Iyer, Swaminathan P.

Introduction: ELA026 is a first-in-class human monoclonal antibody directed against signal regulatory protein (SIRP)α/β1/γ and is under clinical investigation in secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH). sHLH is a life-threatening hyperinflammatory condition caused by failure to terminate the activation and proliferation of natural killer (NK), T cells and macrophages after an initial immune response. There are no approved therapies for sHLH. With a mortality rate of approximately 50% at 2 months (Lionel et al. 2023), malignancy-associated HLH (mHLH) is the deadliest subtype of sHLH. Cytotoxic, multi-agent chemotherapy (including etoposide) does not address the poor prognosis associated with mHLH (Xie et al. 2013). Directly targeting the pathogenic SIRP(+) myeloid cells and T lymphocytes represents a novel approach to resolving this severe hyperinflammatory condition. Methods: This is an open-label, single-arm, Phase 1b global multicenter study (NCT05416307) evaluating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ELA026 in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed and previously treated sHLH. The study is expanding enrollment to evaluate a fixed-dose regimen consisting of a priming phase of 0.1 mg/kg Day 1 and 0.3 mg/kg Days 2-4, followed by a maintenance phase of 0.5 mg/kg twice weekly beginning on Day 8. ELA026 is administered intravenously, with the option to transition to subcutaneous administration upon hospital discharge. The treatment period is 12 weeks with the option to extend in patients deriving ongoing clinical benefits. Enrollment in this cohort is restricted to frontline settings based on the experience that relapsed/refractory sHLH patients exhibited poor survival even with HLH disease control and died from complications related to severe baseline comorbidities. Response is evaluated using a modified HLH-2004 criteria (Locatelli et al. 2020) and survival is calculated from the time of HLH diagnosis. All patients receive dexamethasone as background therapy and premedication initially. Patients with mHLH may also receive cancer-directed therapies concurrently. Primary pharmacodynamic (PD) effects (monocyte and lymphocyte reduction) and secondary PD effects (C-reactive protein [CRP], ferritin, and sCD25 reduction) were best evaluated and attributed to ELA026 during windows of treatment without concurrent chemotherapy effects. Results: As of July 15, 2024, 12 treatment-naïve mHLH patients have enrolled in all cohorts of the study, with a median age of 47 years (range 21-78). The following malignancies were represented: 7 T-cell lymphoma, 2 DLBCL, 1 AML, 1 Hodgkin lymphoma, and 1 T-cell ALL. In this group, response rate was 100% with 2 mCR and 9 PR by Week 4 and survival was 88% at 2 months (7/8; 4 patients are alive and have not reached 2 months on study). Median survival has not been reached; median follow-up is 2.3 months (range 0.1-15.9 months). In terms of PD effects, monocyte and lymphocyte reduction generally occurred following the first priming dose and ferritin and CRP were reduced by an average of 40% and 50% by Day 6, respectively, for patients with windows of ELA026 treatment without concurrent chemotherapy effects. Study-wide (all patients dosed), treatment-related infusion reactions (~20%) and cytopenias (~30%) were generally manageable with supportive care and dosing modifications. One serious adverse event, a grade 4 infusion reaction, was assessed as related in a relapsed/refractory mHLH patient with acute liver failure and poor hemodynamic reserve. Infection risks are expected for this patient population, which were mitigated with growth factor support and antimicrobial prophylaxis. No deaths were related to study drug. Updated study results will be provided at the 2024 ASH meeting in San Diego. Conclusion: Data suggest ELA026 is well-tolerated to date in sHLH patients and results in a 100% response rate and improved 2-month survival in treatment-naïve mHLH patients. The study is enrolling in an expanded cohort to further assess efficacy in this patient population.

Abstract Little is known about risk factors for central nervous system (CNS) relapse in mature T-cell and natural killer cell neoplasms (MTNKNs). We aimed to describe the clinical epidemiology of CNS relapse in patients with MTNKN and developed the CNS relapse In T-cell lymphoma Index (CITI) to predict patients at the highest risk of CNS relapse. We reviewed data from 135 patients with MTNKN and CNS relapse from 19 North American institutions. After exclusion of leukemic and most cutaneous forms of MTNKNs, patients were pooled with non-CNS relapse control patients from a single institution to create a CNS relapse–enriched training set. Using a complete case analysis (n = 182), including 91 with CNS relapse, we applied a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression model to select weighted clinicopathologic variables for the CITI score, which we validated in an external cohort from the Swedish Lymphoma Registry (n = 566). CNS relapse was most frequently observed in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (25%). Median time to CNS relapse and median overall survival after CNS relapse were 8.0 and 4.7 months, respectively. We calculated unique CITI risk scores for individual training set patients and stratified them into risk terciles. Validation set patients with low-risk (n = 158) and high-risk (n = 188) CITI scores had a 10-year cumulative risk of CNS relapse of 2.2% and 13.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 5.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-18.26; P = .018). We developed an open-access web-based CITI calculator (https://redcap.link/citicalc) to provide an easy tool for clinical practice. The CITI score is a validated model to predict patients with MTNKN at the highest risk of developing CNS relapse.

