Citations

Abstract Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains challenging particularly in the relapsed/refractory setting, where patients often show chemoresistance. Novel molecular-based therapies have shown impressive and durable activity in that setting, although primary and acquired resistance remains problematic. A recent retrospective series of 114 patients who had failed ibrutinib (median of 4.7 month exposure) showed very short median overall survival of 2.9 months after ibrutinib cessation (Martin et al. Blood 2015). Here we report the results from the observationalMCL-004 study investigating outcomes of patients treated with lenalidomide (an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent) after failing ibrutinib; patients were either relapsed, progressed, refractory, or intolerant to ibrutinib. The objective here is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of lenalidomide monotherapy or a lenalidomide-containing regimen in relapsed/refractory MCL after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. Methods: MCL-004 is a multicenter study in patients with MCL who relapsed/progressed after or were refractory/intolerant to ibrutinib, and were subsequently treated with lenalidomide. With patient informed consent, data were collected retrospectively from patients who, after their disease failed to respond to ibrutinib, received lenalidomide-based therapy from March 1, 2009 to June 9, 2015. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) based on 2007 International Working Group criteria, with required patient monitoring and routine imaging. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled at 7 US sites and 1 EU site, including patients receiving lenalidomide monotherapy (n=8), lenalidomide + rituximab (n=8), and lenalidomide + other treatment (n=14). Lenalidomide + other treatment included combination with rituximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (n=3); other combinations were given in ≤2 patients. Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 50-84), and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1-21.7). All patients received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, and 83% received ≥3 prior therapies (median prior therapies, 3.5; range, 2-8). With prior ibrutinib, the best responses achieved were 10% complete response (CR), 43% partial response (PR), 3% stable disease, 40% relapse/progressive disease (PD), and 3% unknown. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were 50% relapse/PD, 40% refractory, and 10% intolerance. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-11) of lenalidomide-based treatment. Eight patients' disease responded (4 CR, 4 PR), resulting in an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12%-46%). Five of 8 maintained their response at data cut-off (3 CR, 2 PR). ORR was similar for patients with relapse/PD vs. those refractory to ibrutinib (29% vs. 33%, respectively). Median duration of response (DOR) was 18 weeks (95% CI, 2.9-25+) for all patients. Median DOR was not reached in patients who previously relapsed/progressed with ibrutinib compared with a median of 11 weeks for those whose disease was refractory to ibrutinib. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 33% fatigue; 27% nausea; and 23% each dyspnea, neutropenia, dizziness, or rash. In general, TEAEs were less common with lenalidomide monotherapy. The most frequently reported serious AEs were pneumonia, dyspnea, deep vein thrombosis, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (7% each). At data cutoff, 15 patients (50%) had died, mostly due to MCL and none due to second primary malignancy. Conclusions: Most patients received ≥3 prior lines of treatment, and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was short. Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity in this difficult-to-treat patient population, including 27% ORR and 13% CR. No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified. Overall, our results show that lenalidomide is active in a selected group of patients with relapsed/refractory MCL that previously failed ibrutinib. Disclosures Wang: BeiGene: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martin:Acerta: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Goy:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding. Ghosh:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barnett:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schuster:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) requires a careful balance between providing enough therapy to cure the disease and avoiding unnecessary treatment that could result in excessive long-term treatment-related complications. The preferred treatment option for limited stage non-bulky HL currently involves the use of combined chemotherapy and involved-field radiation therapy. Given the unclear overall survival advantage and the long-term side effects associated with consolidative radiation, the use of this modality remains one of the most controversial topics in the treatment of HL. Therefore, alternative consolidation approaches are worthy of exploration for treatment of limited stage non-bulky HL. Brentuximab vedotin has been associated with favorable response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory HL. We hypothesize that brentuximab vedotin may be safe and effective in eradicating residual disease after induction chemotherapy and may potentially replace radiation therapy for consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL. Methods: