Pinto, Antonio

7514 Background: Relapse is expected in treated indolent lymphoma patients, and an unmet need exists to prolong remission with effective therapies. Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2) may improve the efficacy of next treatment by their unique mechanisms. Methods: The AUGMENT phase III study evaluated patients with R/R FL gr 1-3a (82%) and MZL (18%) after ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy (not rituximab refractory). Randomization was 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 X12 cycles [c] + rituximab [R] IV 375 mg/m2/wk, c1, d1, 8, 15, 22 and c2-5, d1) and R/placebo (same dosing schedule). The primary endpoint was PFS by 2007 IWG; secondary/exploratory analyses were time to next antilymphoma/chemotherapy treatment (TTNLT/TTNCT) and response to next treatment. Per regulatory guidance, PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to first PD or death from any cause after next antilymphoma treatment, or initiation of a third antilymphoma treatment. Results: Median PFS was superior for R2 over R/placebo (39.4 vs 14.1 mo; HR = 0.46; P < 0.0001). As of 22June2018, median TTNLT, TTNCT, and PFS2 were not reached for R2, and were significantly longer than R/placebo (HR = 0.54, 0.50, and 0.52, respectively). For 49/178 (28%) R2 and 80/180 (44%) R/placebo patients receiving next antilymphoma therapy, response was generally higher with R2 (57% ORR; 31% CR) than R/placebo (36% ORR; 16% CR; Table). Conclusions: These analyses suggest that R2 (vs R/placebo) prolonged time to subsequent treatment and is associated with longer PFS2, enabling greater response to next therapy. Although patient numbers were modest, it is hypothesized that patients who received R2 were generally more sensitive to subsequent therapy than those treated with R/placebo. Clinical trial information: NCT01938001. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) has established efficacy and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent NHL. This includes patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who are generally treated in a similar manner to follicular lymphoma (FL).Aims:Primary results for the AUGMENT study in R/R FL grade 1–3a and MZL showed significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) for R2 over R/placebo in the overall population and in the subgroup analyses, with the exception of the MZL subgroup. Given the small sample size for MZL patients, post hoc analyses of baseline characteristics and univariate/multivariate analyses of PFS were conducted to examine possible explanations for these results.Methods:The phase III AUGMENT study randomized patients 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/day (d), d1–21/28 X12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2–5) or rituximab‐placebo (R/placebo; same dosing schedule). PFS by 2007 IWG (without PET) was the primary endpoint. Post hoc Cox regression models were used for univariate analysis of one risk factor and multivariate analyses including treatment arm and significant risk factors (P < 0.05) from the univariate analyses.Results:A total of 63/358 (18%) MZL patients were part of the overall study population, including n = 14/16 MALT, n = 9/6 splenic, and n = 8/10 nodal MZL subtypes for respective R2 and R/placebo arms. Numerical differences between treatment arms for baseline demographics and disease characteristics for MZL patients favoring the R/placebo arm were: fewer R2 patients had an ECOG score of 0 (55% R2 vs 72% R/placebo), and more R2 (vs R/placebo) patients were older (≥65 y: 68% vs 59%; ≥70 y: 42% vs 38%), were refractory to the last prior regimen (13% vs 3%), had Ann Arbor stage IV disease at enrollment (65% vs 41%), high‐risk MALT‐IPI score (50% vs 19%), elevated LDH (29% vs 19%), B symptoms (13% vs 3%), and high tumor burden per GELF criteria (65% vs 56%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs for MZL patients receiving R2 vs R/placebo, respectively, were neutropenia (47% vs 16%), pneumonia (3% vs 13%), and leukopenia (10% vs 0). A total of 5 deaths occurred in the R2 arm (most associated with progression of disease; 2 deaths occurred early at 3 and 13 days after randomization [one prior to receiving R2 and one 2 days after treatment initiation]) and 2 in the R/placebo arm. Despite worse prognostic features, best response was improved with R2 (vs R/placebo) with ORR = 65% vs 44% (P = 0.13) and CR = 29% vs 13% (P = 0.13), although neither were statistically significant. Improved response rates did not translate into a survival advantage for R2. Median PFS for MZL patients was 20.2 mo R2 vs 25.2 mo R/placebo (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47–2.13; P = 1.0). Univariate analyses showed that several baseline factors were prognostic for MZL patients (P < 0.05): Ann Arbor stage IV, elevated LDH, and unfit for chemotherapy (Table). Multivariate analyses adjusting for the imbalance in these 3 significant prognostic factors showed an adjusted PFS HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20–1.28) favoring the R2 arm, similar to the PFS HR in the overall population (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34–0.63). The univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors impacted PFS results for MZL patients.Summary/Conclusion:Overall, these findings suggest that the PFS results in MZL patients were negatively impacted by the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors and more aggressive disease in the R2 over the R/placebo arm.image

PURPOSEPatients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically respond well to first-line immunochemotherapy. At relapse, single-agent rituximab is commonly administered. Data suggest the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide could increase the activity of rituximab.METHODSA phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab was conducted in patients with relapsed and/or refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphoma. Patients received lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5. The primary end point was progression-free survival per independent radiology review.RESULTSA total of 358 patients were randomly assigned to lenalidomide plus rituximab (n = 178) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 180). Infections (63% v 49%), neutropenia (58% v 23%), and cutaneous reactions (32% v 12%) were more common with lenalidomide plus rituximab. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (50% v 13%) and leukopenia (7% v 2%) were higher with lenalidomide plus rituximab; no other grade 3 or 4 adverse event differed by 5% or more between groups. Progression-free survival was significantly improved for lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .001) and median duration of 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months), respectively.CONCLUSIONLenalidomide improved efficacy of rituximab in patients with recurrent indolent lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile.