HEALTH‐RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE (HRQoL) IN RELAPSED/REFRACTORY (R/R) INDOLENT NHL IN THE PHASE 3 AUGMENT TRIAL OF RITUXIMAB (R) PLUS LENALIDOMIDE (R2) VERSUS R PLUS PLACEBO
POST HOC ANALYSES OF PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MARGINAL ZONE LYMPHOMA WHO RECEIVED LENALIDOMIDE PLUS RITUXIMAB (R2) VS RITUXIMAB/PLACEBO (AUGMENT)
PURPOSEPatients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically respond well to first-line immunochemotherapy. At relapse, single-agent rituximab is commonly administered. Data suggest the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide could increase the activity of rituximab.METHODSA phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab was conducted in patients with relapsed and/or refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphoma. Patients received lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5. The primary end point was progression-free survival per independent radiology review.RESULTSA total of 358 patients were randomly assigned to lenalidomide plus rituximab (n = 178) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 180). Infections (63% v 49%), neutropenia (58% v 23%), and cutaneous reactions (32% v 12%) were more common with lenalidomide plus rituximab. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (50% v 13%) and leukopenia (7% v 2%) were higher with lenalidomide plus rituximab; no other grade 3 or 4 adverse event differed by 5% or more between groups. Progression-free survival was significantly improved for lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .001) and median duration of 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months), respectively.CONCLUSIONLenalidomide improved efficacy of rituximab in patients with recurrent indolent lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile.
Phase 1b/3 study of avelumab-based combination regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL).
TPS7575 Background: Approximately 50% of patients (pts) with advanced DLBCL are refractory to or relapse following first line R-CHOP therapy. Pts with R/R DLBCL have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. This study assesses immunotherapy-based regimens containing avelumab (a fully human IgG1 anti–PD-L1 antibody) in combination with utomilumab (a novel 4-1BB agonist), azacitidine, rituximab, and/or conventional chemotherapy (CT; bendamustine) in pts with R/R DLBCL. Methods: JAVELIN DLBCL (NCT02951156) is a global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-component(phase 1b followed by phase 3) study of avelumab-based combination regimens in R/R DLBCL. In phase 1b, up to 84 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to receive avelumab/rituximab/utomilumab, or avelumab/azacitidine/utomilumab, or avelumab/rituximab/bendamustine. The primary phase 1b objectives are preliminary assessments of dose-limiting toxicities (n = 6 per arm) and efficacy (objective response [OR]; n = 28 per arm). One regimen from phase 1b will be selected for phase 3 evaluation in 220 additional pts randomized 1:1 to the chosen regimen or investigator’s choice CT (rituximab/bendamustine or rituximab/gemcitabine/oxaliplatin). The primary phase 3 objective is to demonstrate progression-free survival (PFS) superiority of the avelumab-based regimen over CT. Overall survival is a key secondary endpoint. Eligible pts have completed up to 4 lines of prior rituximab/multiagent CT, and/or have failed autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), or are not eligible for intensive CT or ASCT. Other eligibility criteria include ECOG PS ≤1 and no prior therapy with a checkpoint inhibitor. Treatment with avelumab, utomilumab, and azacitidine will be continued until the pt no longer receives clinical benefit; rituximab and bendamustine are limited to 8 and 6 cycles, respectively. OR and PFS will be assessed per Lugano disease classification criteria. Other secondary efficacy endpoints include disease control, duration of response, time to response, and minimal residual disease burden. Safety, PK, immunogenicity, pt-reported outcomes, and biomarkers will also be evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT02951156.
Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): Impact of cycle 2 PET result on modified progression-free survival (mPFS).
Abstract 5303: Correlative results from PRELUDE, a phase III study of enzastaurin (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following a response to R-CHOP therapy
Abstract Background: Protein kinase Cβ (PKCβ) is critical for B-cell signaling and survival and overexpression of PKCβ in DLBCL is associated with inferior survival. ENZA, an oral serine/threonine kinase inhibitor, targets PKCβ. Here we report immunohistochemical (IHC) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) correlative analyses. Methods: PRELUDE (NCT00332202) was a phase III, double-blind maintenance study of 758 pts with DLBCL who were randomized 2:1 to ENZA 500 mg daily (1125-mg loading dose) (n = 504) or PBO (n = 254), respectively, following CR to induction therapy with R-CHOP. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Overall survival (OS) and assessment of biomarkers specific to ENZA and DLBCL were secondary endpoints. Pre-treatment formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples were assessed via IHC staining in a blinded manner (Eric Hsi) for cell of origin (COO) using Hans’ algorithm. In addition, IHC was performed for c-MYC, BCL2, BCL6, FOXP1, and MUM1 (10% increments/% tumor cells stained), markers relevant to ENZA, including PKCβ2. FISH was performed to identify translocations involving c-MYC, BCL2, and BCL6. Cox regression was used to determine statistical associations between efficacy outcomes and dichotomized markers, adjusting for treatment and additional baseline covariates. All tests of association were conducted at a 2-sided α = 0.05. Results: There was no difference in 4-year DFS (70% vs 71%) or OS (81% vs 82%) between ENZA and PBO arms, respectively. A total of 243 (32%) pts had ≥1 evaluable sample available for IHC and FISH. There was no difference in outcome for pts based on COO (GCB vs non-GCB). Independent of treatment, significant associations were observed for BCL2 (pre-specified cutpoint 20%) and MUM1 (cutpoint 30%) with OS, and FOXP1 (cutpoint 80%) by IHC with DFS (HR [95% CI]: 2.19 [1.01-4.73]), p = 0.031; 1.97 [1.04-3.71], p = 0.032; 1.74 [1.04-2.90], p = 0.032, respectively). Associations were not significant for other IHC markers, including c-MYC and BCL6. Low PKCβ2 (<50% expression) had numerically better (but not significant) DFS/OS vs high PKCβ2. Dual translocation lymphoma by FISH was identified in two pts (1.2%) each for c-MYC/BCL2 and c-MYC/BCL6, and one pt (0.6%) had a triple hit involving c-MYC/BCL2/BCL6. Conclusions: No difference in outcomes between treatment arms was observed for the trial. Independent of treatment, COO was not prognostic of outcomes. Pts with low PKCβ2 expression had numerically better DFS/OS compared with high PKCβ2 expression. Significant treatment-independent associations were observed for BCL2 and MUM1 with OS and for FOXP1 with DFS (low IHC expression corresponded to better outcomes). The small number of double hit and triple hit lymphomas seen in the study may reflect the enrollment of CR patients with more favorable biology. Citation Format: Eric D. Hsi, Kerry J. Savage, Sonali M. Smith, Fritz Offner, Scott P. Myrand, Thomas M. Habermann, Donald E. Thornton, Boris K. Lin, Tuan S. Nguyen, Oday Hamid, Michael Crump. Correlative results from PRELUDE, a phase III study of enzastaurin (ENZA) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following a response to R-CHOP therapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 5303. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-5303