in part by Celgene Corporation, a Clinical Translational Science Center grant, and the Lymphoma Foundation. 

Mantle cell lymphoma

Long-term results of a phase 2 clinical trial of the lenalidomide and rituximab combination as first-line therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) show continued durable responses with manageable toxicities after 5 years.

With a median follow-up of 64 months, 21 of 33 patients with initial responses remained in durable, minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative remission following induction with lenalidomide and rituximab and maintenance with those same two agents for at least 3 years.

The patients with durable responses included five who opted to discontinue maintenance after 3 years, reported Jia Ruan, MD, PhD, of Cornell University in New York, and her colleagues.

“Our long-term data provide proof of concept that an outpatient-based induction and maintenance strategy free of conventional chemotherapy is effective, safe, and feasible as first-line therapy for MCL,” they wrote.

Their report was published in Blood.

In the multicenter, phase 2 single-arm study (NCT01472562), 38 patients with untreated MCL were enrolled and treated with lenalidomide 20 mg daily on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle for 12 cycles during induction, followed by dose reduction to 15 mg during the maintenance phase.

Patients also received standard dose rituximab 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks during cycle 1, then once every other cycle.

Patients remained on treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or study withdrawal. Patients who remained in remission after 3 years, based on routine surveillance CT scans, had the option to discontinue maintenance.

Results

Of the original 38 patients enrolled, 36 were evaluable for response, including 23 with a complete response (CR) and 10 with a partial response.

At the 64-month median follow-up, neither the median progression-free survival (PFS) nor duration of response had been reached.

Overall, 21 of the 33 patients with responses (64%) had ongoing responses, including six patients with responses beyond 6 years.

Estimated 3-year and 5-year PFS rates were 80.3% and 63.9%, respectively. Respective estimated 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.5% and 77.4%.

Mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index (MIPI) scores were not associated with either response or PFS rates, but patients with high-risk MIPI scores were significantly more likely to have worse overall survival (P=0.04).

Safety

Grade 3 or greater hematologic toxicities included neutropenia in 42% of patients in both induction and maintenance, anemia in 8% and 3%, thrombocytopenia in 11% and 5%, and febrile neutropenia in 3% and 5%.

Secondary primary malignancies occurred in six patients. These included five noninvasive skin cancers requiring only local therapy without the need for study interruption.

Two patients, including one with a skin cancer, died from the secondary malignancies, including one from Merkel cell carcinoma and one from pancreatic cancer.

“The efficacy and survival outcome observed in our study compared favorably to those reported with lenalidomide either as single agent, or in combination with rituximab in relapsed and refractory setting,” the investigators wrote, “lending support for prioritizing novel agents such as lenalidomide early in the treatment sequence, to compare to conventional chemotherapy-based approach.”

The study was supported in part by Celgene Corporation, a Clinical Translational Science Center grant, and the Lymphoma Foundation. 

NEW YORK – Four-drug combinations are looking promising for the treatment of multiple myeloma, though data from additional randomized trials are needed to define their role in clinical practice, according to Natalie S. Callander, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison.

“The outlook for myeloma patients is quite good,” Dr. Callander said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

“Triplet therapy is the standard, and quad therapy may be in the future.”

The study that set the standard for triplets in myeloma, according to Dr. Callander, is SWOG 0777, an open-label, phase 3 trial that compared bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

Adding bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved both progression-free and overall survival in the 525-patient trial, with a risk-benefit profile that was acceptable (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:519-27).

The median progression-free survival was 43 months for the triplet, versus 30 months for the two-drug regimen (P = .0018); likewise, median overall survival was significantly improved, at 75 months versus 64 months for triplet versus doublet therapy (P = .025).

“Very convincingly, just receiving that short exposure to bortezomib ended up causing a substantial increase of progression-free and overall survival,” Dr. Callander said.

The efficacy of multiple triplet regimens has been documented, including the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd); cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD); and more recently, ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd). These regimens have “excellent” response rates and survival data, Dr. Callander said.

