Darif, Mohamed

PURPOSE The double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We report the final analyses for overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to ixazomib-Rd (n = 360) or placebo-Rd (n = 362), stratified by number of prior therapies (1 v 2 or 3), previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure (yes v no), and International Staging System disease stage (I or II v III). OS (intent-to-treat population) was a key secondary end point. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 85 months, median OS with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd was 53.6 versus 51.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.939; P = .495). Lower hazard ratios, indicating larger magnitude of OS benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, were seen in predefined subgroups: refractory to any (0.794) or last (0.742) treatment line; age > 65-75 years (0.757); International Staging System stage III (0.779); 2/3 prior therapies (0.845); high-risk cytogenetics (0.870); and high-risk cytogenetics and/or 1q21 amplification (0.862). Following ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, 71.7% versus 69.9% of patients received ≥ 1 anticancer therapy, of whom 24.7% versus 33.9% received daratumumab and 71.8% versus 76.9% received PIs (next-line therapy: 47.5% v 55.8%). Rates of new primary malignancies were similar with ixazomib-Rd (10.3%) and placebo-Rd (11.9%). There were no new or additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION Median OS values in both arms were the longest reported in phase III studies of Rd-based triplets in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at the time of this analysis; progression-free survival benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit on intent-to-treat analysis. OS benefit was greater in subgroups with adverse prognostic factors. OS interpretation was confounded by imbalances in subsequent therapies received, especially PIs and daratumumab.

8020 Background: MM patients (pts) often receive several lines of therapy with multiple drug combinations and, as lenalidomide (R)-containing regimens are commonly used as first-line therapy, R-free options for subsequent lines are necessary. Additionally, as pts age and become less tolerant to treatment, more convenient regimens, such as all-oral options, with less toxicity are needed. Dexamethasone (dex)-based doublets are effective and tolerable in this setting. Methods: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-exposed and/or intolerant and R-refractory pts who had ≥2 prior therapies (N = 122) were randomized 3:2 to receive: ixazomib (ixa) 4 mg (5.5 mg from cycle 2 if tolerated) on day (d) 1, 8, 15, and dex 20 mg (≥75 years [yrs], 10 mg) on d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23; or pomalidomide (pom) 4 mg on d 1–21, and dex 40 mg (≥75 yrs, 20 mg) on d 1, 8, 15, 22, in 28-d cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by age ( < 65 vs ≥65 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at study entry (I/II vs III), and prior lines of therapy (2 vs ≥3). The study was powered to test the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the ixa-dex (n = 73) vs pom-dex (n = 49) arms, median age was 72 vs 68 yrs (36% vs 18% ≥75 yrs), 25% vs 22% of pts had ISS stage III MM, and 52% vs 53% had received ≥3 prior therapies (per stratification). At data cutoff (5/31/2020), 19% vs 20% of pts were ongoing on treatment with ixa-dex vs pom-dex; primary reasons for discontinuation were PD (47% vs 57%) and adverse events (AEs; 23% vs 12%). With median follow-up of 15.3 vs 17.3 months (mos), median PFS (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 mos with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.847; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.535–1.341; p = 0.477); the Table shows mPFS by prior lines, and secondary endpoints. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with both ixa-dex (range 1–25) and pom-dex (range 1–27); 64% of ixa-dex pts were able to escalate to a 5.5 mg dose of ixa. 69% vs 81% of ixa-dex vs pom-dex pts had grade (G) ≥3 AEs, 51% vs 53% had serious AEs, 39% vs 36% had an AE leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EORTC QLQ-C30/MY20, and EQ-5D-5L) was maintained, and similar between arms. Conclusions: Ixa-dex prolonged PFS vs pom-dex in these heavily pretreated, PI-exposed and/or intolerant, R-refractory pts, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ixa-dex was well tolerated, with lower G≥3 AE rates vs pom-dex, and comparable HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03170882.

Abstract Lessons Learned Background Endoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. Methods TRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 Results A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. Conclusion The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.

