Rule, Simon

SummaryIbrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for treatment of various B‐cell malignancies. In ibrutinib clinical studies, low‐grade haemorrhage was common, whereas major haemorrhage (MH) was infrequent. We analysed the incidence of and risk factors for MH from 15 ibrutinib clinical studies (N = 1768), including 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rates of any‐grade bleeding were similar for single‐agent ibrutinib and ibrutinib combinations (39% and 40%). Low‐grade bleeding was more common in ibrutinib‐treated than comparator‐treated patients (35% and 15%), and early low‐grade bleeding was not associated with MH. The proportion of MH in RCTs was higher with ibrutinib than comparators (4.4% vs. 2.8%), but after adjusting for longer exposure with ibrutinib (median 13 months vs. 6 months), the incidence of MH was similar (3.2 vs. 3.1 per 1000 person‐months). MH led to treatment discontinuation in 1% of all ibrutinib‐treated patients. Use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets (AC/AP) during the study was common (~50% of patients) and had an increased exposure‐adjusted relative risk for MH in both the total ibrutinib‐treated population (1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–3.0) and RCT comparator‐treated patients (2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0–5.6), indicating that ibrutinib may not alter the effect of AC/AP on the risk of MH in B‐cell malignancies.

TPS7574 Background: The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is an important immune checkpoint used by tumor cells to evade immune cell detection and inhibit antitumor responses. PD-1/PD-L1 expression in multiple hematologic malignancies may provide an effective target for enhancing anticancer immune response. Durvalumab (MEDI4736) is a high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal Ab that selectively blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, and has shown preliminary evidence of antitumor activity across multiple tumor types. Study objectives are to evaluate durvalumab monotherapy and combinations to determine dose and safety, as well as identify histologies and combinations that show the best complementary antitumor signals for future study. Methods: This is a phase I/II open-label, global, multicenter study of durvalumab as a monotherapy and in combination in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL (MEDI4736-NHL-001; EUDRA CT 2015-003516-21; NCT02733042). Patients must have histologically-confirmed FL, MCL, splenic or nodal MZL, T-cell/histiocyte rich BCL, PMBCL, ALK+ large BCL, transformed large BCL, Richter’s transformation, DLBCL (NOS), CLL/SLL, or classical HL during the dose-finding part. Inclusion criteria are ECOG PS 0-2, and ≥1 prior antilymphoma therapy. Up to 253 patients may enroll in 4 treatment arms, which include fixed-dose durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W monotherapy or combinations with lenalidomide/rituximab, ibrutinib, or bendamustine/rituximab. The study has 3 parts: dose finding, dose confirmation, and dose expansion. The monotherapy arm does not have a dose finding or expansion part; upon progression, patients may receive combination therapy or involved-field radiation to a single nodal site (evaluating for systemic abscopal antitumor effect). Primary endpoints are safety, identification of recommended phase II dose (phase I, 3+3 design), and overall response rate (ORR; phase II); secondary endpoints include DOR, PFS, and PK/PD. ORR is measured by 2014 IWG criteria for lymphoma or modified 2008 iwCLL criteria for CLL; safety is assessed per NCI CTCAE v4.03 criteria. Recruitment is ongoing, with a target enrollment of 253 patients across 60-80 centers globally. Clinical trial information: NCT02733042.

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.

LBA7005 Background: The phase III HELIOS study evaluated the first-in-class, oral covalent BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in combination with BR (BR+ibr) vs BR plus placebo (BR+plb) in patients (pts) with previously treated CLL/SLL. The preplanned interim analysis reported here showed that the primary end point was met, upon which the IDMC recommended unblinding the study. Methods: Pts received BR ( ≤ 6 cycles) and were randomized 1:1 to ibr (420 mg daily) or plb. Purine analog refractoriness was a stratification factor. Pts with del17p ( > 20% of cells) were excluded. Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) per IRC. Results: 578 pts were randomized (289 per arm); median age 64 yrs; 38% Rai Stage III/IV; median 2 prior therapies. 6 cycles of BR were completed in 83% and 78% of pts in the ibr and plb arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 17.2 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with BR+ibr vs BR+plb (median not reached vs 13.3 months; HR: 0.203, 95% CI: 0.150-0.276, P< 0.0001); PFS results were consistent across high-risk subgroups. ORR and CR/CRi rates were 82.7% vs 67.8% (P< 0.0001) and 10.4% vs 2.8%. Median OS was not reached. 90 pts (31%) in the BR+plb arm with confirmed PD crossed over to receive ibr, as permitted per the protocol. Incidence of most AEs was similar between arms. The most common all-grade AEs with BR+ibr and BR+plb were neutropenia (58.2% vs 54.7%) and nausea (36.9% vs 35.2%); most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (53.7% vs 50.5%) and thrombocytopenia (15.0% each arm). Rates of grade 3/4 atrial fibrillation were 2.8% and 0.7%, and major hemorrhage were 2.1% and 1.7%. Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) was improved with BR+ibr vs BR+plb. Conclusions: The addition of ibr to BR reduced the risk of progression or death by 80% compared with BR+plb. ORR was also significantly improved. Safety of BR+ibr was consistent with the known profiles for BR and ibr. The data further support ibr as an important treatment option for pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Clinical trial information: EudraCT No. 2012-000600-15; UTN No. U1111-1135-3745.