Pocock, Christopher

Abstract Background Survival rates for older pts with advanced HL (aged ≥60 yrs) were historically poor with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). Reasons may include decreased tolerance of therapy, increased toxicity (particularly with bleomycin), comorbidities, and disease biology. The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior 2-yr modified progression-free survival (mPFS) with frontline brentuximab vedotin + doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs ABVD in pts with stage III/IV cHL (Connors JM et al, NEJM 2018). The study allowed entry of older pts, with no upper age limit. Alternative dosing schedules of the A+AVD regimen have been studied (e.g., sequential brentuximab vedotin before and after AVD; NCT01476410, Evens AM et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). We report efficacy and safety results from ECHELON-1 for older pts with cHL and compare these with those for pts aged <60 yrs. Methods mPFS per independent review facility (IRF) for pts ≥60 years was a prespecified subgroup analysis of ECHELON-1. Additional exploratory safety and efficacy analyses were also assessed and compared with younger pts (<60 yrs). The study was not powered for age-based subgroup analyses; p-values are descriptive without multiplicity adjustment. Results 14% (186/1334) of pts in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population were aged ≥60 yrs (A+AVD, n=84; ABVD, n=102) and included in the sub analyses. Median age (range) of older pts was: A+AVD, 68.0 yrs (60-82); ABVD, 66.0 yrs (60-83). Baseline pt and disease characteristics in older pts were similar in both arms. ECOG PS scores were 0 (36% vs 36%), 1 (52% vs 54%), and 2 (12% vs 10%) in A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with mean relative dose intensities for each drug (%) in older pts of: A+AVD, 92.3, 96.6, 93.3, and 97.9; ABVD, 97.3, 88.7, 93.3, and 95.9. With median follow-up of ~25 months, 2-yr mPFS per IRF was similar in both arms for older ITT pts (A+AVD 70.3% [95% CI: 58.4, 79.4] vs ABVD 71.4% [95% CI: 60.5, 79.8]; HR=1.00 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.72]; p=0.993). An exploratory analysis of standard PFS per investigator (INV) showed HR=0.85 ([95% CI: 0.49, 1.48]; p=0.576) (Table 1). For older pts with stage IV cHL (A+AVD n=51; ABVD n=67), there was an increase in 2-yr PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD (74.0% [95% CI: 59.5, 84.0] vs 59.9% [95% CI: 45.6, 71.5]; HR, 0.66 [95% CI: 0.34, 1.26]; p=0.20); mPFS per IRF improvement with A+AVD in older stage IV pts was lower (HR=0.80; [95% CI: 0.42, 1.53]). In younger stage III/IV pts (<60 yrs) 2-yr mPFS per IRF and PFS per INV were also higher compared with older pts in both arms (Table 1). 66 of 83 older A+AVD pts required ≥1 dose modification of brentuximab vedotin, reasons were: dose reduction (n=27), dose held (n=4), dose delayed (n=51), brentuximab vedotin discontinued (n=17). In older pts, grade (G) 3/4 AEs occurred in 88% of A+AVD pts vs 80% ABVD pts; for younger pts, rates were 82% (A+AVD) vs 63% (ABVD) (Table 2). In older pts there were 3 (4%) on-study deaths in the A+AVD arm (1 each: hemophagocytosis, neutropenic sepsis, and myocardial infarction) and 5 (5%) with ABVD (all pulmonary-related). In pts <60 yrs, there were 6 on-study deaths (1%) with A+AVD vs 8 (1%) with ABVD. G3 neutropenia in older pts was (70%) A+AVD pts vs (59%) ABVD pts, and febrile neutropenia (FN) in 31 (37%) vs 17 (17%) pts. In older pts who had G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP) neutropenia was seen in 4/10 (40%) A+AVD pts vs 1/9 (11%) ABVD pts (on-study FN in 3 [30%] vs 2 [22%] pts). In older pts, treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) was reported in 54 (65%) of A+AVD pts vs 42 (43%) of ABVD pts (G≥3 in 15 [18%] vs 3 [3%] pts), respectively. In pts <60 yrs PN was reported in 388 (67%) A+AVD pts vs 244 (43%) ABVD pts (G≥3 in 55 [9%] vs 8 [1%] pts), respectively. In older pts at last follow-up, 65% (35/54) of A+AVD pts and 60% (25/42) of ABVD pts had complete resolution (A+AVD, 39%; ABVD, 38%) or improvement (A+AVD, 26%; ABVD, 21%) of PN events. 2% older A+AVD pts had pulmonary AEs (both G1/2 pulmonary infiltration) vs 13% older ABVD pts. Conclusions For older ECHELON-1 pts, mPFS and PFS were similar in both arms. In the larger subgroup of younger pts, mPFS and PFS were improved vs older pts. As expected, incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was higher in older pts, with regimen-specific AEs seen, including fatal pulmonary events in ABVD pts. The high incidence of FN in older A+AVD pts points to the need for G-CSF PP. Disclosures Evens: Acerta: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Connors:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Younes:Sanofi: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Radford:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; KITE: Speakers Bureau. Tuscano:Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Oki:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Grigg:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pocock:Kent & Canterbury Hospital: Employment. Dlugosz-Danecka:Roche: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Introduction: Ibrutinib (Imbruvica®), an oral, first-in-class covalent BTK inhibitor, is a new