Rosko, Ashley

Background: Studies have suggested a synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a key target and master transcriptional factor regulating myeloma cell survival. Method: A 3 + 3 phase I trial was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Three dose levels (DLs) were planned. The cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily in doses of 560 mg on DL1-2 and 840 mg on DL3, LEN was administered orally on days 1–21 in doses of 15 mg on DL1 and 25 mg on DL2-3, and DEX was administered orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a dose of 40 mg if age < 75 years or in a dose of 20 mg if it was ≥75 years for DL1-3. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 but ≥30 mL/min were treated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions with LEN 10 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included the following: grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; and grade 3–4 hyperglycemia or a thrombotic/embolic event, and other nonhematologic toxicities. The overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients with a partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR) according to IMWG criteria on two consecutive evaluations at least 4 weeks apart. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as the percentage of patients with stable disease (SD) or a better outcome on two consecutive evaluations at weeks apart. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1: six patients; DL2: three patients; DL3: five patients) were registered for the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to limited accrual. Thirteen patients are included in the summary of toxicities and response as one patient on DL3 halted participation prior to the start of the treatment. Two patients on DL3 were excluded from the determination of MTD: one having discontinued cycle 1 treatment due to COVID-19 infection and the another having mistakenly taken 280 mg/day of IBR instead of the assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1. Only one patient developed a DLT, on DL1 with grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range: 1–56). Severe toxicities reported included grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis in the setting of PD (1). Disease responses included a VGPR on DL1 and CR on DL3. Thus, the ORR was 15.4% (90% CI: 2.8–41.0%). One patient on DL1 maintained SD for 4.6 years before discontinuing the treatment to undergo an alternative therapy. Another five patients maintained SD for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles. Thus, the CBR was 61.5% (90% CI: 35.5–83.4%). Conclusions: The combination of LEN with IBR in RR MM proved feasible, with manageable toxicities and the majority of discontinuations being due to disease progression.

Introduction: Preclinical studies have suggested synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a master transcriptional factor that regulates myeloma cell survival. Single agent oral IBR combined with dexamethasone proved well tolerated and active in advanced, steroid refractory relapsed MM as part of a large Phase1/2 study in 60 patients, with durable stabilization and minimal response seen in most evaluable patients (Richardson PG et al, BJH 2018). LEN is considered a standard of care in newly diagnosed MM, as maintenance and in relapsed disease, and a backbone of oral therapy in the MM treatment paradigm (Laubach JP et al, Leukemia 2016). Methods: We therefore conducted a 3+3 phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Three dose levels (DL) were planned. Cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily at 560mg on DL1-2 and 840mg on DL3, LEN orally days 1-21 at 15mg on DL1 and 25mg on DL2-3, and DEX orally days 1, 8, 15, and 22 at 40 mg if age &lt; 75 or 20 mg if ≥75 for DL1-3. Patients with GFR ≥ 30 and &lt; 60 were treated according to manufacturer's instructions with lenalidomide dosed at 10mg/d. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 4 thrombocytopenia; grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days or febrile neutropenia; grade 4 nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or thrombotic/embolic event, treatment delays ≥ 21 days for toxicity; and treatment related death. Due to changes in standard of care during the study, eligibility was modified to allow the enrollment of patients with RRMM who had at least 1 prior line of therapy. Response was assessed using IMWG/Uniform Criteria. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1-6 pts; DL2-3 pts; DL3-5 pts) registered to the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to slow accrual. One patient on DL3 cancelled participation prior to start of treatment due to disease progression (PD). The remaining 13 patients are included in summary of toxicities and response but 2 patients on DL3 are excluded from determination of MTD due to discontinuing cycle 1 treatment due to COVID and receiving 280 mg/day of IBR instead of assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1, respectfully. Twelve patients were evaluable for response. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 2-9), reflecting a heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory population. One of the 6 patient on DL1 developed a DLT, grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. None of the 3 patients on DL2 or the 2 patients on DL3 had a DLT. One patient on DL1 remains on treatment with stable disease for 42+ cycles. The median number of cycles administered was 3 (range: 1-42+). Severe toxicities reported included grade 3 lymphocytopenia (3), anemia (2), alanine aminotransferase increase (1), aspartate aminotransferase increase (1), blood bilirubin increase (1), hypocalcemia (1), hypokalemia (1) hypophosphatemia (1), febrile neutropenia (1), chronic kidney disease (1), non-viral hepatitis (1), soft tissue infection (1), and fatigue (1); grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis (1). End of treatment reasons included: PD (7), toxicity (2), death [soft tissue infection that turned into sepsis considered to be likely related to DEX] (1), and concomitant conditions (2). Stable disease (SD) or better was achieved in 10 of 12 evaluable patients (83%), including one patient who achieved disease control for over 3.5 years. One patient (8%) on DL3 had a complete response (CR) but stopped treatment after 2 cycles due to reversible toxicity and comorbid conditions, based upon physician advice and patient choice. Conclusions: The combination of lenalidomide with Ibrutinib as an all-oral approach in RR MM proved feasible and generally tolerable, with the majority of discontinuation seen in this Phase I study due to disease progression. No COVID related - mortality was seen. SD or better was achieved in 83% of patients, including one CR. Potential future directions include combination approaches with next generation IMids such as pomalidomide, as well as other orally bioavailable novel agents with potent immune activating properties, such as CelMoDs. Support: AFT; Pharmacyclics; Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702725

Maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) is the standard treatment and recommended to be continued until disease progression. However, in the real world, patients discontinue treatment due to various reasons. We sought to determine the effect of early versus late discontinuation on survival outcomes in MM patients who underwent ASCT at The Ohio State University. We retrospectively reviewed 340 patients who underwent ASCT from 2005 to 2016 and received maintenance therapy for at least six months without progression. We compared the outcomes of patients who received maintenance for three years or less (early group) to the patients who continued maintenance beyond three years (late group). Lenalidomide (89%) and bortezomib (10%) were the most common agents used for maintenance chemotherapy. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, patients in the late group had prolonged progression-free (PFS) (p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001). The 5-year estimated OS in late group was 96% vs. 79% in the early group and 5-year PFS was 80% in late group vs. 50% in the early group. The most common reasons for discontinuation of maintenance in early group were adverse events (55.9%) and patient preference (22.5%). For the late group, it was disease progression (23.9%) and adverse events (14.3%). Fifty-five percent of patients in the late group were still on maintenance treatment at the last follow-up. Continuation of maintenance therapy was thus associated with improved outcomes, while adverse events prevented most patients from continuing treatment.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of &gt;1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

Abstract Background: Maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free and overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM) and has largely become the standard of care. Consolidation therapy, a brief duration of more-intensive chemotherapy administered prior to maintenance, has been shown to further deepen responses and may improve long-term outcomes. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an all oral regimen that has been shown to be active in newly diagnosed MM as well as relapsed disease. In this study, we are analyzing the safety and efficacy of IRd as consolidation therapy after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, are being consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients receive 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. The primary end point is minimal residual disease (MRD) status. MRD is being assessed by ClonoSEQ where possible and by multi-color flow where not. Toxicity, IMWG response rate, PFS, and OS are secondary end points. One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients are randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15) or lenalidomide (15 mg daily). In total, 240 patients will be enrolled on the trial. This presentation coincides with planned interim analysis 2 which included data from the consolidation phase only. Results: As of July 2018, 172 patients with NDMM have been enrolled from 10 centers within the US. The median age was 57 (range 28-70) and 67% were male. 76% were white, 10% African-American/Black, and 13% were another race. 39% were ISS Stage I, 30% were Stage II, and 20% were Stage III. All patients received proteasome inhibitors and/or IMIDs as front-line induction and melphalan as conditioning for ASCT. IRd consolidation started at a median of 110 days post-ASCT (range 80-138). IRd has been well tolerated. Only 4% (6/154) of patients have been unable to complete the 4 cycles of consolidation to date due to toxicity. Grade 3 hematologic toxicity has been uncommon; 4% neutropenia, 3% thrombocytopenia, and 2% anemia. There has been no grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Non-hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities have included: infection (8%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (3%), and transaminitis (1%). No grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy has been reported. One case of grade 5 pneumonia was reported but was not considered related to study treatment. Following ASCT, the MRD-negative rate was 26% and this improved to 37% following consolidation. In the subset of patients with Clonoseq results available, the MRD negative rate improved from 19% to 27%. Clinical response rate improved similarly; prior to consolidation the VGPR or better rate was 76% including 39% CR/sCR. Following consolidation, the VGPR or better rate was 85% including 56% CR/sCR. 137 patients went on to receive maintenance with either ixazomib (n = 71) or lenalidomide (n = 66). At time of submission, the median follow-up from start of IRd is 14 months and 28 patients have relapsed/progressed and 6 have expired. An interim analysis is planned for 2019, representing the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. Conclusion: IRd consolidation following ASCT appears to be safe and effective. The all oral regimen is convenient for patients which greatly simplifies follow-up in the peri-transplant period. Study enrollment is scheduled to complete in Q1 of 2019. Disclosures Vij: Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Deol:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gregory:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Chari:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; The Binding Site: Consultancy.

Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy that occurs among older adults and accounts for 15% of all hematologic malignancies in the United States. Thirty-five percent of patients are diagnosed at age 75 or older. Novel therapeutics and routine use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have led to substantial improvements in patient survival, although improvements have been more impressive among patients younger than age 65. Finding the balance between under- and overtreating elderly patients is one of the biggest challenges specific to them as a subgroup of patients with MM. Decision making about which therapies and their dose intensity and duration should be influenced by a patient’s functional status, personal preferences, disease characteristics, and ability to tolerate therapy. ASCT should be considered for all patients younger than age 80, assuming that they are not frail. The attainment of a stringent complete response and minimal residual disease negativity is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival. Again, consideration of quality of life for these patients is paramount. Although there is a growing list of tools to sort through these issues, a fully integrated approach has not yet been finely tuned, leaving additional work to be done for the treatment of elderly patients with MM.