Zinzani, Pier Luigi

Abstract Purpose: Tafasitamab, an Fc-modified, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, in combination with lenalidomide, demonstrated efficacy in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), in the single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). RE-MIND, a retrospective observational study, generated a historic control for L-MIND to delineate the contribution of tafasitamab to the efficacy of the combination. Patients and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with R/R DLBCL treated with lenalidomide monotherapy for comparison with tafasitamab + lenalidomide–treated patients (L-MIND). Key eligibility criteria were aligned with L-MIND. Estimated propensity score–based Nearest Neighbor 1:1 Matching methodology balanced the cohorts for nine prespecified prognostic baseline covariates. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Data from 490 patients going through lenalidomide monotherapy were collected; 140 qualified for matching with the L-MIND cohort. The primary analysis included 76 patients from each cohort who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg/day. Cohort baseline covariates were comparable. A significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 55.4–77.5) was observed for the combination therapy versus 34.2% (23.7–46.0) for lenalidomide monotherapy [odds ratio, 3.89 (1.90–8.14); P < 0.0001]. Higher CR rates were achieved with combination therapy compared with lenalidomide monotherapy [39.5% (28.4–51.4) vs. 13.2% (6.5–22.9)]. Survival endpoints favored combination therapy. Lenalidomide monotherapy outcomes were similar to previously published data. Conclusions: RE-MIND enabled the estimation of the additional treatment effect achieved by combining tafasitamab with lenalidomide in patients with R/R DLBCL.

AbstractIdiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare immunologic disorder characterized by systemic inflammation, multicentric lymphadenopathy, and organ dysfunction. Enlarged lymph nodes demonstrate a spectrum of characteristic but variable histopathologic features historically categorized into hyaline vascular (HV) (or hypervascular [HyperV] more recently), plasmacytic, or “mixed.” Though the etiology is unknown, a pro‐inflammatory cytokine storm, often involving interleukin‐6 (IL‐6), contributes to pathogenesis. Anti‐IL‐6 therapy with siltuximab is the only FDA‐ or EMA‐approved treatment based on efficacy and safety in multiple studies. Importantly, no patients considered to have HV histopathology achieved the primary endpoint in the Phase II study. NCCN currently recommends siltuximab first‐line for iMCD, except for patients considered to have HV histopathology. We investigated whether histopathologic subtype should guide siltuximab treatment decisions. Secondary analyses of clinical trial and real‐world data revealed similar clinical benefit across histopathologic subtypes. Notably, only 18 of 79 patients in the Phase II study were consistently classified into histopathologic subtype by three independent review panels, demonstrating limited reliability to guide treatment decisions. Real‐world data further demonstrate siltuximab's effectiveness in patients considered to have HV (or HyperV). Though histopathology is a critical component for diagnosis, there is insufficient evidence to guide treatment based solely on lymph node histopathologic subtype.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of heterogeneous hematologic disorders with characteristic histopathological features. CD can present with unicentric or multicentric (MCD) regions of lymph node enlargement. Some cases of MCD are caused by human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), whereas others are HHV-8–negative/idiopathic (iMCD). Treatment of iMCD is challenging, and outcomes can be poor because no uniform treatment guidelines exist, few systematic studies have been conducted, and no agreed upon response criteria have been described. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on the severity of iMCD to improve outcomes. An international Working Group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network to establish consensus guidelines for the management of iMCD based on published literature, review of treatment effectiveness for 344 cases, and expert opinion. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab (or tocilizumab, if siltuximab is not available) with or without corticosteroids is the preferred first-line therapy for iMCD. In the most severe cases, adjuvant combination chemotherapy is recommended. Additional agents are recommended, tailored by disease severity, as second- and third-line therapies for treatment failures. Response criteria were formulated to facilitate the evaluation of treatment failure or success. These guidelines should help treating physicians to stratify patients based on disease severity in order to select the best available therapeutic option. An international registry for patients with CD (ACCELERATE, #NCT02817997) was established in October 2016 to collect patient outcomes to increase the evidence base for selection of therapies in the future.

AbstractMantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with aggressive disease characteristics resulting in multiple relapses after initial treatment. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent approved in the US for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL following bortezomib based on results from 3 multicenter phase II studies (2 including relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL and 1 focusing on MCL post‐bortezomib). The purpose of this report is to provide longer follow‐up on the MCL‐001 study (follow‐ups were 6.8 [NHL‐002], 7.6 [NHL‐003], and 52.2 [MCL‐001] months). The 206 relapsed MCL patients treated with single‐agent lenalidomide (25 mg/day PO, days 1 to 21 every 28‐days) had a median age of 67 years (63% ≥65 years), 91% with stage III/IV disease, and 50% with ≥4 previous treatment regimens. With a median follow‐up of X, the combined best overall response rate (ORR) was 33% (including 11% with complete remission [CR]/CR unconfirmed CRu). Lenalidomide produced rapid and durable responses with a median time to response of 2.2 months and median duration of response (DOR) of 16.6 months (95% CI: 11.1%‐29.8%). The safety profile was consistent and manageable; myelosuppression was the most common adverse event (AE). Overall, single‐agent lenalidomide showed consistent efficacy and safety in multiple phase II studies of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, including those previously treated with bortezomib.

Abstract Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550). Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.

Key Points HSCT after PD-1 blockade is feasible, although may be associated with increased early immune toxicity. PD-1 blockade may cause persistent depletion of PD1+ T cells and alterations in T-cell differentiation impacting subsequent treatment.

AbstractHairy cell leukemia is an uncommon hematologic malignancy characterized by pancytopenia and marked susceptibility to infection. Tremendous progress in the management of patients with this disease has resulted in high response rates and improved survival, yet relapse and an appropriate approach to re-treatment present continuing areas for research. The disease and its effective treatment are associated with immunosuppression. Because more patients are being treated with alternative programs, comparison of results will require general agreement on definitions of response, relapse, and methods of determining minimal residual disease. The development of internationally accepted, reproducible criteria is of paramount importance in evaluating and comparing clinical trials to provide optimal care. Despite the success achieved in managing these patients, continued participation in available clinical trials in the first-line and particularly in the relapse setting is highly recommended. The Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation convened an international conference to provide common definitions and structure to guide current management. There is substantial opportunity for continued research in this disease. In addition to the importance of optimizing the prevention and management of the serious risk of infection, organized evaluations of minimal residual disease and treatment at relapse offer ample opportunities for clinical research. Finally, a scholarly evaluation of quality of life in the increasing number of survivors of this now manageable chronic illness merits further study. The development of consensus guidelines for this disease offers a framework for continued enhancement of the outcome for patients.

Abstract Primary lymphoma of the lung is a rare entity. Clinical features, optimal treatment, role of surgery and outcomes are not well defined, and the follow‐up is variable in published data. Clinical data of 205 patients who were confirmed to have bronchus mucosa‐associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma from December 1986 to December 2011 in 17 different centres worldwide were evaluated. Fifty‐five per cent of the patients were female. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (range 28–88) years. Only 9% had a history of exposure to toxic substances, while about 45% of the patients had a history of smoking. Ten per cent of the patients had autoimmune disease at presentation, and 19% patients had a reported preexisting lung disease. Treatment modalities included surgery alone in 63 patients (30%), radiotherapy in 3 (2%), antibiotics in 1 (1%) and systemic treatment in 128 (62%). Patients receiving a local approach, mainly surgical resection, experienced significantly improved progression‐free survival ( p = 0.003) versus those receiving a systemic treatment. There were no other significant differences among treatment modalities. The survival data confirm the indolent nature of the disease. Local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) results in long‐term disease‐free survival for patients with localized disease. Systemic treatment, including alkylating‐containing regimens, can be reserved to patients in relapse after incomplete surgical excision or for patients with advanced disease. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SummaryPatients with aggressive non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who relapse after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have a poor prognosis. Additional therapy is often poorly tolerated, and new treatment modalities are needed. This efficacy and safety study was a retrospective analysis of two phase II trials (NHL‐002 and NHL‐003) that studied single‐agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with prior (n = 87) compared with no prior ASCT (n = 179). The overall response rate in the ASCT group was 39% [14% complete response (CR)], including 29% in patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma, 63% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 60% in transformed lymphoma. The timing of transplant relative to receiving lenalidomide had no effect on outcomes. Median progression‐free survival for the ASCT group was 3·7 months (16·9 months for patients in CR; 7·3 months for partial responders) at a median 12·5‐month follow‐up. Median response duration was 7·9 months. Regardless of prior ASCT, lenalidomide monotherapy was efficacious in heavily pretreated patients with aggressive, relapsed/refractory NHL, with a safety profile that was consistent with prior studies of single‐agent lenalidomide.