Data is now emerging on the potential role of four-drug combinations, she added. The combination of elotuzumab plus VRd produced high response rates that were even higher after transplant, with reasonable toxicity, Dr. Callander said of phase 2 trial data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Similarly, the combination of daratumumab plus KRd had a 100% rate of partial response or better in phase 2 data presented at ASCO in 2017, with rates of very good partial response and complete response that improved with successive cycles of therapy, she said.

Even so, “it remains to be seen whether four drugs will be the new standard,” Dr. Callander told the NCCN attendees.

Four- versus three-drug strategies are being evaluated in ongoing randomized clinical trials, including patients with previously untreated myeloma, she said. Those studies include Cassiopeia, which is evaluating bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab), and GRIFFIN, which is looking at VRd (with or without daratumumab).

Daratumumab recently received an additional indication in the treatment of myeloma, this time as part of a four-drug regimen, Dr. Callander added in a discussion on treatment options for elderly myeloma patients.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the monoclonal antibody in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients who are transplant ineligible.

That approval was based on results of the multicenter phase 3 ALCYONE study, showing an 18-month progression-free survival rate of 71.6% for the four-drug combination versus 50.2% for VMP alone (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:518-28).

Dr. Callander reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

NEW YORK – Four-drug combinations are looking promising for the treatment of multiple myeloma, though data from additional randomized trials are needed to define their role in clinical practice, according to Natalie S. Callander, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison.

“The outlook for myeloma patients is quite good,” Dr. Callander said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

“Triplet therapy is the standard, and quad therapy may be in the future.”

The study that set the standard for triplets in myeloma, according to Dr. Callander, is SWOG 0777, an open-label, phase 3 trial that compared bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

Adding bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved both progression-free and overall survival in the 525-patient trial, with a risk-benefit profile that was acceptable (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:519-27).

The median progression-free survival was 43 months for the triplet, versus 30 months for the two-drug regimen (P = .0018); likewise, median overall survival was significantly improved, at 75 months versus 64 months for triplet versus doublet therapy (P = .025).

“Very convincingly, just receiving that short exposure to bortezomib ended up causing a substantial increase of progression-free and overall survival,” Dr. Callander said.

The efficacy of multiple triplet regimens has been documented, including the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd); cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD); and more recently, ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd). These regimens have “excellent” response rates and survival data, Dr. Callander said.

Data is now emerging on the potential role of four-drug combinations, she added. The combination of elotuzumab plus VRd produced high response rates that were even higher after transplant, with reasonable toxicity, Dr. Callander said of phase 2 trial data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Similarly, the combination of daratumumab plus KRd had a 100% rate of partial response or better in phase 2 data presented at ASCO in 2017, with rates of very good partial response and complete response that improved with successive cycles of therapy, she said.

Even so, “it remains to be seen whether four drugs will be the new standard,” Dr. Callander told the NCCN attendees.

Four- versus three-drug strategies are being evaluated in ongoing randomized clinical trials, including patients with previously untreated myeloma, she said. Those studies include Cassiopeia, which is evaluating bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab), and GRIFFIN, which is looking at VRd (with or without daratumumab).

Daratumumab recently received an additional indication in the treatment of myeloma, this time as part of a four-drug regimen, Dr. Callander added in a discussion on treatment options for elderly myeloma patients.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the monoclonal antibody in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients who are transplant ineligible.

That approval was based on results of the multicenter phase 3 ALCYONE study, showing an 18-month progression-free survival rate of 71.6% for the four-drug combination versus 50.2% for VMP alone (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:518-28).

Dr. Callander reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

NEW YORK – Four-drug combinations are looking promising for the treatment of multiple myeloma, though data from additional randomized trials are needed to define their role in clinical practice, according to Natalie S. Callander, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison.

“The outlook for myeloma patients is quite good,” Dr. Callander said at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.

“Triplet therapy is the standard, and quad therapy may be in the future.”

