Citations

Purpose Selection bias in clinical trials has consequences for scientific validity and applicability of study results to the general population. There is concern that patients with clinically aggressive disease may not have enrolled in recent diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) trials due to the consent process and the inability to delay therapy for eligibility evaluation. We have examined the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and its association with clinical factors and outcome in a clinic-based observational cohort of patients with DLBCL from the United States. Validation of results was performed in an independent, clinical trial-based cohort from Europe. Patients and Methods Patients were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER; N = 986) or the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) LNH-2003 clinical trials program (N = 1,444). All patients received anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy at initial diagnosis. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis (EFS24). Results Median (range) DTI was 15 days (0 to 155 days in the MER and 23 days (0 to 215 days) in LYSA. Shorter DTI was strongly associated with adverse clinical factors, including elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor performance status, B symptoms, and higher International Prognostic Index in both cohorts (all P < .001). Longer DTI was associated with improved EFS24 in both the MER (per-week odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74 to .0.87) and LYSA (per-week odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94); association with EFS24 remained significant after adjustment for International Prognostic Index. Conclusion DTI is strongly associated with prognostic clinical factors and outcome in newly diagnosed DLBCL. DTI should be reported in all clinical trials of newly diagnosed DLBCL and future trials should take steps to avoid selection bias due to treatment delay.

Akt is a downstream target of B cell receptor signaling and is a central regulator of CLL cell survival. We aim to investigate the safety and efficacy of the Akt inhibitor MK‐2206 in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in relapsed and/or refractory CLL in a phase I/II study. A standard phase I design was used with cohorts of three plus three patients to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of MK‐2206 in combination with BR in relapsed CLL. Single‐agent MK‐2206 (weekly dosed) was administered one‐week in advance before BR on cycle 1 and subsequently was given with BR at the same time for cycle 2‐6. Phase II employed the MTD of MK‐2206 with BR to evaluate safety and efficacy of this study combination. Thirteen relapsed/refractory CLL were treated for maximal 6‐cycle of therapy. The maximum tolerated dose of MK‐2206 was 90 mg by mouth once weekly. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (46%), febrile neutropenia (23%), rash (15%), diarrhea (15%), and thrombocytopenia (15%). Overall response rate was 92% with a median progression free survival and treatment free survival of 16 and 24 months, respectively. Five patients (38%) achieved complete remission or complete remission with incomplete count recovery, two of whom were MRD negative. The efficacy and tolerability of this combination indicates that Akt inhibition combined with chemoimmunotherapy is a promising novel treatment combination in CLL and deserves further prospective clinical trial.

Purpose We examined the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging in a large, prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from the United States and confirmed our results in an independent cohort of patients from France. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and treated with anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy were identified from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence and the Léon Bérard Cancer Center, Lyon, France. In those with relapse, details at relapse and outcomes were abstracted from records. Results 680 individuals with DLBCL were identified from the MER, 552 (81%) of whom achieved remission after induction. 112 of the 552 patients (20%) suffered a relapse. The majority (64%) of relapses were identified before a scheduled follow-up visit. Surveillance imaging detected DLBCL relapse before clinical manifestations in nine out of 552 patients (1.6%) observed after therapy. In the Lyon cohort, imaging identified asymptomatic DLBCL relapse in four out of 222 patients (1.8%). There was no difference in survival after DLBCL relapse in patients detected at scheduled follow-up versus before scheduled follow-up in both the MER (P = .56) and Lyon cohorts (P = .25). Conclusion The majority of DLBCL relapses are detected outside of planned follow-up, with no difference in outcome in patients with DLBCL detected at a scheduled visit compared with patients with relapse detected outside of planned follow-up. These data do not support the use of routine surveillance imaging for follow-up of DLBCL.