treatment option approved by FDA for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) with ≥1 prior therapy. We previously reported results from the phase III trial, in which ibrutinib (ibr) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs ofatumumab (ofa) in pts with relapsed/refractory CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) (Byrd et al. NEJM, 2014). Here, we report measures of patient well-being, including hematologic, immunologic, and quality of-life parameters, at interim analysis (IA). Methods: Pts with CLL/SLL after ≥1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to ibr 420 mg/day until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or to ofa for up to 24 weeks. At IA, secondary efficacy endpoints of hematologic improvement (sustained improvement ≥56 days without transfusions or growth factors) and FACiT-Fatigue (FACiT-F) outcomes were analyzed, along with exploratory endpoints assessing disease-related symptoms (DRS), serum immunoglobulin, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by EORTC QLQ-C30, and medical resource utilization (MRU). Results: Of 391 enrolled pts (ibr n=195; ofa n=196), 63% had cytopenia(s) at baseline: 45% had anemia (hemoglobin ≤11 g/dL), 35% thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100×109/L), and 20% neutropenia (absolute neutrophil counts [ANC] ≤1.5×109/L). On the ibr arm, 69% of pts with baseline cytopenias experienced sustained improvement in blood counts compared to 43% on ofa (P<0.0001, table). There was no decrement in serum immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) during follow-up. IgA levels increased on the ibrutinib arm only (mean change from baseline: 41% at week 24). Immune cells CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell and NK-cell levels remained relatively stable during treatment. Mean change in FACiT-F score from baseline are shown in the figure for ibr and ofa arms. At week 24, clinically meaningful (≥3 points) improvement in FACiT-F occurred in more pts on ibr than ofa (59% vs 46%, P=0.06); clinically meaningful deterioration was reported by 14% vs 24% (P=0.08), respectively. A larger proportion of ibr vs ofa pts showed clinically meaningful improvement on EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health scores (46% vs 40%). Clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 points) from baseline to week 24 in ibr vs ofa pts was observed for fatigue (median 11 vs 0). A 50% reduction in lymph node based on IRC-assessed CT was observed in 93% (177/190 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 17% (29/174 evaluable) of ofa pts (P< 0.0001). Splenic response based on IRC-assessed CT was reported for 85% (138/163 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 54% (82/151 evaluable) of ofa pts. Baseline DRS were comparable between groups; however, improvement by at least 1 grade (G) post-baseline was observed in ibr relative to ofa pts for weight loss (100% vs 93%), fatigue (88% vs 72%), night sweats (95% vs 86%), and anorexia (100% vs 64%), respectively. Cumulative MRU was comparable for growth factors and transfusions, with ibr pts having longer median treatment duration: 8.6 months for ibr vs 5.3 for ofa. Hospitalizations in the first 30 days occurred in 2% ibr vs 15% ofa pts. After adjusting for treatment exposure duration, diarrhea, grade 1-2 bleeding events (e.g petechiae), and atrial fibrillation were among those noted to be more frequent on the ibrutinib arm while events such as fatigue, infusion reaction, and peripheral sensory neuropathy were seen more commonly with ofa. Major hemorrhage events were uncommon, observed in 2 patients on the ibr arm vs 3 on ofa arm without adjusting for exposure time. Exposure-adjusted analysis showed no difference in any-grade infection and a 43% relative reduction for grade 3 or higher infections for ibr. Conclusions: Ibr compared to ofa when administered to previously treated CLL/SLL pts led to improvements in hematologic function and disease burden. A survival benefit with ibr, together with sustained improvements in hematologic endpoints and PRO suggest that ibr enhances quality of life while prolonging survival. Table. Sustained hematologic improvement Parameter, n (%) ITT population Pts with cytopenias at baseline Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Platelets 60 (31) 19 (10) <0.0001 53/74 (72) 14/64 (22) <0.0001 ANC 52 (27) 19 (10) <0.0001 26/41 (63) 12/38 (32) 0.0047 Hemoglobin 42 (22) 32 (16) 0.1883 42/89 (47) 32/86 (37) 0.1815 Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Disclosures Barrientos: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Kay:Genetech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mulligan:Roche, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Devereux:Pharmacyclics, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuh:Roche, Gilead, GSK, NAPP, Celgene: Honoraria. Bloor:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dearden:Roche, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Napp: Honoraria. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kierschniak:Pharmacyclics, GmbH: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Suzuki:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Hsu:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Byrd:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.