The study that set the standard for triplets in myeloma, according to Dr. Callander, is SWOG 0777, an open-label, phase 3 trial that compared bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

Adding bortezomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved both progression-free and overall survival in the 525-patient trial, with a risk-benefit profile that was acceptable (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:519-27).

The median progression-free survival was 43 months for the triplet, versus 30 months for the two-drug regimen (P = .0018); likewise, median overall survival was significantly improved, at 75 months versus 64 months for triplet versus doublet therapy (P = .025).

“Very convincingly, just receiving that short exposure to bortezomib ended up causing a substantial increase of progression-free and overall survival,” Dr. Callander said.

The efficacy of multiple triplet regimens has been documented, including the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd); cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD); and more recently, ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd). These regimens have “excellent” response rates and survival data, Dr. Callander said.

Data is now emerging on the potential role of four-drug combinations, she added. The combination of elotuzumab plus VRd produced high response rates that were even higher after transplant, with reasonable toxicity, Dr. Callander said of phase 2 trial data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Similarly, the combination of daratumumab plus KRd had a 100% rate of partial response or better in phase 2 data presented at ASCO in 2017, with rates of very good partial response and complete response that improved with successive cycles of therapy, she said.

Even so, “it remains to be seen whether four drugs will be the new standard,” Dr. Callander told the NCCN attendees.

Four- versus three-drug strategies are being evaluated in ongoing randomized clinical trials, including patients with previously untreated myeloma, she said. Those studies include Cassiopeia, which is evaluating bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab), and GRIFFIN, which is looking at VRd (with or without daratumumab).

Daratumumab recently received an additional indication in the treatment of myeloma, this time as part of a four-drug regimen, Dr. Callander added in a discussion on treatment options for elderly myeloma patients.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the monoclonal antibody in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients who are transplant ineligible.

That approval was based on results of the multicenter phase 3 ALCYONE study, showing an 18-month progression-free survival rate of 71.6% for the four-drug combination versus 50.2% for VMP alone (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:518-28).

Dr. Callander reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

NEW YORK – Three novel treatment strategies that target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have shown promise in recent multiple myeloma clinical trials, according to Shaji K. Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Rochester, Minn.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

These strategies include B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), and a BCMA antibody–drug conjugate, Dr. Kumar said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“Clearly, there are a lot of exciting drugs that are currently in clinical trials, but these three platforms appear to be much more advanced than the others, and hopefully we will see that in the clinic in the near future,” Dr. Kumar said.

The antibody-drug conjugate, GSK2857916, is a humanized IgG1 anti-BCMA antibody conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting agent that has produced an overall response rate in 67% in a group of myeloma patients who had previously received multiple standard-of-care agents.

“Some of the responses were quite durable, lasting several months,” he said.

Now, GSK2857916 is being evaluated in a variety of different combinations, including in a phase 2 study of the antibody-drug conjugate in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, or bortezomib plus dexamethasone, in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Some of the most “exciting” data with anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in myeloma involves bb2121, which showed durable clinical responses in heavily pretreated patients, according to data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“The overall response rate is quite significant,” said Dr. Kumar, who related a 94% rate of overall response that was even higher in patients treated with doses of 150 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells or more. Many of the response were lasting, he said, with five patients in ongoing response for more than 1 year.

“The results are exciting enough that this is actually moving forward with registration trials,” Dr. Kumar said.

Additionally, promising results have been presented on a novel CAR T-cell product, LCAR-B38M, which principally targets BCMA and led to a significant number of patients who achieved stringent complete response that lasted beyond 1 year.

Multiple BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products that use different vectors and costimulatory molecules are currently undergoing clinical trials, Dr. Kumar said.

In contrast to CAR T-cell products that must be customized to each patient in a process that takes weeks, BiTEs are a ready-made approach to allow T cells to engage with tumor cells.

“In patients with advanced disease, a lot can change in that short time frame, so having an approach that is off the shelf, which is not patient specific, is quite attractive,” Dr. Kumar said.

BCMA-directed BiTE therapies under investigation include AMG 420 and PF-06863135, he added.

