Himelstein, Andrew L.

Abstract Abstract 3680 Background: Current NHL radioimmunotherapy is administered with unlabeled antibody targeting the same B-cell antigen. This decreases sequestration of the radiolabeled antibody by normal B-lymphocytes, but potentially blocks access of the radiolabeled antibody to the tumor sites. In clinical studies, yttrium-90 radiolabeled anti-CD22 epratuzumab (90Y-epratuzumab) has demonstrated therapeutic activity with acceptable toxicity when given weekly × 2 at doses up to 20 mCi/m2 (Morschhauser et al., J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3709–16), while separate studies showed that a 200-mg/m2 dose of anti-CD20 veltuzumab given weekly × 4 readily depletes peripheral blood B-cells and is also therapeutically active (Morschhauser et al., J Clin Oncol, 2009;27:3346–53). In mice bearing human B-cell lymphoma xenografts, this non-competing combination showed improved therapeutic responses over either agent alone (Mattes et al., Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:6154–60). As such, a multicenter, phase I/II study was undertaken to evaluate combination therapy with 90Y-epratuzumab and veltuzumab. Methods: Adult patients with aggressive NHL who failed ≥ 1 prior standard regimen (excluding autologous SCT) were eligible if they had measurable CT lesions, ECOG 0–1 performance status, <25% bone marrow involvement, hemoglobin ≥ 10 g/dL, ANC ≥ 1.5 × 109/L, platelets ≥ 100 × 109/L and were >4 weeks beyond last treatment. All patients received a 4-week treatment regimen (weekly 200 mg/m2 veltuzumab, 3–5 mCi 111In-epratuzumab on week 2, 90Y-epratuzumab on weeks 3 and 4). Using NCI CTCAE v4.0 toxicity criteria, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as Grade 4 hemoglobin, platelet or neutrophil levels >7 days or not recovered to Grade 1 by 12 weeks, or any non-hematologic Grade 3 or 4 events. Starting at 15 mCi/m2, a standard 3+3 dose escalation determined the MTD of 90Y-epratuzumab. Treatment response utilized CT-based 2007 IWG revised criteria. Serial 111In imaging and serum samples were used to assess biodistribution, tumor targeting and determine normal organ radiation dosimetry. ELISA-based assays were used to measure veltuzumab pharmacokinetics and any human anti-veltuzumab antibodies (HAHA). Results: Fifteen patients (10 male/5 female, 56 – 84 years old) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL N=7), transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL, N=4) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL, N=4) have now been enrolled. They had 3 median prior treatments (1 – 7) [RCHOP (N=15); bendamustine plus rituximab (N=5); ICE, lenalidomide, bortezomib (N=2 each); others (1 each)] and had low (N=3), low-intermediate (N=3), high-intermediate (N=7), or high (N=2) IPI risk scores. Treatment was well-tolerated with no infusion reactions. 111In-imaging showed normal biodistribution, with acceptable normal organ dosimetry for the scheduled 90Y dose, and tumor targeting occasionally visualized. There was no evidence of HAHA, and the serum clearance of veltuzumab and 111In-epratzumab in combination was comparable to that reported previously for these agents alone. The 90Y dose was repeatedly de-escalated from 15 (N=3) to 12 (N=3), 9 (N=6), and currently 6 (N=3) mCi/m2 due to 7 hematologic DLTs at ≥ 9 mCi/m2in 6 patients involving Grade 3-thrombocytopenia (N=5) or neutropenia (N=2). Clinically, there were 3 SAEs (pneumonia, non-infectious pneumonitis, fracture from fall), but no other major infections or bleeding. Of 11 patients who have now had treatment response assessments, 5 (45%) had objective responses, including one DLCBL patient with a complete response (CR) continuing 12 months later and 4 patients (1 DLBCL, 3 TFL) with partial responses (PRs), with one continuing at 4 weeks and 3 relapsed at 3 – 6 months. Four other patients (1 DLBCL, 3 MCL) achieved stable disease (SD) continuing up to 6 months as best response, resulting in a disease control rate of 82% (CR+PR+SD). Conclusions: Combination treatment was well-tolerated, with the PK behavior of the two agents substantially unchanged, and with initial evidence of therapeutic activity (including one durable CR) in these difficult-to-treat patients. Hematologic toxicity necessitated lowering the 90Y dose, most likely due to the prior aggressive chemotherapies or depletion of the normal sequestering B-cell pool by veltuzumab preceding 90Y-epratzumab. The trial is continuing to determine an acceptable 90Y dose and define the safety and efficacy profile of this combination approach. Disclosures: Sharkey: Immunomedics: Employment. Rojo:Immunomedics: Employment. Wegener:Immunomedics: Employment. Goldenberg:Immunomedics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.