Buckstein, Rena

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts 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). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 1676 Poster Board I-702 Introduction Aggressive NHL (a-NHL) comprises a heterogeneous group of B-cell malignancies, each characterized by a unique histology and molecular markers. The most common types are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), transformed lymphoma (TL), follicular grade III (FL-III), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Although initial therapy can be effective, up to 40% of patients with DLBCL either fail to respond or relapse after initial therapy (Habermann TM et al JCO 2006), and relapses are likely among patients with MCL. For such patients survival outcomes are particularly poor with few effective treatment options available. Lenalidomide (Revlimid®), an immunomodulatory agent with anti-proliferative as well as apoptotic activity was tested in a pilot study and demonstrated a 35% overall response rate (ORR) with a median duration of response (DR) of 10.4 months (Wiernik et al 2008 EHA. Abst: 764). Based on these encouraging data, we performed a large, international, confirmatory phase 2 study to assess the safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed of refractory DLBCL or MCL (CC-5013-NHL-003). Methods Patients were required to have relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL after ≥1 prior therapies and have at least one measurable lesion '2 cm. Patients received oral lenalidomide 25 mg once daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle, and continued therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results 217 patients were enrolled and received lenalidomide with 108 (50%) DLBCL, 57 (26%) MCL, 19 (9%) FL-III, and 33 (15%) TL (Table 1). The median age was 66 yrs (range, 21–87), 97 patients (45%) had intermediate (3) or high (4–5) IPI scores, and the median time from diagnosis was 2.7 yrs (range, 0.04–20.6). Patients had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1–13), and rituximab was included as a part of the prior therapy in 94% (205/217) of patients. The ORR for all 217 patients was 35% (77/217), with 13% (29/217) complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu), 22% (48/217) partial response (PR), and 21% (46/217) with stable disease (SD). Responses were observed in all histological types (Table 1). Patients with a prior stem cell transplantation had a 37% ORR (27/73). The ORR was 28% (27/95) in those patients who were refractory to their last therapy, and 33% (38/116) in patients who were rituximab refractory (defined as <6 months response or no response). Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.5, 4.4) and the median DR for the 77 responders was 11.6 months (95% CI, 6.2, not reached [NR]). The primary side effect of lenalidomide was reversible myelosuppression. Grades 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 41%, thrombocytopenia in 19%, anemia in 9%, and leucopenia in 7% of patients. Adverse events caused dose reductions or interruptions in 44% (96/217) of patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 22% (48/217). Conclusion This international study supports earlier pilot-study results showing that lenalidomide has promising anti-tumor activity in aggressive B-cell NHL, with a predictable and treatable toxicity profile. These data warrant further evaluation of lenalidomide in combination with other regimens in the treatment of each histological subtype, and further exploration of lenalidomide in the maintenance setting. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding. Zinzani:Celgene: Research Funding. Guo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pietronigro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment. Czuczman:Celgene: Research Funding.

Purpose Decitabine, a DNA-targeted hypomethylating agent, is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) on a schedule of 15 mg/m2 administered via intravenous (IV) infusion every 8 hours for 3 days. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of an alternative dosing regimen administered on an outpatient basis in academic and community-based practices. Patients and Methods Patients were treated with decitabine 20 mg/m2 by IV infusion daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age and had MDS (de novo or secondary) of any French-American-British (FAB) subtype and an International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score ≥ 0.5. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR) by International Working Group (IWG 2006) criteria; secondary end points included cytogenetic responses, hematologic improvement (HI), response duration, survival, and safety. Results Ninety-nine patients were enrolled; the ORR was 32% (17 complete responses [CR] plus 15 marrow CRs [mCRs]), and the overall improvement rate was 51%, which included 18% HI. Similar response rates were observed in all FAB subtypes and IPSS risk categories. Among patients who improved, 82% demonstrated responses by the end of cycle 2. Among 33 patients assessable for a cytogenetic response, 17 (52%) experienced cytogenetic CR (n = 11) or partial response (n = 6). Conclusion Decitabine given on a 5-day schedule provided meaningful clinical benefit for patients with MDS, with more than half demonstrating improvement. This suggests that decitabine can be administered in an outpatient setting with comparable efficacy and safety to the United States Food and Drug Administration–approved inpatient regimen.