MacDonald, David

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

Abstract Introduction: The NCIC CTG previously reported the results of a dose-finding trial testing the combination of Melphalan (M) and Lenalidomide (L) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem cell transplantation because of older age and/or comorbidity (White, Blood2007; 110: 63a). Using a 28-day schedule, M (dose indicated as mg/m2/day given on days 1–4) and L (dose indicated in mg/day given on days 1–21) was associated with excess toxicity with the regimens M9L10, M4L15 and M6L10. We concluded that phase II testing of M5L10 was warranted and now report the results of this testing. Methods: Previously untreated symptomatic and consenting patients with tissue-confirmed plasmacytosis and a measurable M-protein were eligible provided that they had acceptable hematologic and biochemical laboratory parameters and no precluding comorbidities. Planned treatment consisted of M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21, given every 28 days for 12 cycles. As our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M occurring within the first 3 treatment cycles. Responses to treatment were classified using 1998 EBMT criteria and assessed after 2 and 6 cycles of therapy. Results: The intended sample size was 41 patients; 35 patients (1 ineligible) were enrolled before the study was closed due to observing a frequency of DLTs that surpassed predefined boundaries. Of the 34 eligible patients, median age was 73.4 yrs and ISS was stage I = 13, stage II = 11 and stage III = 10. Prior to study closure, 27 patients were evaluable for DLT; 7 (26%) did not experience a DLT. Among the remaining 20 (74%) patients, non-hematologic (N=2) and hematologic (N=18) DLTs requiring dose attenuations were seen within the first 3 treatment cycles; the H-DLTs included severe or prolonged neutropenia (N=11), thrombocytopenia (N=2) or both (N=5). One fatal serious adverse event was observed, this was due to a stroke. The other non-hematologic DLT was a cranial nerve III palsy which subsequently resolved. Responses after 2 cycles were evaluable in 21 patients and included partial response (PR) = 11, minimal response = 6, no change = 2 and progressive disease (PD) = 2. For those patients without PD after 2 cycles, responses after 6 cycles were evaluable in 8 and included PR = 6, stable response = 1 and PD = 1. Conclusion: Although M + L is an active combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. Without the routine use of GCSF, the doses used in the MY.11 study were not tolerable. Inability to use planned doses may have compromised the efficacy of the combination.

Abstract Introduction. The NCIC CTG is conducting phase II testing to establish the tolerability and estimate the efficacy of combining lenalidomide (L) + melphalan (M) over multiple cycles for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. We report the data from the preliminary safety phase of this trial. Methods. The MY.11 trial was initially designed as a randomized phase II test of M 9 mg/m2 given on days 1–4 (M9) plus either L 10 mg (L10) or 20 mg given on days 1–21 of a 28 day cycle. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included, but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted; our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF. A dose attenuation schedule was developed for neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia that was severe and occurred during the administration of L or was persistent and caused a delay in the next treatment cycle. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M. Prior to the randomized phase of the trial, a safety run-in phase testing M9+L10 in 6 patients was planned; closure of this arm was to occur if, during the first 3 treatment cycles, there were ≥ 3 H-DLTs or any non-hematologic serious adverse event (SAE) judged to be treatment related. Four of the planned 6 patients were entered; during their first 3 treatment cycles, each experienced a H-DLT and one died from sepsis. The study was therefore amended with the intent to conduct a randomized phase II test of M 4 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 15 mg days 1–21 (M4L15) and M 6 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 10 mg days 1–21 (M6L10). Prior to the randomized phase of testing, each regimen was tested in non-randomized safety run-ins that included 6 patients per arm. The same parameters as above for study arm closure were applied. If the M6L10 arm was closed, the trial would proceed to test M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21 (M5L10). Results. Six patients were enrolled to M4L15: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 4 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia and one other patient experienced an SAE related to hallucinations and multiple constitutional complaints. This arm was therefore closed to accrual. Six patients were enrolled to M6L10: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 3 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia. One of these patients was hospitalized with pulmonary edema and another with febrile neutropenia. This arm was therefore closed and the MY.11 trial amended to proceed as a single-arm phase II testing M5L10. Conclusion. Although M + L holds promise as an effective combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. The efficacy of the combination when given at tolerable doses remains to be established.