Abstract Pralatrexate is a folate antagonist that selectively enters cells expressing reduced folate carrier type 1 and competitively inhibits dihydrofolate reductase, leading to interruption of RNA synthesis, DNA replication, and apoptosis. This phase 1 study was conducted to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pralatrexate in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) regimen (part 1) and the response and pharmacokinetics of 6 cycles of this combination (CHOP + Folotyn 30 mg/m2 [Fol-CHOP]) in patients with newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). In part 1, on days 1 and 8 of each cycle, patients were treated with 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/m2 of pralatrexate in combination with CHOP, per dose escalation, in 5 sequential cohorts. No patients experienced DLTs in cohorts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The pralatrexate dose of 30 mg/m2 was selected to be combined with CHOP for part 2 and administered to 33 additional patients in the expansion cohort. At the MTD, the Fol-CHOP regimen was generally well tolerated in patients with PTCL, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 83.9% (20 complete response and 6 partial response), as assessed by treating investigators. Thirty-five patients (67.3%) experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common of which were anemia (21.2%), neutropenia (19.2%), febrile neutropenia (11.5%), fatigue, mucosal inflammation, nausea, and vomiting (7.7% each). In conclusion, Fol-CHOP was found to be a safe and effective treatment for newly diagnosed PTCL and deemed worthy of further investigation. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02594267.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system (CNS) relapse (CNSr) in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) occurs uncommonly (estimated incidence 5%) but carries a high morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified risk factors for CNSr such as high tumor burden and extranodal (EN) disease. However, most focus on B-cell NHL with minimal data in T-cell lymphomas (TCL), which are significantly less common and more heterogenous. The few small series of CNSr in TCL report a median overall survival (OS) less than 3 months (mo) with incidence ranging from 2.6-9%. To better define CNSr in TCL, we performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of TCL patients with CNSr and herein describe clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment of CNSr. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using data from 9 US academic centers with IRB approval at individual sites. We included adult patients diagnosed with a mature T-cell neoplasm as per the 2016 WHO classification between 1/1/2009-1/1/2019, who were found to have CNSr at any time after initial diagnosis, and collected patient, disease, and treatment characteristics at time of initial diagnosis as well as at CNSr. Patients with a diagnosis of a precursor T-cell malignancy or with CNS disease identified at initial TCL diagnosis (TCLd) and/or prior to first-line systemic treatment were excluded. Results In this analysis, we report the outcomes of 75 patients (male n=45, female n=30). At TCLd, the median age was 59 years (range 20-81), and 61% of patients (n=46) had an IPI score of at least 3, 92% (n=69) had EN involvement with 37% (n=28) involving at least 2 EN sites, and 59% (n=44) had BM involvement. The most common pathologic diagnoses were peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL, NOS; 24%, n=18), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 17%, n=13), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL; 17%, n=13), and mycosis fungoides (MF; 12%, n=9) (Figure 1A). First-line systemic therapy for TCL included anthracyclines for 72% (n=54). Autologous and allogenic transplants were performed prior to CNSr in 12% (n=9) and 8% (n=6) of patients, respectively. Prior to CNSr, 48% (n=36) had non-CNS relapse. Some form of CNS prophylaxis was used during initial systemic lymphoma therapy in 24% of patients (n=18), predominantly intrathecal methotrexate (IT MTX; n=16). Median time from TCLd to CNSr was 8.5mo, though this was significantly longer in MF (46.8mo [range 17.5-187.7]) versus PTCL, NOS (7.6mo [range 1.1-58.4], P=0.0002), AITL (21.2mo [range 2.0-61.6, P=0.008), and ATLL (7.3mo [range 0.7-46.4], P=0.0005) (Figure 1B). CNSr developed within 6mo of TCLd in 31% of patients (n=23) and within 12mo in 57% (n=43). Symptoms related to CNSr occurred in 71% of patients (n=53). CNSr patterns were 61% leptomeningeal (n=46), 21% parenchymal (n=16), and 17% both (n=13) with no significant survival difference between leptomeningeal or parenchymal disease alone (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70, P=0.28). Concomitant systemic relapse was observed in 59% of patients (n=44). The most common CNS-directed therapy for CNSr was IT MTX (56%; n=42), though multiple different IT and/or systemic regimens were used. Patients received a median of 1 line of CNS-directed treatment (range 0-5). The overall response rate to initial CNS directed treatment was 32% (16% CR, 16% PR). Median follow up after CNSr was 40.7mo. At last follow up, 83% had died (n=62). Median OS after CNSr was 4.6mo (range 0.1-68.7) (Figure 1C). Those with ATLL had the shortest median OS after CNSr (2.7mo) versus 6.3mo in MF (HR 3.69, 95% CI 1.44-9.42, P=0.005), 6.5mo in AITL (HR 2.16, 95% CI 0.92-5.06, P=0.054), and 4.8mo in PTCL, NOS (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.70-3.19, P=0.27) (Figure 1D). The most common cause of death was progressive lymphoma (77%; n=48). Conclusions This is to our knowledge the largest series of CNSr in TCL to date. Most CNSr occurred within 12mo, though CNSr occurred later in patients with MF. Although the prognosis after CNSr was generally poor, we found that median OS in CNSr was longer than previously reported, perhaps reflecting more effective treatments for CNS and systemic relapse, inclusion of MF, or lead time bias. Further analysis of the impact of different treatment strategies and outcomes in CNSr was limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity within our cohort, and future analyses in a larger cohort should focus on factors associated with outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Chavez: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Sokol: Dren Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Saeed: Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: research investigator; MEI Pharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: investigator; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; sano-aventis U.S.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Other-Secura Bio, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Allen: Epizyme: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Secure Bio: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Gerson: Abbvie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Landsburg: Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schuster: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Svoboda: Atara: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barta: Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria.

