Citations

8034 Background: Phase 1 studies are evaluating IV and oral dosing of the reversible proteasome inhibitor MLN9708 in multiple tumor types. We report the safety, MTD, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary responses with weekly oral MLN9708 in pts with relapsed/refractory MM (NCT00963820). Methods: Pts aged ≥18 yrs received MLN9708 on d 1, 8, and 15 of 28-d cycles. In the dose-escalation phase, pts required ≥2 prior therapies (including bortezomib, thalidomide/lenalidomide, and corticosteroids). At the MTD, pts were to be enrolled to relapsed and refractory (RR), bortezomib-relapsed (VR), proteasome inhibitor (PI) naïve, and carfilzomib (CZ) expansion cohorts. Results: 36 pts have been enrolled to date (data cut-off: Dec 1, 2011), 32 in the dose-escalation phase (0.24–3.95 mg/m2) and 8 to expansion cohorts (2 RR, 5 VR, 1 PI naïve; RR and VR cohorts each include 2 pts from MTD dose-escalation cohort). Median age was 64.5 yrs (range 40–79), 53% were male, and median number of prior lines of therapy was 3.5 (range 1-13), including 92%, 92%, 56%, and 8% who had prior bortezomib, lenalidomide, thalidomide, and carfilzomib, respectively. Pts have received a median of 2 cycles (range 1–11); 5 pts remain on treatment. Among 24 DLT-evaluable pts, 3 DLTs were seen: 2 at 3.95 mg/m2 (1 grade 3 rash, 1 grade 3 GI AEs) and 1 at 2.97 mg/m2 (grade 3 GI AEs). The MTD was determined as 2.97 mg/m2. Overall, 69% of pts had drug-related AEs, and 28% had related grade ≥3 AEs, including thrombocytopenia (17%), diarrhea (11%), nausea, neutropenia, and fatigue (each 8%). Only 3 (8%) pts had drug-related peripheral neuropathy (PN; no grade ≥3). 2 pts discontinued due to AEs. In 18 response-evaluable pts, 1 had a VGPR at 3.95 mg/m2, 1 had a PR at 2.97 mg/m2, and 8 have achieved SD durable for up to 9.5 mos. PK analyses showed linear plasma PK (0.8–3.95 mg/m2), Tmax of 0.5-2 hr, and terminal half-life of 7 d for MLN2238 (biologically active hydrolysis product). There was a trend for a dose-dependent increase in whole blood 20S proteasome inhibition. Conclusions: Current data suggest weekly oral MLN9708 is generally well tolerated with infrequent PN, and shows early signs of antitumor activity.

AbstractObjectivesIn the TOURMALINE‐MM1 phase 3 trial in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) showed different magnitudes of progression‐free survival (PFS) benefit vs placebo‐Rd according to number and type of prior therapies, with greater benefit seen in patients with >1 prior line of therapy or 1 prior line of therapy without stem cell transplantation (SCT).MethodsRNA sequencing data were used to investigate the basis of these differences.ResultsThe PFS benefit of IRd vs placebo‐Rd was greater in patients with tumors expressing high c‐MYC levels (median not reached vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.66; P < .001) compared with in those expressing low c‐MYC levels (median 20.6 vs 16.6 months; HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42, 1.2). Expression of c‐MYC in tumors varied based on the number and type of prior therapy received, with the lowest levels observed in tumors of patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy including SCT. These tumors also had higher expression levels of CD19 and CD81.ConclusionsPFS analyses suggest that lenalidomide and ixazomib target tumors with different levels of c‐MYC, CD19, and CD81 expression, thus providing a potential rationale for the differential benefits observed in the TOURMALINE‐MM1 study. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as: NCT01564537