Abstract Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is a therapeutic modality indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade, follicular, or transformed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), where the mechanism of action involves the intrinsic activity of the monoclonal antibody and the cytotoxic effects of radiation. The primary toxicity is a late-occurring, transient, and reversible myelosuppression. Because of concerns regarding the long-term effects of radiation on the bone marrow, we investigated the incidence of treatment-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) and treatment-related acute myelogenous leukemia (t-AML) after ibritumomab tiuxetan RIT. A total of 746 patients with NHL were treated with the ibritumomab tiuxetan regimen in registration and compassionate-use trials between 1996 and 2002. Patients had a median age of 61 years (range, 24–87) and had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 0–9+). The crude incidence of t-MDS or t-AML was 2.3% (17/746), with an incidence of 4.7% (10/211) in patients enrolled in registration trials and of only 1.3% (7/535) in patients included in the compassionate-use trial, with a median follow-up of 5.7 and 3.5 years, respectively. These malignancies were documented at a median of 5.6 years (range, 1.2–13.9) after the diagnosis of NHL and 1.5 years (range, 0.1–5.8) after RIT. The annualized rates were 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%–0.4%) a year after the diagnosis of NHL and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%–1.0%) a year after RIT. Cox multivariate regression analysis found that previous treatment with a purine nucleoside analog was a significant risk factor for t-MDS or t-AML (hazard ratio, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.5–10.4]; P = .006). All patients in whom t-MDS or t-AML developed and in whom cytogenetic data were available (n = 15) had multiple cytogenetic aberrations, commonly of chromosomes 5 and 7, suggesting an association with previous exposure to chemotherapy. There were documented bone marrow cytogenetic abnormalities before treatment in 2 patients who developed t-MDS or t-AML. These data suggest that the annualized incidence of t-MDS or t-AML following ibritumomab tiuxetan RIT is consistent with that expected on the basis of the patients’ history of treatment for NHL. Cytogenetic testing before administration of RIT may identify existing chromosomal abnormalities in previously treated patients, particularly in those who have been treated with alkylating agents and/or purine nucleoside analogs and who are thereby at a higher risk for t-MDS or t-AML.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Purpose To investigate the incidence of treatment-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) and treatment-related acute myelogenous leukemia (t-AML) after treatment with ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy. Patients and Methods Analysis of the incidence of t-MDS and t-AML in 746 patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) treated with the ibritumomab tiuxetan regimen in registration and compassionate-use trials between 1996 and 2002. Results Nineteen patients (2.5%) developed t-MDS or t-AML at a median follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 0 to 9.3). These malignancies were diagnosed at a median of 5.6 years (range, 1.4 to 13.9) after the diagnosis of NHL and 1.9 years (range, 0.4 to 6.3) after radioimmunotherapy. The annualized rates were 0.3% per year after the diagnosis of NHL and 0.7% per year after treatment. Most patients with t-MDS or t-AML had multiple cytogenetic aberrations, commonly on chromosomes 5 and 7, suggesting an association with previous exposure to chemotherapy. Conclusion Analysis of data from patients in registration and compassionate-use trials suggests that the annualized incidences of t-MDS and t-AML are consistent with that expected in patients with NHL who have had extensive previous chemotherapy treatment and do not appear to be increased after treatment with the ibritumomab tiuxetan regimen. Cytogenetic testing before treatment with radioimmunotherapy may identify existing chromosomal abnormalities in previously treated patients, particularly those who have been treated with alkylating agents and purine nucleoside analogs and would be at higher risk for t-MDS or t-AML.

Abstract We previously demonstrated that yttrium-90 (Y-90) ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) radioimmunotherapy (RIT) was safe and effective for relapsed or refractory CD20+, B-cell, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We now provide long-term follow-up data in responding patients based on International Workshop Response Criteria. Complete (CR), CR unconfirmed (CRu), and partial response (PR) rates were 29%, 22%, and 22%, respectively (overall response rate 73%, 51% in CR/CRu). Mean time to progression (TTP) and duration of response (DR) in responders were 12.6 months and 11.7 months, respectively. At the maximum tolerated dose (0.4 mCi/kg [14.8 MBq/kg]), TTP and DR in complete responders (CR/CRu) were 28.3 and 27.5 months, respectively. Nine patients (24% of responding patients) had a TTP of more than 3 years. Long-term responders (&gt; 5 years) have been identified. Ibritumomab tiuxetan produces durable responses in patients with indolent and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. (Blood. 2004;103:4429-4431)