Dr. Kumar reported one disclosure related to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

NEW YORK – Three novel treatment strategies that target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have shown promise in recent multiple myeloma clinical trials, according to Shaji K. Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Rochester, Minn.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

These strategies include B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), and a BCMA antibody–drug conjugate, Dr. Kumar said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“Clearly, there are a lot of exciting drugs that are currently in clinical trials, but these three platforms appear to be much more advanced than the others, and hopefully we will see that in the clinic in the near future,” Dr. Kumar said.

The antibody-drug conjugate, GSK2857916, is a humanized IgG1 anti-BCMA antibody conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting agent that has produced an overall response rate in 67% in a group of myeloma patients who had previously received multiple standard-of-care agents.

“Some of the responses were quite durable, lasting several months,” he said.

Now, GSK2857916 is being evaluated in a variety of different combinations, including in a phase 2 study of the antibody-drug conjugate in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, or bortezomib plus dexamethasone, in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Some of the most “exciting” data with anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in myeloma involves bb2121, which showed durable clinical responses in heavily pretreated patients, according to data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“The overall response rate is quite significant,” said Dr. Kumar, who related a 94% rate of overall response that was even higher in patients treated with doses of 150 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells or more. Many of the response were lasting, he said, with five patients in ongoing response for more than 1 year.

“The results are exciting enough that this is actually moving forward with registration trials,” Dr. Kumar said.

Additionally, promising results have been presented on a novel CAR T-cell product, LCAR-B38M, which principally targets BCMA and led to a significant number of patients who achieved stringent complete response that lasted beyond 1 year.

Multiple BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products that use different vectors and costimulatory molecules are currently undergoing clinical trials, Dr. Kumar said.

In contrast to CAR T-cell products that must be customized to each patient in a process that takes weeks, BiTEs are a ready-made approach to allow T cells to engage with tumor cells.

“In patients with advanced disease, a lot can change in that short time frame, so having an approach that is off the shelf, which is not patient specific, is quite attractive,” Dr. Kumar said.

BCMA-directed BiTE therapies under investigation include AMG 420 and PF-06863135, he added.

Dr. Kumar reported one disclosure related to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

NEW YORK – Three novel treatment strategies that target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have shown promise in recent multiple myeloma clinical trials, according to Shaji K. Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Rochester, Minn.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

These strategies include B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), and a BCMA antibody–drug conjugate, Dr. Kumar said at the annual congress on Hematologic Malignancies held by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“Clearly, there are a lot of exciting drugs that are currently in clinical trials, but these three platforms appear to be much more advanced than the others, and hopefully we will see that in the clinic in the near future,” Dr. Kumar said.

The antibody-drug conjugate, GSK2857916, is a humanized IgG1 anti-BCMA antibody conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting agent that has produced an overall response rate in 67% in a group of myeloma patients who had previously received multiple standard-of-care agents.

“Some of the responses were quite durable, lasting several months,” he said.

Now, GSK2857916 is being evaluated in a variety of different combinations, including in a phase 2 study of the antibody-drug conjugate in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, or bortezomib plus dexamethasone, in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Some of the most “exciting” data with anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in myeloma involves bb2121, which showed durable clinical responses in heavily pretreated patients, according to data presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“The overall response rate is quite significant,” said Dr. Kumar, who related a 94% rate of overall response that was even higher in patients treated with doses of 150 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells or more. Many of the response were lasting, he said, with five patients in ongoing response for more than 1 year.

“The results are exciting enough that this is actually moving forward with registration trials,” Dr. Kumar said.

Additionally, promising results have been presented on a novel CAR T-cell product, LCAR-B38M, which principally targets BCMA and led to a significant number of patients who achieved stringent complete response that lasted beyond 1 year.

Multiple BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell products that use different vectors and costimulatory molecules are currently undergoing clinical trials, Dr. Kumar said.

In contrast to CAR T-cell products that must be customized to each patient in a process that takes weeks, BiTEs are a ready-made approach to allow T cells to engage with tumor cells.

“In patients with advanced disease, a lot can change in that short time frame, so having an approach that is off the shelf, which is not patient specific, is quite attractive,” Dr. Kumar said.