In this phase 2 multicenter study, patients with non-bulky (< 7.5 cm) stage I or II HL are being enrolled to determine the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered for consolidation after a standard chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01578967). The primary objective of the study is to estimate the proportion of patients who achieve PET-negative disease (Deauville score of 2 or less) after induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation with brentuximab vedotin. Involved-field radiation is recommended only if the PET scan is positive at the completion of therapy with brentuximab vedotin. Patients received 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD based on their baseline risk factors and the interim PET scan result; patients with favorable disease with negative interim PET received 2 cycles, favorable disease with positive interim PET or unfavorable disease with negative interim PET received 4 cycles, and unfavorable disease with positive interim PET received 6 cycles of ABVD. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after the induction chemotherapy, 1.8 mg/kg of brentuximab vedotin was given every 3 weeks for 6 cycles for consolidation. Results: Interim analysis was performed per protocol for futility and safety after 15 evaluable patients were enrolled since April 2012. Out of 15 evaluable patients, 8 patients have completed 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin, and the remaining 7 patients are currently under active treatment. The median age was 28 years (range 19 – 58), and 7 patients (47%) presented with unfavorable disease defined by the presence of B symptoms, ESR > 50, or > 3 sites of disease. All patients had masses measuring less than 7.5 cm in diameter except one patient who requested an exception to the eligibility criteria for a conglomerate mediastinal mass measuring 10 cm. No grade 3 or above adverse events have been observed with brentuximab vedotin therapy. No grade 2 or above peripheral neuropathy or pulmonary toxicity has been reported. Ten out of 12 patients, who completed ABVD, achieved PET-negative disease after 2 cycles of ABVD, and all 7 patients who completed brentuximab vedotin achieved PET-negative disease and remain in remission with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 5.6 – 15). Thus far, none of the treated patients on this protocol required consolidative radiation therapy. Conclusion: In this interim analysis of 15 patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL, brentuximab vedotin as consolidation therapy demonstrates promising safety and clinical activity following ABVD. Enrollment is currently open with the target accrual of 40 patients to assess the feasibility of achieving PET-negative disease and thereby avoiding radiation therapy in at least 85% of patients who receive ABVD followed by brentuximab vedotin consolidation. Table: PET results in HL patients who received ABVD followed by BV Consolidation Interim-PET2 (n = 12) Post ABVD (n = 12) Post BV (n = 7) Deauville 1 0 1 4 Deauville 2 10 11 3 Deauville 3 2 0 0 Deauville ≥ 4 0 0 0 PET, positron emission tomography; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; ABVD, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine; BV, brentuximab vedotin; Interim-PET-2, PET scan after 2 cycles of ABVD; Post ABVD, PET scan after 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD; Post BV, PET scan after 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin Disclosures Park: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Janssen: Travel, Travel Other. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin in previously untreated Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P &lt; 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.

SummaryBendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) is a standard frontline treatment for medically fit follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. The safety and efficacy of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR induction has not been formally compared to observation for FL, resulting in disparate practice patterns. Prospective trials have shown benefit of MR after R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R‐CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), yet recent data from the GALLIUM study comparing outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy with R or obinutuzumab (G) showed higher than anticipated fatal adverse events with BR/BG. In order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of MR after BR, we retrospectively collected data on 640 newly diagnosed patients treated with FL. We found that patients who achieved partial remission (PR) after ≥4 cycles of BR had improved duration of response (DOR) with MR vs. no maintenance, whereas those in complete remission did not. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort. In the entire study population, the known fatal adverse event rate after BR was 2·5% and did not significantly differ in those receiving MR versus no maintenance. [Correction added on 14 January 2019, after online publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected in this current version.] Within the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis, these data suggest that FL patients with a PR to BR experience prolongation of remission with MR with an acceptable safety profile.

Key Points The tumor microenvironment drives myeloma cell clonogenic growth and self-renewal through GDF15.