Coutré, Steven

SummaryIbrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for treatment of various B‐cell malignancies. In ibrutinib clinical studies, low‐grade haemorrhage was common, whereas major haemorrhage (MH) was infrequent. We analysed the incidence of and risk factors for MH from 15 ibrutinib clinical studies (N = 1768), including 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rates of any‐grade bleeding were similar for single‐agent ibrutinib and ibrutinib combinations (39% and 40%). Low‐grade bleeding was more common in ibrutinib‐treated than comparator‐treated patients (35% and 15%), and early low‐grade bleeding was not associated with MH. The proportion of MH in RCTs was higher with ibrutinib than comparators (4.4% vs. 2.8%), but after adjusting for longer exposure with ibrutinib (median 13 months vs. 6 months), the incidence of MH was similar (3.2 vs. 3.1 per 1000 person‐months). MH led to treatment discontinuation in 1% of all ibrutinib‐treated patients. Use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets (AC/AP) during the study was common (~50% of patients) and had an increased exposure‐adjusted relative risk for MH in both the total ibrutinib‐treated population (1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–3.0) and RCT comparator‐treated patients (2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0–5.6), indicating that ibrutinib may not alter the effect of AC/AP on the risk of MH in B‐cell malignancies.

Key Points RP2D of PEV 20 mg/m2 in PEV/AZA combo did not alter toxicity profile of AZA; dose-limiting toxicities were transiently elevated AST/ALT. In treatment-naive older AML patients, the intent-to-treat ORR was 50%.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL who use unmutated IGHV (u-CLL) have a less favorable outcome with standard chemotherapy than pts who use mutated IGHV (m-CLL). Ibrutinib (ibr) inhibits B-cell receptor signaling through Bruton’s tyrosine kinase and has robust clinical activity against CLL. This integrated analysis of 3 phase 3 studies examined the impact of IGHV status on ibr- and comparator (comp)-treated pts. Methods: Pooled data from 3 studies of ibr (420 mg/d) in CLL/SLL pts (RESONATE: relapsed/refractory [R/R] pts, ibr vs ≤ 24 weeks ofatumumab; RESONATE-2: treatment-naïve [TN] pts ≥ 65 yrs of age [no del17p], ibr vs ≤ 12 cycles chlorambucil; HELIOS: R/R pts [no del17p], ≤ 6 cycles bendamustine-rituximab with ibr vs placebo) were analyzed by IGHV status. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier method (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival [PFS]); log-rank test (group comparisons); and Cox multivariate analysis (prognostic factors; Table). Results: For 491 ibr- (366 u-CLL, 125 m-CLL) and 494 comp-treated (351 u-CLL, 143 m-CLL) pts with IGHV data, baseline characteristics were similar for u-CLL vs m-CLL, except for the proportions of pts who were TN (17 vs 31%), had bulky disease (60 vs 37%), or had CLL cells with del11q (32 vs 16%). Median follow up was 21.4 mos for ibr and 20.6 mos for comp. PFS and OS were similar for u-CLL and m-CLL ibr-treated pts; u-CLL had poorer outcomes than m-CLL in comp-treated pts, which remained after adjustment for prognostic factors (Table). Ibr treatment was more effective than comp regardless of IGHV status. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups. For ibr vs comp pts (u-CLL/m-CLL): serious AEs: 49% (50%/47%) vs 36.5% (37%/35%); AEs that led to discontinuation: 12% (11%/15%) vs 13% (13%/14%); death within 30 days of last dose: 5% (6%/3%) vs 5% (6%/2%). Conclusions: U-CLL was an adverse predictor of outcome for comp-treated, but not for ibr-treated pts. Table.Efficacy Outcomes in Ibr- and Comparator-Treated Patients by IGHV Mutation StatusIbrutinib (N=491)Comparator (N =494)u-CLL (n=717)m-CLL (n=268)u-CLL(n=366): m-CLL(n=125)u-CLL(n=351): m-CLL(n=143)Ibr(n=366): Comp(n=351)Ibr (n=125): Comp (n=143)PFS24-month rate HR78%:81%10%:32%78%:10%81%:32%0.93a1.99a0.12b0.21bp = 0.78p < 0.0001p < 0.0001p <0.0001Adjusted HRc1.02a1.94a0.11b0.17bp = 0.93p < 0.0001p < 0.0001p < 0.0001OS24-month rate HR88%:89%78%:87%88%:78%89%:87%0.95a1.96a0.49b0.85b,ep = 0.86p = 0.02p < 0.01p = 0.66Adjusted HRc1.21a2.10a0.49bNAp =0.57p = 0.01p < 0.001Response ratesu-CLLm-CLLu-CLLm-CLLIbrCompIbrCompORR, %d8990475189479051p = 0.96p = 0.36p < 0.0001p < 0.0001CR, %d221546224156p = 0.10p = 0.44p < 0.0001p = 0.01CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; ORR, overall response rate; NA, not applicable. aHR < 1 favors unmutated. bHR < 1 favors ibrutinib. cMultivariate Cox model adjusted for age, sex, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG performance status score, del11q, del17p, number of prior therapies, and cytopenias. dp value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. eInsufficient number of events prevents meaningful analysis, only 13 and 16 events observed in ibr and comp groups, respectively, and 46 (32%) pts in comp arm crossed over to ibr arm; interpret results with caution. Citation Format: Thomas J. Kipps, Graeme Fraser, Steven Coutre, Jennifer R. Brown, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Paul M. Barr, John C. Byrd, Susan M. O'Brien, Marie-Sarah Dilhuydy, Stephen Devereux, Ulrich Jaeger, Carol Moreno, Paula Cramer, Stephan Stilgenbauer, Asher A. Chanan-Khan, Michelle Mahler, Mariya Salman, Mei Cheng, Anil Londhe, Joi Ninomoto, Angela Howes, Danelle James, Michael Hallek. Unmutated IGHV is not an adverse predictor of outcome to therapy with ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT158. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT158

LBA7008 Background: Treatment options for CLL/ SLL patients (pts) who fail chemoimmunotherapy are limited. We report interim results from a phase III randomized study of ibrutinib (ibr), a first in class covalent BTK inhibitor, vs ofatumumab (ofa) in R/R CLL/SLL. The Data Monitoring Committee recommended this analysis be considered final, based on meeting the primary and a key secondary endpoint. Methods: R/R CLL/SLL pts who failed ≥1 therapy received 420 mg oral ibr daily until progression or IV ofa 300/2000mg for 12 doses. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRC assessed overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: Of 391 pts enrolled (median age 67 years; 40% ≥70 years; 57% Rai stage III/IV disease; 30% del 17p), 195 were randomized to ibr and 196 to ofa. Ibr pts had median 3 prior therapies vs 2 for ofa. Median follow-up was 9.4 months (m). Ibr significantly lengthened PFS (median not reached vs 8.1 m; HR 0.215, CI 0.146–0.317, p<0.0001; 78.5% risk reduction), and significantly improved OS (median not reached; HR 0.434, CI 0.238–0.789, p=0.0049) compared with ofa. ORR was 42.6 vs 4.1% (p<0.0001) and ORR+PR with lymphocytosis was 62.6 vs 4.1% for ibr vs ofa. Similar effects were seen in del17p and purine analog refractory subsets. In each arm 2 pts had confirmed Richter’s transformation. Most frequent adverse events (AE) for ibr vs ofa were diarrhea (47.7 vs 17.8%) fatigue (27.7 vs 29.8%), and nausea (26.2 vs 18.3%). Atrial fibrillation was more frequent with ibr (5.1 vs 0.5%). Major hemorrhages were reported in 1.0 vs 1.6% for ibr vs ofa. Drug discontinuation due to AE was 4.1 vs 3.6% for ibr vs ofa. 86% of ibr pts were continuing treatment. 57 pts randomized to ofa with confirmed PD had initiated ibr at cross-over. Conclusions: Compared with ofa, ibr significantly improved PFS, OS and ORR in pts with R/R CLL/SLL. The safety profile was comparable with that previously reported (Byrd NEJM 2013). These results support ibr as a beneficial therapy for R/R CLL patients irrespective of del 17p or purine analog refractory disease. Clinical trial information: NCT01578707.

Key Points High WBC is an independent predictor of early HD in APL.

Abstract In a randomized trial of therapy for FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) mutant acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse, 224 patients received chemotherapy alone or followed by 80 mg of the FLT3 inhibitor lestaurtinib twice daily. Endpoints included complete remission or complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery (CR/CRp), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. Correlative studies included pharmacokinetics and analysis of in vivo FLT3 inhibition. There were 29 patients with CR/CRp in the lestaurtinib arm and 23 in the control arm (26% vs 21%; P = .35), and no difference in overall survival between the 2 arms. There was evidence of toxicity in the lestaurtinib-treated patients, particularly those with plasma levels in excess of 20μM. In the lestaurtinib arm, FLT3 inhibition was highly correlated with remission rate, but target inhibition on day 15 was achieved in only 58% of patients receiving lestaurtinib. Given that such a small proportion of patients on this trial achieved sustained FLT3 inhibition in vivo, any conclusions regarding the efficacy of combining FLT3 inhibition with chemotherapy are limited. Overall, lestaurtinib treatment after chemotherapy did not increase response rates or prolong survival of patients with FLT3 mutant acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00079482.