BCMA-directed BiTE therapies under investigation include AMG 420 and PF-06863135, he added.

Dr. Kumar reported one disclosure related to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.

Photo courtesy of NCCN

NEW YORK—Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies—axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta ®) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™)—are already approved in B-cell lymphoma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A third, lisocabtagene maraleucel, will most likely be approved before too long.

Despite differences in their costimulatory molecules, persistence, efficacy, and toxicity profiles, they all have high overall response rates and a fall-out of response during the first 3 to 6 months.

Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether CAR T-cell therapy is actually curative.

“But based on the way things are looking,” said Reem Karmali, MD, of Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, “it seems this might be a realistic expectation.”

“CAR T-cell therapy is clearly effective and has been a ground-breaking form of therapy,” she said, “but there seems to be two sides to the coin. There are a number of challenges that we face with CAR T-cell therapy.”

Dr. Karmali outlined those challenges in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Patient selection

One of the biggest challenges, according to Dr. Karmali, is patient selection.

First, patients must have an adequate hematopoietic reserve to ensure successful CAR T-cell manufacture.

Dr. Karmali referred to the JULIET study, in which 7% of patients failed the manufacturing process due to insufficient apheresis.

Second, the patient’s disease must be stable enough to make it through the time it takes to manufacturing the CAR product, which is typically 2 to 4 weeks.

Third, the patient’s overall health must be good enough to tolerate CAR T toxicities. "The patient needs good major organ function as well as preserved neurologic function,” she explained, “to withstand the unique toxicities that come with CAR T-cell therapy, specifically CRS [cytokine release syndrome] and neurotoxicity.”

Toxicities

The major toxicities are CRS and CAR‑T‑cell‑related encephalopathy syndrome (CRES).

Dr. Karmali pointed out there is also a theoretical risk of insertional oncogenesis from viral transduction used in manufacturing the T cells, and an off-tumor on target-effect that can result in B-cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia.

The profiles of inflammatory cytokines and inflammation markers differ for each CAR construct and are driven in different ways. However, IL-6 is an important mediator for CRS and IL-6 receptor blockade is effective in managing the toxicity.

The drug of choice is tocilizumab, Dr. Karmali said, and for patients who are refractory to tocilizumab, siltuximab can be used.

“Steroids are extremely useful for CRS,” she added, “because they hold down inflammation and prevent immune activation.”

Steroids are also the mainstay for managing the neurotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy because they help stabilize the blood-brain barrier.

“It’s important to make a note,” she said, “that there actually have been a number of analyses that have looked at the impact of using IL-6 receptor blockade and steroids on CAR T-cell expansion and persistence and there really doesn’t seem to be an impact.”

“So we really ought to use these quite liberally for grade 2 or higher toxicity without worrying about dampening the effect of CAR T-cell therapy,” she emphasized.

The Lee grading criteria for the management of CRS and the CTCAE 4.03 and CARTOX-10 for CRES provide guidance in assessing and managing the toxicities.

Future directions

Dr. Karmali outlined a few new directions to address the challenges with CAR T-cell therapy, such as switchable CARs that can be turned on or off and potentially improve safety; development of new constructs that may improve homing; improvement in persistence; use of combination and sequencing strategies; and improved antigen selection that may be effective with other lymphoproliferative diseases.

“A provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can actually replace autologous stem cell transplant as second-line therapy,” she said.  “This is actually being actively evaluated in a number of clinical trials including ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466).”

“I think another provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can be used as consolidation in CR1 [first complete remission],” she added.

The rationale for using CAR Ts as either a replacement for autologous stem cell transplant or in CR1 is that there may be minimal residual disease present that would be enough to elicit a CAR T-cell effect, she explained.

“Ultimately, one envisions the following paradigm for the treatment of lymphomas across the board,” Dr. Karmali concluded.

“Specifically, chemotherapy with a targeted agent for rapid cytoreduction, followed by CAR T-cell consolidation in combination with either other cellular therapies or immunotherapy as a means of eradicating the minimal residual disease and ensuring a pathway to cure.” 