SummaryFimepinostat (CUDC‐907), a first‐in‐class oral small‐molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase and phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase, demonstrated efficacy in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large and high‐grade B‐cell lymphomas (DLBCL/HGBL), particularly those with increased MYC protein expression and/orMYCgene rearrangement/copy number gain (MYC‐altered disease). Therefore, a phase 2 study of fimepinostat was conducted in this patient population with 66 eligible patients treated. The primary end‐point of overall response (OR) rate for patients with MYC‐IHC ≥40% (n = 46) was 15%. Subsequently, exploratory pooled analyses were performed including patients treated on both the phase 1 and 2 studies based upon the presence of MYC‐altered disease as well as a biomarker identified by Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon analysis (VIPER). For these patients with MYC‐altered disease (n = 63), the overall response (OR) rate was 22% with seven responding patients remaining on treatment for approximately two years or longer, and VIPER yielded a three‐protein biomarker classification with positive and negative predictive values of ≥85%. Prolonged durations of response were achieved by patients with MYC‐altered R/R DLBCL/HGBL treated with single‐agent fimepinostat. Combination therapies and/or biomarker‐based patient selection strategies may lead to higher response rates in future clinical trials.

BACKGROUNDNVP‐AUY922 (AUY; Luminespib) with or without bortezomib showed preclinical activity against multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This phase 1/1B study assessed NVP‐AUY922 alone and with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.METHODSDose escalation was guided by an adaptive Bayesian logistic regression model. In phase 1, patients who progressed after 2 to 4 prior therapies received NVP‐AUY922 intravenously once weekly. In phase 1B, patients who progressed after 2 or fewer prior therapies received NVP‐AUY922 plus bortezomib. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of NVP‐AUY922.RESULTSTwenty‐four patients received NVP‐AUY922 monotherapy at doses of 8 to 70 mg/m2. One dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed (grade 3 blurred vision at 70 mg/m2); no MTD was reached. The recommended phase 2 dose was 70 mg/m2. The most frequent drug‐related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea, nausea, and ocular toxicities. Grade 3/4 AEs were uncommon (<10%). Eight patients discontinued treatment because of AEs; 5 had ocular toxicities (≥45 mg/m2). The best response was stable disease in 66.7% of the patients. There were no partial or complete responses. Five patients received NVP‐AUY922 (which was started at 50 mg/m2) plus bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2). Three of these patients experienced DLT. No further dose escalation was performed; the MTD for NVP‐AUY922 plus bortezomib was not established.CONCLUSIONSThis study showed disease stabilization with NVP‐AUY922 in patients with relapsed or refractory MM. The MTD for NVP‐AUY922 was not reached, but reversible ocular toxicity has been reported at high dose levels. Bortezomib at the standard recommended dose plus NVP‐AUY922 was not tolerated. Cancer 2015;121:2185–2192. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

SummaryDickkopf‐1 (DKK1), expressed by myeloma cells, suppresses osteoblast function and plays a key role in bone disease in multiple myeloma. BHQ880, a human neutralizing IgG1 anti‐DKK1 monoclonal antibody, is being investigated for its impact on multiple myeloma‐related bone disease and as an agent with potential anti‐myeloma activity. The primary objectives of this Phase IB study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BHQ880 and to characterize the dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) of escalating doses in combination with anti‐myeloma therapy and zoledronic acid. Twenty‐eight patients were enrolled and received BHQ880 at doses of 3–40 mg/kg. No DLTs were reported, therefore, the MTD was not determined. The recommended Phase II dose was declared as 10 mg/kg, based mainly on saturation data. There was a general trend towards increased bone mineral density (BMD) observed over time; specific increases in spine BMD from Cycle 12 onwards irrespective of new skeletal‐related events on study were observed, and increases in bone strength at the spine and hip were also demonstrated in some patients. BHQ880 in combination with zoledronic acid and anti‐myeloma therapy was well tolerated and demonstrated potential clinical activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.