Bravo, Marie‐Laure Casadebaig

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for about 20% of deaths from hematological cancers and remains incurable despite conventional and high-dose chemotherapy. Two phase III trials in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (MM-009 and MM-010) showed that lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved response rates and significantly prolonged median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) compared with dexamethasone alone. This current sub-analysis of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone therapy assessed whether there was a survival benefit in maintaining patients on therapy after achieving their best response and what the impact of early discontinuation on TTP and OS was. Methods: Of the 353 patients from MM-009 and MM-010 treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, 32 did not respond. Of the remaining 321 responding patients, 214 had a partial response (PR) or better and 107 patients had stable disease (SD). In this post-hoc sub-analysis, we first assessed the outcome of continuing treatment for ≤10 months vs. >10 months in all 321 patients who achieved SD or better, after they achieved their best response. In this landmark analysis, OS was measured from the time of achieving best response to death from any cause or to last contact. In a second analysis, we assessed the impact of early discontinuation due to adverse events or withdrawn consent on OS and TTP in all patients who achieved SD or better. Therefore, we excluded patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Patients who achieved SD or better and who continued on therapy were compared with those who discontinued. OS and TTP were assessed from time of randomization. Results: In the landmark analysis, of the 321 responding patients (≥PR, n=214; SD, n=107), 223 patients received treatment for ≤10 months after achieving their best response and 98 patients for >10 months after achieving their best response. Patients who continued therapy for >10 months after achieving their first best response had significantly longer OS vs. those who received therapy for ≤10 months (not reached vs. 23.4 months; p<0.0001). At 24 months after achieving their best response, significantly more patients were alive if they continued therapy >10 months vs. ≤10 months (93.8% vs. 48.4%, p<0.0001). In the second analysis, in order to evaluate the impact of discontinuation in patients achieving SD or better, we excluded 134 patients due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 187 responding patients, 72 discontinued treatment for AE (n=42) or withdrew consent (n=30), while the remaining 115 patients continued treatment. Median OS and TTP were significantly longer for patients who continued vs. those who discontinued treatment (median OS: not reached vs. 29.5 months, p<0.0001; median TTP: not reached vs. 13.6 months, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In patients achieving SD or better, prolonged duration of treatment was associated with significantly longer OS and TTP. In contrast, early discontinuation of treatment led to reduced OS and TTP. Therefore, efforts should be made to manage adverse events while maintaining patients on therapy. Furthermore, maintaining treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone after achieving the optimal response ensures a significant improvement in OS for patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Abstract Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains challenging particularly in the relapsed/refractory setting, where patients often show chemoresistance. Novel molecular-based therapies have shown impressive and durable activity in that setting, although primary and acquired resistance remains problematic. A recent retrospective series of 114 patients who had failed ibrutinib (median of 4.7 month exposure) showed very short median overall survival of 2.9 months after ibrutinib cessation (Martin et al. Blood 2015). Here we report the results from the observationalMCL-004 study investigating outcomes of patients treated with lenalidomide (an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent) after failing ibrutinib; patients were either relapsed, progressed, refractory, or intolerant to ibrutinib. The objective here is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of lenalidomide monotherapy or a lenalidomide-containing regimen in relapsed/refractory MCL after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. Methods: MCL-004 is a multicenter study in patients with MCL who relapsed/progressed after or were refractory/intolerant to ibrutinib, and were subsequently treated with lenalidomide. With patient informed consent, data were collected retrospectively from patients who, after their disease failed to respond to ibrutinib, received lenalidomide-based therapy from March 1, 2009 to June 9, 2015. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) based on 2007 International Working Group criteria, with required patient monitoring and routine imaging. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled at 7 US sites and 1 EU site, including patients receiving lenalidomide monotherapy (n=8), lenalidomide + rituximab (n=8), and lenalidomide + other treatment (n=14). Lenalidomide + other treatment included combination with rituximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (n=3); other combinations were given in ≤2 patients. Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 50-84), and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1-21.7). All patients received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, and 83% received ≥3 prior therapies (median prior therapies, 3.5; range, 2-8). With prior ibrutinib, the best responses achieved were 10% complete response (CR), 43% partial response (PR), 3% stable disease, 40% relapse/progressive disease (PD), and 3% unknown. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were 50% relapse/PD, 40% refractory, and 10% intolerance. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-11) of lenalidomide-based treatment. Eight patients' disease responded (4 CR, 4 PR), resulting in an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12%-46%). Five of 8 maintained their response at data cut-off (3 CR, 2 PR). ORR was similar for patients with relapse/PD vs. those refractory to ibrutinib (29% vs. 33%, respectively). Median duration of response (DOR) was 18 weeks (95% CI, 2.9-25+) for all patients. Median DOR was not reached in patients who previously relapsed/progressed with ibrutinib compared with a median of 11 weeks for those whose disease was refractory to ibrutinib. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 33% fatigue; 27% nausea; and 23% each dyspnea, neutropenia, dizziness, or rash. In general, TEAEs were less common with lenalidomide monotherapy. The most frequently reported serious AEs were pneumonia, dyspnea, deep vein thrombosis, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (7% each). At data cutoff, 15 patients (50%) had died, mostly due to MCL and none due to second primary malignancy. Conclusions: Most patients received ≥3 prior lines of treatment, and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was short. Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity in this difficult-to-treat patient population, including 27% ORR and 13% CR. No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified. Overall, our results show that lenalidomide is active in a selected group of patients with relapsed/refractory MCL that previously failed ibrutinib. Disclosures Wang: BeiGene: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martin:Acerta: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Goy:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding. Ghosh:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barnett:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schuster:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding.

AbstractMantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with aggressive disease characteristics resulting in multiple relapses after initial treatment. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent approved in the US for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL following bortezomib based on results from 3 multicenter phase II studies (2 including relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL and 1 focusing on MCL post‐bortezomib). The purpose of this report is to provide longer follow‐up on the MCL‐001 study (follow‐ups were 6.8 [NHL‐002], 7.6 [NHL‐003], and 52.2 [MCL‐001] months). The 206 relapsed MCL patients treated with single‐agent lenalidomide (25 mg/day PO, days 1 to 21 every 28‐days) had a median age of 67 years (63% ≥65 years), 91% with stage III/IV disease, and 50% with ≥4 previous treatment regimens. With a median follow‐up of X, the combined best overall response rate (ORR) was 33% (including 11% with complete remission [CR]/CR unconfirmed CRu). Lenalidomide produced rapid and durable responses with a median time to response of 2.2 months and median duration of response (DOR) of 16.6 months (95% CI: 11.1%‐29.8%). The safety profile was consistent and manageable; myelosuppression was the most common adverse event (AE). Overall, single‐agent lenalidomide showed consistent efficacy and safety in multiple phase II studies of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, including those previously treated with bortezomib.