Buckstein, Rena

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are clonal diseases that differ in morphologic diagnostic criteria but share some common disease phenotypes that include cytopenias, propensity to acute myeloid leukemia evolution, and a substantially shortened patient survival. MDS/MPNs share many clinical and molecular features with MDS, including frequent mutations involving epigenetic modifier and/or spliceosome genes. Although the current 2016 World Health Organization classification incorporates some genetic features in its diagnostic criteria for MDS and MDS/MPNs, recent accumulation of data has underscored the importance of the mutation profiles on both disease classification and prognosis. Machine-learning algorithms have identified distinct molecular genetic signatures that help refine prognosis and notable associations of these genetic signatures with morphologic and clinical features. Combined geno-clinical models that incorporate mutation data seem to surpass the current prognostic schemes. Future MDS classification and prognostication schema will be based on the portfolio of genetic aberrations and traditional features, such as blast count and clinical factors. Arriving at these systems will require studies on large patient cohorts that incorporate advanced computational analysis. The current treatment algorithm in MDS is based on patient risk as derived from existing prognostic and disease classes. Luspatercept is newly approved for patients with MDS and ring sideroblasts who are transfusion dependent after erythropoietic-stimulating agent failure. Other agents that address red blood cell transfusion dependence in patients with lower-risk MDS and the failure of hypomethylating agents in higher-risk disease are in advanced testing. Finally, a plethora of novel targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors are being evaluated in combination with a hypomethylating agent backbone to augment the depth and duration of response and, we hope, improve overall survival.

8569 Introduction: Relapsed or refractory MCL patients demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median duration of response (DR) of 13.7 months to single-agent lenalidomide when analyzed as a subset in a recent a phase II study (NHL-002). A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: Fifty-four MCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 69 years (33–82) and 40 patients (74%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 3.2 years (0.4–10.4), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatments (1–8), 17 of the patients (32%) had received prior bortezomib therapy (MCL-bortezomib), and 14 (26%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (MCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (22%) and anemia (11%). Conclusions: This is the second study to demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

e19504 Background: Patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are not cured with R-CHOP or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a dismal prognosis. A recent phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR) in the subset of patients with DLBCL. A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: One hundred-three DLBCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 66 years (21–87) and 70 patients (68%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 2 years (0.4–18.6), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatment regimens (1–10) and 46 of the patients (45%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (DLBCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table . Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (18%), asthenia (9%), anemia (8%), leucopenia (7%), back pain (6%) and dyspnea (6%). Conclusions: This international study demonstrates that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL and has manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common of the non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Patients with DLBCL who are not cured by treatment with R-CHOP chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue have a poor prognosis. These patients reflect a clear unmet need in the treatment of DLBCL. A previous sub-analysis of a phase II trial (NHL-002) of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, demonstrated a 19% overall response rate (ORR) with a 7-month median duration of response (DR). A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. Herein, we report the data from the DLBCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients received 25 mg oral lenalidomide once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle and continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 73 DLBCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. The median age was 67 (21–87) years and 49 (67%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 2 (0–18.6) years, and patients had received a median of 3 (1–6) prior treatment regimens. The ORR to lenalidomide was 29% (21/73), with 4% complete response (3/73) and 25% partial response (18/73). Eleven patients (15%) had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (15%), asthenia (8%) and anemia (7%). Conclusion: These results of this international study confirm that lenalidomide is active in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with manageable side effects.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma that if not cured with aggressive chemoimmunotherapy and stem cell transplant is usually fatal. The intravenous proteasome inhibitor bortezomib produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 33% in patients with relapsed MCL (J Clin Oncol2006;24(30):4867–74). Unfortunately, most patients eventually relapse and new agents are needed for this disease. Two recently conducted phase II trials (NHL-002 and NHL-003) tested single-agent lenalidomide for patients with relapsed MCL. Fifty-four patients with MCL were enrolled into the two studies; 26% (14/54) had received prior bortezomib and they are the subject of this report. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least one prior treatment regimen including prior bortezomib were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Therapy was continued as tolerated or until disease progression. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: The 14 patients in this study were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 (2–6) prior treatments (including bortezomib) and 50% were bortezomib-refractory. Median age was 66 (45–84) years and 6 (43%) patients were female. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.3 (0.7–7.6) years. The ORR with lenalidomide was 57% (8/14), including 21% (3/14) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR and 36% (5/14) partial responses. One (7%) patient had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (43%), anemia (21%), fatigue (21%), and leukopenia (21%). Neutropenic fever occurred in 7% of patients. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is very effective with manageable side effects in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who had received prior treatment with bortezomib.