Background Systemic AL amyloidosis is a clonal plasma cell disorder in which amyloid fibrils are deposited in tissues and organs, leading to multi-system organ dysfunction. The most frequently involved organs are the heart and kidney (individually or together), with advanced cardiac involvement conferring particularly poor outcomes. Achievement of hematologic response and improved organ function result in better outcomes. There are currently no approved treatments for AL amyloidosis; multiple myeloma (MM) treatment strategies are used for these pts. Active, tolerable treatment options specific for AL amyloidosis are needed. The oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib (ixa) is active and approved in combination with lenalidomide (L)-dexamethasone (Dex) for the treatment of MM pts who have received ≥1 prior therapy. Methods RRAL pts with measurable disease and major organ involvement (cardiac/renal) who required treatment after 1-2 prior therapies (and were not refractory to prior PI therapy) were randomized to ixa (4.0 mg, d 1, 8, 15) plus Dex (20 mg, d 1, 8, 15, 22) or physician's choice (Dex alone or plus melphalan [M], cyclophosphamide [C], thalidomide [T], or lenalidomide [L]) in 28-d cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or best response plus 2 cycles or maximum 18 mos therapy/600 mg total dose for MDex). Randomization was stratified by cardiac risk stage, relapsed vs refractory disease, and prior PI exposure. Primary endpoints were 1) overall hematologic response rate (ORR) centrally adjudicated, and 2) death or vital organ deterioration at 2 yrs. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and hematologic complete response (CR) rate; other secondary endpoints included hematologic/vital organ progression-free survival (PFS), time to vital organ deterioration or mortality, duration of hematologic response (DOR), and safety. Results 168 pts were randomized to ixa-Dex (n=85) or physician's choice (n=83; 47 LDex, 24 MDex, 10 CDex, 2 TDex); median age was 65 (range 38-84) vs 66 (33-82) yrs, 60% vs 55% were male, 56% vs 63% had cardiac and 66% vs 58% had renal involvement (33% vs 23% had both) at initial diagnosis (plus 9% vs 12% liver, 12% vs 18% gastrointestinal tract, and 11% vs 10% peripheral nerve involvement), 47% vs 47% had prior bortezomib, and 47% vs 37% had prior transplant. Median time since diagnosis was 14.7 vs 15.9 mos. Hematologic responses were seen in 45 (53%) vs 42 (51%) pts receiving ixa-Dex vs physician's choice (odds ratio 1.10 [95% CI 0.60-2.01], p=0.762). Higher CR rates were seen with ixa-Dex vs physician's choice (26% vs 18%). Overall survival, overall/hematologic/vital organ PFS, time to vital organ deterioration/death, DOR, time to treatment failure, and time to subsequent therapy data all favored pts treated with ixa-Dex vs physician's choice (Figure). Vital organ response rates were 36% in the ixa-Dex arm vs 11% with physician's choice (cardiac response rate: 18% vs 5%; renal response rate: 28% vs 7%). At data cut-off, pts had received a median treatment duration of 11.7 vs 4.9 mos with ixa-Dex vs physician's choice, and 21% vs 6% of pts remained on treatment. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were seen in 59% vs 56% of pts, including 33% vs 41% with drug-related grade ≥3 AEs, 45% vs 33% had serious AEs, 25% vs 20% had AEs resulting in discontinuation, and there were 6% vs 5% on-study deaths. AEs of clinical importance included diarrhea (34% vs 30%), rash (33% vs 20%), cardiac arrhythmias (25% vs 15%), nausea (24% vs 14%), pneumonia (22% vs 16%), and peripheral neuropathy (20% vs 15%). Common (≥5% overall) grade ≥3 AEs were fatigue (9% vs 9%), anemia (2% vs 10%), cardiac failure, dyspnea (each 6% vs 4%), peripheral edema, and pneumonia (each 5% vs 5%). Conclusions Treatment with ixa-Dex significantly prolonged duration of composite survival and vital organ function, PFS, and time to subsequent therapy vs physician's choice. Moreover, ixa-Dex resulted in an improved CR rate and DOR and, although the primary endpoint of hematologic response was not met, all clinically relevant time-to-event endpoint data favored ixa-Dex vs physician's choice. Ixa-Dex was generally well tolerated and associated with a doubling of treatment duration vs physician's choice; no new safety signals were seen. TOURMALINE-AL1 is the first phase 3 trial in RRAL to show significant outcome improvements, suggesting ixa-Dex represents a new option for RRAL pts, who have limited access to therapies. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Kastritis:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Wechalekar:Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Other: Travel Grant. Sanchorawala:Proclara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Caelum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Landau:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki:Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Comenzo:Takeda: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myself: Patents & Royalties: Patent 9593332, Pending 20170008966. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Faller:Phoenicia Biosciences: Equity Ownership; Briacell Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Viracta Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Boston University: Employment. Off Label Disclosure: Investigation of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with dexamethasone versus physician's choice (of which there are no approved treatment options) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory primary systemic amyloidosis.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a gut-selective, humanised, monoclonal α 4β 7 integrin antibody for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD). VDZ is currently an intravenous (IV) therapy; a subcutaneous (SC) formulation is under development to provide patients with an alternative route of administration for maintenance treatment for UC and CD. Here we present the first data from the phase 3 study of VDZ SC maintenance treatment in CD. Methods VISIBLE 2 (NCT02611817; EudraCT 2015-000481-58) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase 3 trial of VDZ SC as maintenance treatment in adults with moderately to severely active CD. Patients (n = 644) received open-label VDZ 300mg IV induction therapy at Weeks 0 and 2. At Week 6, clinical responders (defined as patients with a ≥70-point decrease in CD Activity Index [CDAI] from baseline) were randomly assigned to receive vedolizumab SC (108 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W]), or placebo (Q2W) for up to 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at Week 52 (defined as CDAI score ≤150). Rank-ordered secondary endpoints were enhanced clinical response at Week 52 (a drop of ≥100 in CDAI score), corticosteroid (CS)-free clinical remission at Week 52, and clinical remission at Week 52 in anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve patients. Finally, VDZ immunogenicity and predefined adverse events of special interest were assessed. Results Patients who responded to VDZ IV induction at Week 6 (n = 409) were randomised to VDZ SC (n = 275) or PBO (n = 134) maintenance and received at least 1 dose of study drug; 61% and 53%, respectively, were previously exposed to anti-TNF therapy. At Week 52, 48.0% of patients on VDZ SC vs. 34.3% on PBO were in clinical remission (p = 0.008, Figure). Enhanced clinical response at Week 52 was reached by 52.0% vs. 44.8% of patients on VDZ SC vs. PBO, respectively (p = 0.167). Among patients on concomitant CS at baseline (VDZ SC, n = 95; PBO, n = 44), 45.3% receiving VDZ SC vs. 18.2% receiving PBO achieved CS-free clinical remission at Week 52. Of anti-TNF-naïve patients (VDZ SC, n = 107; PBO, n = 63), 48.6% vs. 42.9% were in clinical remission at Week 52 in the VDZ SC and PBO arms, respectively. Injection-site reactions were reported for &lt;3% of patients treated with VDZ SC. Serious infections, malignancy, and liver injury were ≤5% for both arms. Anti-VDZ antibodies were detected in 7 (2.5%) patients treated with VDZ SC arm; 4 of 7 patients developed neutralising antibodies. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion Among VDZ IV induction responders, significantly more patients on maintenance VDZ SC than PBO achieved clinical remission at Week 52. The safety findings with VDZ SC remain in line with the known safety profile of VDZ IV in patients with CD.