Photo courtesy of NCCN

NEW YORK—Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies—axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta ®) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™)—are already approved in B-cell lymphoma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A third, lisocabtagene maraleucel, will most likely be approved before too long.

Despite differences in their costimulatory molecules, persistence, efficacy, and toxicity profiles, they all have high overall response rates and a fall-out of response during the first 3 to 6 months.

Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether CAR T-cell therapy is actually curative.

“But based on the way things are looking,” said Reem Karmali, MD, of Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, “it seems this might be a realistic expectation.”

“CAR T-cell therapy is clearly effective and has been a ground-breaking form of therapy,” she said, “but there seems to be two sides to the coin. There are a number of challenges that we face with CAR T-cell therapy.”

Dr. Karmali outlined those challenges in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Patient selection

One of the biggest challenges, according to Dr. Karmali, is patient selection.

First, patients must have an adequate hematopoietic reserve to ensure successful CAR T-cell manufacture.

Dr. Karmali referred to the JULIET study, in which 7% of patients failed the manufacturing process due to insufficient apheresis.

Second, the patient’s disease must be stable enough to make it through the time it takes to manufacturing the CAR product, which is typically 2 to 4 weeks.

Third, the patient’s overall health must be good enough to tolerate CAR T toxicities. "The patient needs good major organ function as well as preserved neurologic function,” she explained, “to withstand the unique toxicities that come with CAR T-cell therapy, specifically CRS [cytokine release syndrome] and neurotoxicity.”

Toxicities

The major toxicities are CRS and CAR‑T‑cell‑related encephalopathy syndrome (CRES).

Dr. Karmali pointed out there is also a theoretical risk of insertional oncogenesis from viral transduction used in manufacturing the T cells, and an off-tumor on target-effect that can result in B-cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia.

The profiles of inflammatory cytokines and inflammation markers differ for each CAR construct and are driven in different ways. However, IL-6 is an important mediator for CRS and IL-6 receptor blockade is effective in managing the toxicity.

The drug of choice is tocilizumab, Dr. Karmali said, and for patients who are refractory to tocilizumab, siltuximab can be used.

“Steroids are extremely useful for CRS,” she added, “because they hold down inflammation and prevent immune activation.”

Steroids are also the mainstay for managing the neurotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy because they help stabilize the blood-brain barrier.

“It’s important to make a note,” she said, “that there actually have been a number of analyses that have looked at the impact of using IL-6 receptor blockade and steroids on CAR T-cell expansion and persistence and there really doesn’t seem to be an impact.”

“So we really ought to use these quite liberally for grade 2 or higher toxicity without worrying about dampening the effect of CAR T-cell therapy,” she emphasized.

The Lee grading criteria for the management of CRS and the CTCAE 4.03 and CARTOX-10 for CRES provide guidance in assessing and managing the toxicities.

Future directions

Dr. Karmali outlined a few new directions to address the challenges with CAR T-cell therapy, such as switchable CARs that can be turned on or off and potentially improve safety; development of new constructs that may improve homing; improvement in persistence; use of combination and sequencing strategies; and improved antigen selection that may be effective with other lymphoproliferative diseases.

“A provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can actually replace autologous stem cell transplant as second-line therapy,” she said.  “This is actually being actively evaluated in a number of clinical trials including ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466).”

“I think another provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can be used as consolidation in CR1 [first complete remission],” she added.

The rationale for using CAR Ts as either a replacement for autologous stem cell transplant or in CR1 is that there may be minimal residual disease present that would be enough to elicit a CAR T-cell effect, she explained.

“Ultimately, one envisions the following paradigm for the treatment of lymphomas across the board,” Dr. Karmali concluded.

“Specifically, chemotherapy with a targeted agent for rapid cytoreduction, followed by CAR T-cell consolidation in combination with either other cellular therapies or immunotherapy as a means of eradicating the minimal residual disease and ensuring a pathway to cure.” 

