Keudell, Gottfried R. von

Background: A pivotal clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib with zanubrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) did not achieve its primary endpoint of complete response or very good partial response. In addition, median progression-free survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the absence of treatment effectiveness differentiation based on clinical trial evidence, we conducted a real-world study to assess patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with WM who received ibrutinib or zanubrutinib as first-line (1L) therapy. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the ConcertAI Database to collect claims data of patients with WM aged ≥18 years who initiated single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/day) or zanubrutinib (320 mg/day) as 1L therapy on or after 9/1/2021 (index date). A 6-month washout period of guideline-recommended WM antineoplastic agents was required to confirm 1L status. Patients were excluded if they were receiving ibrutinib and zanubrutinib concurrently, died within 30 days of the index date, had a record of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, had a record of other ibrutinib indications in the 6 months before index, or were participating in a clinical trial. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, therapy duration (number of days between the first and last day of the medication supply), and HRU (all-cause and WM-specific) per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were assessed. Results: The study included 51 patients (ibrutinib, n=30; zanubrutinib, n=21). In both cohorts, most participants were male (ibrutinib, n=20 [67%]; zanubrutinib, n=16 [76%]), and the mean age at baseline was 73 years and 75 years, respectively. At baseline, the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0, and the WM-related and ibrutinib/zanubrutinib-related clinical events were similar between the two cohorts. While the zanubrutinib cohort had a higher prevalence of infections (33% vs 3%) and musculoskeletal pain (24% vs 7%) at baseline, the ibrutinib cohort had a higher prevalence of hypertension (20% vs 14%). The baseline prevalence of anemia was similar in both cohorts (ibrutinib, 27%; zanubrutinib, 29%). Mean follow-up was 6.9 months (ibrutinib) and 6.3 months (zanubrutinib). The mean ± SD duration of therapy was 152 ± 112 days (ibrutinib) and 113 ± 99 days (zanubrutinib; p=0.195). The ibrutinib cohort had a significantly lower all-cause HRU PPPM (4.53 ± 3.96 vs 8.53 ± 6.66, p=0.020) and lower WM-specific HRU PPPM (0.11 ± 0.26 vs 0.54 ± 1.14, p=0.104). Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, patients with WM treated with 1L ibrutinib had a numerically longer duration of therapy and lower all-cause and WM-specific HRU PPPM, compared to those treated with 1L zanubrutinib. Due to a small sample size and short follow-up, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Background: In patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), continuous once-daily ibrutinib-based therapy has been associated with long-term progression-free survival. In addition, patients who continued ibrutinib-based treatment had better survival outcomes than those who discontinued treatment within the first few years. Evidence based on a single-center retrospective study suggests that dose reduction (DR) can be used to effectively manage ibrutinib-related adverse events (AEs) and avoid early treatment discontinuation. However, real-world data on outcomes in patients with WM after ibrutinib DR are limited. In this real-world study, we analyzed short-term (1-year follow-up) dosing patterns and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) in patients with WM, with and without DR, who were receiving first-line (1L) ibrutinib. Methods: Medicare Fee-for-Service closed-claim medical or pharmacy records were used to identify patients diagnosed with WM who initiated 1L single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/day) from January 2014 to December 2020. Observed patients were enrolled in Medicare ≥12 months before and after ibrutinib initiation and had post-initiation AEs (both prevalent and incident AEs with DR recommendation from the US Prescribing Information), as identified via ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes. Ibrutinib DR was defined as a reduction of the starting dose following the first AE within the 1-year follow-up period. Patients without a DR were defined as those who had received ibrutinib 420 mg per day during the 1-year follow-up period. Patients with a DR in the absence of AEs and patients with a DR prior to any AE were excluded from the analysis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, time to first AE, and TTD were analyzed among cohorts with and without DR. TTD was defined and evaluated as the time from first observed AE after ibrutinib initiation to the earliest occurrence of (1) a gap of >120 days between the end of 1L therapy and the follow-up period, (2) initiation of a next line of therapy, or (3) death. TTD was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates. Results: We identified 404 patients (DR, n = 58 [14%]; no DR, 346 [86%]). Overall, 249 patients (62%) were men, 267 patients (66%) had hypertension, 55 patients (14%) had atrial fibrillation, and 114 patients (28%) had other cardiovascular conditions at baseline. The mean ± SD age at baseline was 77 ± 8 years. In both cohorts, the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.0. Among the 404 patients, mean ± SD time from ibrutinib initiation to first AE was 28 ± 44 days. Mean ± SD time between first AE and DR was 137 ± 102 days. Mean TTD was 8.3 months (DR) and 6.2 (no DR) ( P = 0.018; Figure). At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, fewer patients with DR discontinued treatment compared with patients without DR (6 months: 24% vs 46%, P = 0.002; 12 months: 36% vs 50%, P = 0.064). After controlling for baseline and time-varying demographic and clinical characteristics, patients with DR were not significantly more likely to discontinue treatment compared with patients without DR (hazard ratio [95% CI], DR vs no DR: 1.24 [0.86-1.78]). Conclusion: These short-term (1-year follow-up) findings suggest TTD was not impacted by DR of ibrutinib following AEs. Thus, ibrutinib DR can be an effective strategy to manage AEs while maintaining clinical efficacy. Of note, causal association between AE and subsequent DR cannot be inferred from the claims database due to the cross-sectional nature of this study.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.