Abstract Background Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a gut-selective α 4β 7 integrin monoclonal antibody approved for IV administration for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). The phase 3 VISIBLE 1 study evaluated SC VDZ for UC maintenance therapy. After 2 IV doses, 56.1% patients had a clinical response at week 6; among patients who received a third induction infusion, clinical response rates were 79.7%. In this post hoc analysis, we examined baseline characteristics as predictors of clinical response to IV induction with VDZ. Methods In the VISIBLE 1 study (NCT02611830; EudraCT 2015-000480-14), patients (patients) received IV VDZ 300 mg at Weeks 0 and 2. At Week 6, clinical responders were randomised to maintenance SC therapy; nonresponders were given a third IV dose and reassessed at Week 14. As endoscopy was only available at Week 6, the clinical response at Week 6 was defined as ≥3 points and ≥30% reduction in complete Mayo score from Week 0 and at Week 14 as a ≥2 points and ≥25% reduction in partial Mayo score from Week 0. Both definitions also included an accompanying decrease in rectal bleeding subscore ≥1 or absolute subscore ≤1. Results Overall, 383 patients received ≥1 dose of IV VDZ. Of these, 56.1% responded at Week 6 after 2 VDZ doses. Of the 143 patients who received 3 IV doses, 79.7% responded at Week 14. No clinically meaningful differences in baseline demographic and disease characteristics were observed between patients who responded after 2 or 3 IV doses (Table). Differences in disease location and partial Mayo score (&lt; or ≥6) were observed between the responders and nonresponders in the 3 IV dose group. Baseline characteristics were evaluated descriptively to assess predictors of clinical response after 2 or 3 IV VDZ doses. Conclusion Clinical response was achieved by most patients after either 2 or 3 IV VDZ infusions in the VISIBLE 1 trial. Post hoc analyses revealed no clinically meaningful differences in baseline characteristics or disease characteristics that could serve as predictors of response following 2 or 3 VDZ infusions. Further real-world experience may elucidate potential predictors of response to VDZ.

