Chowhan, N. M.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) has demonstrated activity with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). In the initial pilot study, response to lenalidomide was associated with low tumor burden, long duration from prior rituximab and high absolute lymphocyte count. Aims: To confirm the activity and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL in an international setting and Determine whether predictors of response identified in the previous study were valid. Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with measurable disease ≥ 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continued therapy as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Univariate analyses using Fisher’s exact test were conducted to investigate and characterize associations of prognostic variables with response. Results: Eighteen patients who received lenalidomide were eligible for response assessment as of May 15, 2007. The median age was 66 (43–81) and 17 were male. Histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] (n=11), mantle cell lymphoma [MCL] (n=5) and transformed (n=2). Median time from diagnosis was 2 (0.4–12) years and median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (1–13). Four patients (22%) exhibited an objective partial response including 2/11(18%) DLBCL and 2/5 (40%) MCL. Five patients had stable disease. Lenalidomide response was associated with low disease burden (29% for < 50 cm2v 0% for ≥ 50 cm2), time from last rituximab to lenalidomide treatment (36% for ≥ 230 days v 0% for < 230 days) and absolute lymphocyte count [ALC] (33% for ≥ 0.6×109/L v 0% < 0.6×109/L). Patients with favorable values for these three prognostic factors (N = 7) had a 57% response rate (compared with a 0% response rate for patients with unfavorable values (N = 11; P = 0.01). Grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (22%) and thrombocytopenia (11%). Most common Grade 3 adverse events were fatigue (17%), thrombocytopenia (11%) and leukopenia (11%). Conclusion: Lenalidomide has activity in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with a favorable safety profile. Initial results from this ongoing study are confirming that patients with low tumor burden, long duration from prior rituximab, and high ALC are more likely to respond.

LBA8003 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.