Citations

Purpose of reviewRecent literature has described the emerging role of anesthesiologists as key members of the lung transplantation team and the impact of anesthetic management on outcomes. This review examines the impact of presenting cause of end-stage lung disease (ESLD) on anesthetic management.Recent findingsThe four primary causes of ESLD are suppurative, obstructive, or restrictive processes, and pulmonary hypertension. Our recent review of perioperative literature revealed new data regarding preoperative risk stratification, intraoperative management, and postoperative use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Major studies specifically about anesthetic management are lacking; however, the principles studied are readily applicable to the design of a perioperative care plan. The most compelling data have resulted in a revolutionary change in terms of intraoperative support and postoperative planning for pulmonary hypertension patients. Historically treated with cardiopulmonary bypass, significant data have been reported describing the successful use of ECMO both as an intraoperative support with superior outcomes, as well as postoperative support for improved stability during biventricular remodeling post graft implantation.SummaryThe application of these updated findings should assist anesthesiologists as they develop internal protocols and external guidelines to integrate within multidisciplinary teams caring for the lung transplant patient.

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 Background Despite improvements in outcome following the addition of rituximab (R) to CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) (R-CHOP), patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 at diagnosis have a poor outcome. Enzastaurin is a potent inhibitor of PKCβ, a component of the B-cell receptor signaling complex, with preclinical activity and clinical activity in a phase II trial in patients with relapsed DLBCL, providing the rationale for this study in the primary therapy setting. Methods PRELUDE was a multi-national, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Patients were required to have a histologic diagnosis of DLBCL, pre-treatment IPI score ≥3, and a complete response (CR) or CRu by International Working Group Criteria, or a negative FDG-PET scan after 6–8 cycles of R-CHOP. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either enzastaurin 500 mg daily or an identical placebo as maintenance therapy, for a planned treatment duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint was DFS, defined as lack of disease progression or death. Assuming a 2-year DFS rate in the control group of 70%, the primary analysis had 80% power to detect a HR of 0.67, eg, a 2-year DFS rate of 79% in the enzastaurin group. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Data were analyzed 3 years after the last enrolled patient initiated treatment. Results From May 2006–April 2010, 758 patients were enrolled (enzastaurin, n=504; placebo, n=254). Median age at enrollment was 64 years (range 21-89); at diagnosis, 65% of patients had stage IV disease, 48% had B symptoms, and 25% had a mass >10 cm; baseline disease and patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms. Fifty-seven percent had a negative PET scan following completion of R-CHOP. Median follow-up time for all patients was 48 months (range 0.03–80). At the time of analysis, 209 events had occurred. The DFS HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.22; 2-sided log-rank p=0.54). DFS at 24 and 48 months were 79% and 70% for the enzastaurin arm, and 75% and 71% for placebo, respectively. OS at 24 and 48 months was 87% and 81% for enzastaurin, and 89% and 82% for placebo; HR for enzastaurin vs. placebo was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.47; 2-sided log-rank p=0.81). Percent of ITT population patients on therapy at 12, 24, and 36 months was 70.6%, 60.6%, and 20.1% for enzastaurin; 72.3%, 60.6%, and 22.1% for placebo. Biomarker subgroup analysis was performed and will be available at time of presentation. Treatment emergent AEs (all grades) that were possibly study drug-related and significantly different between enzastaurin and placebo included chromaturia (18.5% vs. 0.4%), QTc prolongation (10.8% vs. 3.6%), and diarrhea (10.3% vs. 2.8%). There were no significant differences in number of patients with at least 1 grade 3 or higher AE between treatment arms. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of deaths while on therapy. Conclusion Enzastaurin did not improve DFS, EFS, or OS in patients with high-risk DLBCL and CR following R-CHOP treatment. Disclosures: Crump: Roche: Honoraria; Jansen-Ortho: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Off Label Use: rituximab for maintenance therapy post autolgous transplant for lymphoma. Leppä:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Ogura:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Rifkin:Millenium, Celgene, ONYX: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackensen:Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Offner:Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Genentech, Celgene, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, Amgen/Micronet: Consultancy. Tobinai:Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Hahka-Kemppinen:Eli Lilly: Employment. Thornton:Eli Lilly: Employment. Shi:Eli Lilly: Employment. Lin:Eli Lilly: Employment. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy. Savage:Eli Lilly: Consultancy.

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