Abstract Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) experience substantial impairment in quality of life (QOL). Patient QOL endpoints are important measures of treatment outcome. We evaluated the effects of intravenous vedolizumab vs. adalimumab on QOL in VARSITY, the first head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Methods VARSITY was a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial (NCT02497469; EudraCT 2015-000939-33). QOL was assessed using the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) at baseline, Week (Week) 30, and Week 52. Endpoints included clinically meaningful IBDQ improvement (defined as an increase in total score of ≥16 points from baseline to Week 52), IBDQ remission (defined as a total score of &gt;170 points at Week 52) and change from baseline in IBDQ-specific domain scores (bowel symptoms, systemic symptoms, emotional function, and social function) at Week 30 and Week 52. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FCP) were also assessed as indicators of disease activity. Results Among randomised patients, 383 (vedolizumab) and 386 (adalimumab) patients received ≥1 dose of study drug (N=769). At Week 52, clinically meaningful IBDQ improvement was observed in 52.0% (vedolizumab) vs. 42.2% (adalimumab) of patients (treatment difference 9.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7% to 16.7%), while IBDQ remission was achieved by 50.1% (vedolizumab) vs. 40.4% (adalimumab) of patients (treatment difference 9.6%; 95% CI, 2.8% to 16.5%). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) changes in IBDQ total score from baseline for observed cases favoured vedolizumab over adalimumab (Week 30: 61.3 [39.8] vs. 52.6 [42.8]; Week 52: 66.1 [41.8] vs. 60.4 [42.2]; Figure 1). IBDQ subscores showed similar favourable trends for vedolizumab (Figure 2). At Week 52, mean (SD) changes from baseline in CRP for patients treated with vedolizumab vs. adalimumab were –50.9 (174.8) nmol/l vs. –37.2 (169.2) nmol/l and for FCP were –2187.3 (7440.4) µg/g vs. –1846.6 (4560.6) µg/g (Figure 3). Among patients with FCP &gt;250 µg/g at baseline, the proportion of patients achieving FCP ≤250 µg/g was 33.9% vs. 24.5% at Week 30 and 35.2% vs. 28.9% at Week 52 for patients treated with vedolizumab vs. adalimumab, respectively. Conclusion Based on IBDQ total score and subscores, more patients with UC treated with vedolizumab than with adalimumab achieved clinically meaningful improvement and clinical remission. Reduced inflammation, as indicated by improvements in CRP and FCP, was consistent with improvements in QOL.

Abstract The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (A) with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD; A+AVD) exhibited superior modified progression-free survival (PFS) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for frontline treatment of patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Maturing positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted trial data highlight potential limitations of PET-adapted approaches, including toxicities with dose intensification and higher-than-expected relapse rates in PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2)-negative (PET2−) patients. We present an update of the ECHELON-1 study, including an exploratory analysis of 3-year PFS per investigator. A total of 1334 patients with stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670). Interim PET2 was required. At median follow-up of 37 months, 3-year PFS rates were 83.1% with A+AVD and 76.0% with ABVD; 3-year PFS rates in PET2− patients aged &lt;60 years were 87.2% vs 81.0%, respectively. A beneficial trend in PET2+ patients aged &lt;60 years on A+AVD was also observed, with a 3-year PFS rate of 69.2% vs 54.7% with ABVD. The benefit of A+AVD in the intent-to-treat population appeared independent of disease stage and prognostic risk factors. Upon continued follow-up, 78% of patients with peripheral neuropathy on A+AVD had either complete resolution or improvement compared with 83% on ABVD. These data highlight that A+AVD provides a durable efficacy benefit compared with ABVD for frontline stage III/IV cHL, consistent across key subgroups regardless of patient status at PET2, without need for treatment intensification or bleomycin exposure. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01712490 (EudraCT no. 2011-005450-60).

AbstractObjectivesHealth‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post‐transplant, when disease symptoms are limited.MethodsWe assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE‐MM3 (NCT02181413).ResultsThe characteristics at study entry were well‐balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ‐C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four‐week intervals using a linear mixed‐effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ‐C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ‐MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least‐squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma.ConclusionsIn addition to improvement in progression‐free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL.

Abstract There is a need for new approaches and endpoints in oncology drug development, particularly with the advent of immunotherapies and the multiple drug combinations under investigation. Tumor dynamics modeling, a key component to oncology “model-informed drug development,” has shown a growing number of applications and a broader adoption by drug developers and regulatory agencies in the past years to support drug development and approval in a variety of ways. Tumor dynamics modeling is also being investigated in personalized cancer therapy approaches. These models and applications are reviewed and discussed, as well as the limitations and issues open for further investigations. A close collaboration between stakeholders like clinical investigators, statisticians, and pharmacometricians is warranted to advance clinical cancer therapeutics.