Pettengell, Ruth

Abstract Background: The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with previously untreated advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with a 2-year modified progression-free survival (mPFS) of 82.1% in the A+AVD group versus 77.2% in the ABVD group (Hazard Ratio=0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60, 0.98; p=0.04). PN is a known toxicity associated with anti-mitotic agents, including vinblastine and the MMAE component of brentuximab vedotin. In the ECHELON-1 study, the incidence of any-grade PN events was 67% (442 of 662 patients) and 43% (286 of 659 patients) in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively; the incidence of grade ≥3 PN was 11% and 2%, respectively. At the time of the initial analysis, 67% of A+AVD-treated patients had either resolution (43%) or improvement (24%) of PN events. A total of the 92% of ongoing PN events were grade 1 (64%) or grade 2 (29%). Here, we report rates of PN resolution and improvement in patients participating in the ECHELON-1 study after long-term follow-up. Methods: Patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Pre-existing PN was an exclusion factor at study entry. Peripheral neuropathy was determined on the basis of a standardized MedDRA query; patients who developed PN were monitored throughout the study and those with ongoing PN at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement during the post-treatment follow-up period; follow-up visits were scheduled for every 12 weeks ±1 week until 36 months, then every 6 months until study closure. PN resolution was defined as completely resolved and improvement was defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment. Results: At the time of the primary analysis, 51% (226/442) and 61% (174/286) of patients in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, had resolution or improvement of PN events at EOT. Upon continued follow-up (~10 additional months) for approximately 30 months (range 0-78.5) after end of treatment, 76% (335/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (59%, 260/442) or improvement (17%, 75/442) of their PN events compared with 82% (234/286) with either resolution (72%) or improvement (10%) in the ABVD arm. In the A+AVD arm, 90% of ongoing PN cases (n=182) were grade 1/2; grade 1=58% (n=106), grade 2=32% (n=58). Residual grade 3 PN was reported in 9% (n=17) of patients (1 patient with grade 4 PN died before resolution). In the ABVD arm, residual PN (n=81) was grade 1 (65%; n=53), grade 2 (30%; n=24), and grade 3 (5%; n=4). For the subset of patients with PN that had not resolved by end of treatment, the median time to resolution of all PN events from AE start date was 28 weeks for A+AVD and 14 weeks for ABVD, the median time to improvement of PN was 39 weeks for A+AVD and 18.5 weeks for ABVD. Conclusions: After approximately 2.5 years of continued follow-up, PN continues to resolve and improve for patients who were treated with A+AVD or ABVD in the ECHELON-1 study. In both study arms, the majority of ongoing PN cases are grade 1 or grade 2. Further follow-up is ongoing. Disclosures Radford: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Connors:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Younes:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Asana: Consultancy. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Pettengell:CTI: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Purevjal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Kuruvilla:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Rituximab in combination with chemotherapy has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in pts with FL compared with chemotherapy alone. The effect of MR was evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with conflicting results regarding OS. In a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of summary (aggregate) data we demonstrated an OS benefit of MR treatment in pts with relapsed or refractory FL and an improved progression free survival (PFS) in both untreated and relapsed refractory FL. However, pts' disease and treatment characteristics may interact with the effect of MR. To improve identification of sub-groups of pts who may benefit from MR treatment, and to evaluate factors that interact with the effect of MR we conducted an international IPD (raw data) meta-analysis of RCTs of MR for pts with FL. We present the first analysis of this meta-database. Methods In June 2014, we updated an electronic search in Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and database of clinical trials for randomized trials comparing MR to observation. The investigators of eleven trials that fulfilled inclusion criteria were invited to cooperate. Results of one trial were not reported and this trial could not be included in the meta-analysis. Seven study groups participated in this collaborative project and contributed data on individual pts, including disease characteristics, past treatment, response, survival and adverse events. We examined the effect of pt, disease and treatment characteristics by performing a series of Cox regression analyses stratified by trial. In a sensitivity analysis we combined the assessed log hazard ratios (HR) using a log-rank test for each study and combined the results using a fixed effect meta-analysis. Results We obtained data for 2323 patients randomized in 7 trials of MR compared to observation after induction therapy. The median follow up ranged from 28-114 months. The median age was 57 years (23 - 85 years), and 41% were older than 60 years. 50% of pts were women, 97% had WHO performance status 0-1; 1195 (53%) pts received CHOP/RCHOP, 453 (20%) CVP/R CVP; 1755 (77%) received rituximab containing induction; 33% of pts received 1st induction, 67% ≥2nd. Overall, pts less than 60 years of age (vs. ≥60 years) (p < 0.0001), and women (p = 0.001) had a better prognosis. There was no interaction between sex and the effect of MR (p = 0.65). Pts treated with MR had an improved OS compared to observation (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93, p=0.008, Figure). This was demonstrated also in a sensitivity analysis of 10 studies fulfilling inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect between trials (p=0.15). In an analysis by treatment line (1st vs. ≥2nd), the estimated effect of MR among patients who received ≥2nd induction was HR of 0.70 (95% CI 0.55 - 0.91), compared to 0.90 (95% CI 0.65 - 1.25) among patients who received 1st induction. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.25). Analysis by the inclusion of rituximab in induction demonstrated among patients who received rituximab in induction a HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.63 – 1.06), and among those who received induction without rituximab a HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.49 – 0.93). This difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.35). Analysis by chemotherapy regimen demonstrated an estimated effect for MR among patients who received RCHOP/CHOP of 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 – 1.06, and after RCVP/CVP of 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 – 1.02, with no statistically significant difference between these sub-groups (p = 0.50). Conclusions This is the first report of the collaborative group of maintenance therapy for FL patients. Based on individual patient data, this study demonstrated an improved OS with MR therapy for patients with FL. A sensitivity analysis with all 10 eligible trials supported these results. Results support the effectiveness of MR among patients after their 1st induction as well as after ≥2nd induction, and irrespective of inclusion of rituximab in induction, and the chemotherapy regimen. These results are consistent with those of the summary data meta-analysis that was previously published. The wider CI and lack of statistical significance within sub-groups could be attributed to the sample size. Figure: Pooled HR of death of MR compared to observation in patients with follicular lymphoma. In one study there were no events in one group and it is not represented in the forest plot. Figure:. Pooled HR of death of MR compared to observation in patients with follicular lymphoma. In one study there were no events in one group and it is not represented in the forest plot. Disclosures Vidal: Roche: unrestricted grant Other. Shpilberg:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.