Abstract Introduction: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that typically responds to initial chemo-immunotherapy, but with a relatively short duration of response (DR) and progression-free survival (PFS) when treated with conventional chemotherapy agents. Although the overall survival (OS) of MCL has improved, most patients are not cured and new agents are needed. A sub-analysis of a recent phase II trial (NHL-002) investigating the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median DR of 11.9 months. A confirmatory international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL that had received at least one prior treatment and had measurable disease. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease ≥2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: This report focuses on the 39 MCL patients that were enrolled and evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 66 (33–82) years and 29 (74%) patients were male. Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide treatment was 3.4 (0.4–9) years. Patients had received a median of 3 (1–8) prior treatments, and 23% (9/39) of patients had received prior bortezomib treatment. The ORR with lenalidomide was 41% (16/39), including 13% (5/39) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR, and 28% (11/39) partial responses. Ten (26%) patients had stable disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), anemia (13%), fatigue (10%) and febrile neutropenia (10%). Conclusion: These results confirm that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects.

Abstract Decitabine (Dacogen®), a hypomethylating agent, is FDA-approved for treatment of patients (pts) with all FAB subtypes of MDS. The approved regimen of 15 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) over 3 hours (hrs) every (q) 8 hrs for 3 days repeating q 6 wks demonstrated an overall improvement rate (CR+PR+HI) of 30% in MDS pts. An alternative regimen, in which decitabine is administered 20 mg/m2 IV over 1 hr once daily for 5 consecutive days repeating q 4 wks not only permits outpatient therapy, but also showed promising efficacy in a pilot study (Blood2007:109:52). This alternate regimen was evaluated in a multicenter study and preliminary results from this open-label single-arm Phase 2 study are reported. Eligible pts were ≥18 years (yrs) of age with MDS (de novo or secondary) of any FAB subtype (including chronic myelomonocytic leukemia with white count <12,000/μL) and International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score ≥ 0.5 (Intermediate-1 (Int-1), Intermediate-2 (Int-2) and High-risk groups) as determined by complete blood counts, bone marrow assessment, and cytogenetics within 28 days of enrollment. Responses, the primary endpoint of the study, were assessed using International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Blood2000;96:3671), which existed at study initiation and also used in the Phase 3 trial with the FDA-approved 3-day regimen. Secondary objectives included evaluation of hematologic improvement, cytogenetic response, overall survival, time to acute myeloid leukemia progression or death, transfusion requirements, and toxicity. Ninety-nine pts enrolled: median age 72 yrs, 72% male, 89% de novo MDS, median time from diagnosis 153 days, and 29% with prior therapy for MDS. The distribution of IPSS risk groups was as follows: Low, 1%; Int-1, 53%; Int-2, 23%; and High, 23%. Pts have thus far been followed for one year after enrollment of the last pt, and the preliminary data are reported here. Investigator assessments of response, using pathology results at the individual study sites along with laboratory findings, demonstrated an overall improvement rate of 43%; central confirmation of results is ongoing. Pts received a median of 5 cycles of decitabine (range 1–17). Median survival has not been reached; a total of 62 pts continue to be followed. The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, fever, constipation, nausea, and neutropenia. Decitabine administered daily for 5 days in the outpatient setting demonstrated clinical activity with manageable toxicity profile in Int-1 to High risk MDS, suggesting that both the 3- and 5-day regimens provide meaningful clinical benefit to patients.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.