Karmali, Reem

Histiocytic neoplasms are rare hematologic disorders accounting for less than 1% of cancers of the soft tissue and lymph nodes. Clinical presentation and prognosis of these disorders can be highly variable, leading to challenges for diagnosis and optimal management of these patients. Treatment often consists of systemic therapy, and recent studies support use of targeted therapies for patients with these disorders. Observation (“watch and wait”) may be sufficient for select patients with mild disease. These NCCN Guidelines for Histiocytic Neoplasms include recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of adults with the most common histiocytic disorders: Langerhans cell histiocytosis, Erdheim-Chester disease, and Rosai-Dorfman disease.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Abstract Background: Checkpoint blockade therapies (CBT) have substantially improved outcomes for patients in a variety of cancers. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Additionally, unlike standard chemotherapy, many patients (pts) remain on CBT for prolonged periods of time, thus immune-related symptomatic AEs may be chronic or low grade therefore important to capture long term tolerability when used as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. In this study, we applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analytic approach (Thanarajasingam et al, Lancet Oncol 2016), which incorporates the dimension of time and includes chronic lower grade events, to the first 6 cohorts (A-F) of a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) and the CBT therapies ipilimumab (Ipi) and nivolumab (Nivo) in pts with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Methods: Pts with confirmed R/R HL were treated with BV 1.8mg/kg + Ipi 1or 3 mg/kg (n=23); or Nivo 3mg/kg + BV: 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg (n=19). BV was administered every 21 days for 16 cycles; Ipi every 21 days x 4 and then every 3 months for one year and Nivo every 21 days for up to 2 years. Seven symptomatic (subjective) AEs were selected: fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), nausea/vomiting (NV), rash/skin (RS), diarrhea, ocular-all types, and hair loss. Treatment-related AEs of any grade were investigated by conventional maximum grade toxicity analysis (ToxC) and ToxT methods up to 12 cycles. Using ToxT, mean AE grades over cycles were analyzed for time trend with repeated measures models, time to grade 2 or higher AE (gr2+) was analyzed with time-to-event analysis; AE profile over the entire course of the study was summarized by area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Comparisons were performed between treatment groups: BV/Ipi(A-C arms) and BV/Nivo (D-F arms). Results: 9/23 (BV/Ipi) and 6/19 (BV/Nivo) pts completed 10 cycles. For BV/Ipi vs. BV/nivo, ToxC provides overall incidence rates (any grade): fatigue 52% vs 26% (p=0.09); PSN 61% vs 53%; NV 70% vs 53% ; RS 65% vs. 37% (p=0.07); diarrhea 57% vs. 21% (p=0.02); ocular 17% vs. 21% ; and hair loss 17% vs. 0% (p=0.06), respectively. Gr3 AE occurred in 1 pt (2.4%) each for PSN, NV, diarrhea, and 6 pts (14.3%) for RS, and were similar between BV/ipi and BV/nivo. AUC from ToxT which captures chronic lower grade AEs suggested for BV/Ipi: diarrhea (p=0.02) and NV (p=0.03) are significantly more substantial over time with a trend seen for fatigue (p=0.07), RS (p=0.07) and hair loss (p=0.07) . Additionally, ToxT captures the trajectory of AEs, demonstrated a rising incidence and worsening grade of PSN (BV-related) on BV/Ipi (c1: 9% gr1, c2: 21% gr1 5% gr2, c5: 11% gr1 and c10: 22% gr2 [p=0.005], Fig 1a). In contrast there was a slow but significant decreasing incidence of NV on both combinations; for BV/Nivo (c1:52% gr1, c5: 26% gr1 and c10: 22% gr1) and BV/Ipi (c1: 47% gr1 ,c5: 0% and c10 1% gr1) with p=0.006 (Fig 1b). RS and diarrhea appear early on treatment and are not cumulative (Fig1c and 1d). There is no significant difference in the time to gr 2+ toxicities in any of the 7 AE. Combining all 7 AEs and using the maximum grade as a pilot measure of overall AE burden , ToxC indicates no difference in any grade (100% vs 100%) but a significantly higher gr 3+ incidence (35% vs. 11%) for BV/Ipi. Additionally, ToxT further elucidates that BV/Ipi is associated with significantly higher overall AE over time (Fig 2a, p=0.02) and compared to BV/Nivo a significantly higher risk of developing gr 2+ toxicity ( 57% vs 16% gr2 + event by day 50) (HR=0.41, p=0.02, Fig 2b). Conclusions: The CBT therapies Ipi and Nivo, in combination with BV, are overall both well tolerated over time, although BV/Ipi has a higher overall AE burden. Neither regimen has significant cumulative immune toxicity. Results of this analysis should be interpreted in the context of limited number of pts in both cohorts. A larger scale examination of this analysis is planned to incorporate both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 2 components of E4412. Compared with conventional tox analysis, ToxT delineated important additional and clinically relevant depictions of AEs over time and adds a more comprehensive assessment of the tolerability of chronically administered immune therapies for lymphoma. Disclosures Hong: Merck: Consultancy. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Advani:Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Denovo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.

BACKGROUNDEarly treatment failure (ETF) in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as relapse or progression within 2 years of frontline chemoimmunotherapy, is a newly recognized marker of poor survival and identifies a high‐risk group of patients with an expected 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 50%. Transplantation is an established option for relapsed FL, but its efficacy in this specific ETF FL population has not been previously evaluated.METHODSThis study compared autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) with either matched sibling donor (MSD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) as the first transplantation approach for patients with ETF FL (age ≥ 18 years) undergoing auto‐HCT or allo‐HCT between 2002 and 2014. The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM).RESULTSFour hundred forty FL patients had ETF (auto‐HCT, 240; MSD hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HCT], 105; and MUD HCT, 95). With a median follow‐up of 69 to 73 months, the adjusted probability of 5‐year OS was significantly higher after auto‐HCT (70%) or MSD HCT (73%) versus MUD HCT (49%; P = .0008). The 5‐year adjusted probability of NRM was significantly lower for auto‐HCT (5%) versus MSD (17%) or MUD HCT (33%; P < .0001). The 5‐year adjusted probability of disease relapse was lower with MSD (31%) or MUD HCT (23%) versus auto‐HCT (58%; P < .0001).CONCLUSIONSPatients with high‐risk FL, as defined by ETF, undergoing auto‐HCT for FL have low NRM and a promising 5‐year OS rate (70%). MSD HCT has lower relapse rates than auto‐HCT but similar OS. Cancer 2018;124:2541‐51. © 2018 American Cancer Society.