Photo courtesy of NCCN

NEW YORK—Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies—axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta ®) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah™)—are already approved in B-cell lymphoma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A third, lisocabtagene maraleucel, will most likely be approved before too long.

Despite differences in their costimulatory molecules, persistence, efficacy, and toxicity profiles, they all have high overall response rates and a fall-out of response during the first 3 to 6 months.

Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether CAR T-cell therapy is actually curative.

“But based on the way things are looking,” said Reem Karmali, MD, of Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, “it seems this might be a realistic expectation.”

“CAR T-cell therapy is clearly effective and has been a ground-breaking form of therapy,” she said, “but there seems to be two sides to the coin. There are a number of challenges that we face with CAR T-cell therapy.”

Dr. Karmali outlined those challenges in a presentation at the NCCN 13^th Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies.

Patient selection

One of the biggest challenges, according to Dr. Karmali, is patient selection.

First, patients must have an adequate hematopoietic reserve to ensure successful CAR T-cell manufacture.

Dr. Karmali referred to the JULIET study, in which 7% of patients failed the manufacturing process due to insufficient apheresis.

Second, the patient’s disease must be stable enough to make it through the time it takes to manufacturing the CAR product, which is typically 2 to 4 weeks.

Third, the patient’s overall health must be good enough to tolerate CAR T toxicities. "The patient needs good major organ function as well as preserved neurologic function,” she explained, “to withstand the unique toxicities that come with CAR T-cell therapy, specifically CRS [cytokine release syndrome] and neurotoxicity.”

Toxicities

The major toxicities are CRS and CAR‑T‑cell‑related encephalopathy syndrome (CRES).

Dr. Karmali pointed out there is also a theoretical risk of insertional oncogenesis from viral transduction used in manufacturing the T cells, and an off-tumor on target-effect that can result in B-cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia.

The profiles of inflammatory cytokines and inflammation markers differ for each CAR construct and are driven in different ways. However, IL-6 is an important mediator for CRS and IL-6 receptor blockade is effective in managing the toxicity.

The drug of choice is tocilizumab, Dr. Karmali said, and for patients who are refractory to tocilizumab, siltuximab can be used.

“Steroids are extremely useful for CRS,” she added, “because they hold down inflammation and prevent immune activation.”

Steroids are also the mainstay for managing the neurotoxicity of CAR T-cell therapy because they help stabilize the blood-brain barrier.

“It’s important to make a note,” she said, “that there actually have been a number of analyses that have looked at the impact of using IL-6 receptor blockade and steroids on CAR T-cell expansion and persistence and there really doesn’t seem to be an impact.”

“So we really ought to use these quite liberally for grade 2 or higher toxicity without worrying about dampening the effect of CAR T-cell therapy,” she emphasized.

The Lee grading criteria for the management of CRS and the CTCAE 4.03 and CARTOX-10 for CRES provide guidance in assessing and managing the toxicities.

Future directions

Dr. Karmali outlined a few new directions to address the challenges with CAR T-cell therapy, such as switchable CARs that can be turned on or off and potentially improve safety; development of new constructs that may improve homing; improvement in persistence; use of combination and sequencing strategies; and improved antigen selection that may be effective with other lymphoproliferative diseases.

“A provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can actually replace autologous stem cell transplant as second-line therapy,” she said.  “This is actually being actively evaluated in a number of clinical trials including ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466).”

“I think another provocative question is whether CAR T-cell therapy can be used as consolidation in CR1 [first complete remission],” she added.

The rationale for using CAR Ts as either a replacement for autologous stem cell transplant or in CR1 is that there may be minimal residual disease present that would be enough to elicit a CAR T-cell effect, she explained.

“Ultimately, one envisions the following paradigm for the treatment of lymphomas across the board,” Dr. Karmali concluded.

“Specifically, chemotherapy with a targeted agent for rapid cytoreduction, followed by CAR T-cell consolidation in combination with either other cellular therapies or immunotherapy as a means of eradicating the minimal residual disease and ensuring a pathway to cure.”