Back to Authors

Dreiling, Lyndah

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0134-733X

Mayo Clinic

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals (United States)

Citations 2

CNS activity of poziotinib in NSCLC with exon 20 insertion mutations.
Le, Xiuning , Tchekmedyian, Nishan , Molina, Julian R. , Baik, Christina S. , Leu, Sharon, Dreiling, Lyndah , Lebel, François , Clarke, Jeffrey , Garassino, Marina Chiara , Cornelissen, Robin , Socinski, Mark A.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 2, 2021 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 9093-9093

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.9093 Get It

9093 Background: Treatment addressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR or HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations remains an unmet need. These tumors are associated with a high incidence of CNS metastases and unfavorable survival rates. Poziotinib is a potent, irreversible, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with a structure that can overcome the steric hindrance of the exon 20 limited binding pocket. Preclinical data suggest poziotinib CNS penetration, and here we show meaningful poziotinib CNS activity in patients with NSCLC harboring exon 20 insertion mutations in an ongoing multi-cohort, multi-center Phase 2 study (ZENITH20; NCT03318939). Methods: ZENITH20 enrolled previously treated and naïve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and EGFR or HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations in several cohorts: Cohort 1 (C1) EGFR previously treated; Cohort 2 (C2) HER2 previously treated and Cohort 3 (C3) EGFR treatment-naïve. All patients with stable CNS metastases at baseline were included. Poziotinib (16 mg) was administered orally QD, with follow-up for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was Objective Response Rate (ORR) evaluated centrally using RECIST v1.1 by an independent image review committee. Secondary endpoints included Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of Response (DOR), Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and safety. Primary efficacy results have been previously released. Intracranial response was determined based on the modified RECIST criteria. Results: A total of 284 patients across 3 cohorts (C1 n=115; and C2 n=90; and C3 n=79) with a median age of 60.5 years were enrolled. The median follow-up was 7.3, 8.3, and 9.2 months for all patients in C1, C2, and C3, respectively. In NSCLC patients that had baseline CNS lesions (N=36), the analysis showed a patient-based ORR of 22.2% (8/36) and a DCR of 88.9% (32/36). One patient in each cohort had a complete intracranial response and stable disease was 80.6% across 3 cohorts and 92.9% in C2. Two patients each in C1 and C3 had progressive disease (PD) and none had CNS progression in C2 (Table). Conclusions: Poziotinib exhibited clinically meaningful CNS activity in patients with EGFR or HER2 exon 20 mutations in ZENITH20 Cohorts 1-3. The majority of the patients had no CNS progression and 3/36 patients had intracranial complete responses. The preliminary data suggest that poziotinib may provide a meaningful treatment alternative for patients with NSCLC that harbor EGFR or HER2 exon 20 mutations and who present with CNS metastases that have poor prognosis. Clinical trial information: NCT03318939. [Table: see text]
Risk Model for Overall Survival for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Validated for Patients on Ibrutinib, Idelalisib, Venetoclax, or Chemoimmunotherapy
Soumerai, Jacob D. , Darif, Mohamed, Londhe, Anil, Xing, Guan , Mun, Yong, Shanafelt, Tait D. , Chaffee, Kari G. , Furman, Richard R. , Sharman, Jeff P. , Seymour, John F. , Chanan‐Khan, Asher , Byrd, John C. , Jones, Jeffrey A. , Ferrante, Lucille, Dreiling, Lyndah , Mobasher, Mehrdad, Stark, Thomas , Reddy, Vijay , Howes, Angela, James, Danelle F. , Bhargava, Pankaj , Byrd, John C. , Shanafelt, Tait D , Soumerai, Jacob D , Ni, Ai , Kay, Neil E. , Hillmen, Peter , Stark, Thomas, Zelenetz, Andrew D. , Byrd, John C

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4394-4394

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112989 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.