Sharon Worcester

CHICAGO – At least three phase 3 randomized scleroderma treatment trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology failed to meet modified Rodnan Skin Score–based primary endpoints, but a different story emerged when data from the trials were analyzed using the novel ACR Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS).

The differences highlight the limitations of individual outcome measures like the modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and underscore the need for new measures that capture the complexity of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and are more sensitive to changes in disease severity, according to Robert Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Such measures are needed to better assess the effects of treatment interventions in scleroderma trials, Dr. Spiera said in an interview.
 

The ACR CRISS

Development of the ACR CRISS was led by Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, a professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He and his colleagues described the measure in 2016 (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311. doi: 10.1002/art.39501).

Its use involves a two-step process of identifying any significant disease worsening or new end-organ damage, and then calculating the probability of patient improvement after 1 year of treatment on a 0- to 1-point scale based on changes from baseline in five variables: the mRSS, percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), patient and physician global assessments, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Of note, subjects with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

To devise the CRISS, the investigators compiled 150 patient profiles with standardized clinical outcome elements using patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). The profiles were assessed by 40 scleroderma experts who rated patient improvement or lack thereof over 12 months.

Using the 79% of profiles for which a consensus was reached, the investigators “fit logistic regression models in which the binary outcome referred to whether the patient was improved or not, and the changes in the core set items from baseline to follow-up were entered as covariates,” they explained.

This led to the selection of the five measures included in the final version, which was found to have sensitivity of 0.982 and specificity of 0.931. When evaluated in a previously completed 1-year randomized controlled trial, the index differentiated the effect of methotrexate from the effect of placebo (P = .02), they reported.

Based on these findings, the ACR board of directors granted “provisional” endorsement of the CRISS for use in SSc clinical studies, signifying that it had been quantitatively validated using patient data, but had not undergone validation using an external data set.

New data presented at the 2018 ACR meeting will likely lead to full approval of the measure once the studies validating the measure are published, according to Dr. Spiera.
 

The focuSSced study of tocilizumab

For example, in the phase 3 focuSSced study comparing the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor–alpha antibody tocilizumab (Actemra) with placebo in patients with SSc, the primary endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met (–6.14 vs. –4.41 points with tocilizumab vs. placebo, respectively; P = .098), Dr. Khanna said during a report of findings from the double-blind portion of the study.

However, when the CRISS was applied and its performance prospectively assessed as an exploratory outcome at week 48 in the focuSSced trial, the differences between the groups were statistically significant. Dr. Khanna reported those findings in a separate presentation at the meeting, noting that they marked the first prospective evaluation of the ACR CRISS in a phase 3 trial in SSc.

The CRISS was applied – using a blinded review of adverse events and serious adverse events to complete step 1 – in all patients who received study treatment, stratified by baseline IL-6 levels.

Of 104 patients in the tocilizumab arm and 106 in the placebo arm, 6 and 13 patients, respectively, had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and therefore received a score of 0.

Using the ACR CRISS as a continuous measure, scores favored tocilizumab over placebo at week 48 with a median increase of 0.89 vs. 0.25 points (P = .023), and using the binary form of CRISS, 51% vs. 37% of patients in the treatment and placebo arms achieved the score cutoff of 0.60 or higher at week 48 (P = .035), he said.

“The focuSSced study validates the ACR CRISS endpoint for the first time in an independent prospective clinical trial and highlights the importance of step 1 as an indicator of reduced organ progression during 48 weeks of treatment,” Dr. Khanna concluded.
 

The ASSET trial of abatacept

Dr. Khanna also reported results from the 12-month phase 2 ASSET trial comparing abatacept (Orencia) and placebo in early dcSSc.

Again, the change from baseline in mRSS – the primary endpoint of the study – did not differ significantly with treatment vs. placebo (–6.24 vs. –4.49; P = .28).

And again, as presented separately in a poster session at ACR, application of CRISS at 12 months – a secondary outcome measure in the trial – showed a significant difference between the groups.

The investigators prospectively performed step 1 of the CRISS using a case report form. Of 63 patients with complete data available for relevant outcomes at 12 months, 10 (5 in each group) had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and thus were given a score of 0.

Overall, there was evidence of significantly improved CRISS scores in the abatacept group vs. the placebo group (P = .03), he said.

Most of the individual CRISS variables, except HAQ-DI and patient global assessment, had statistically significant correlations with the CRISS, he noted, adding that “although the degree of correlation is high between the mRSS and CRISS, there is evidence that CRISS may be more sensitive to clinically meaningful treatment changes than the standard skin score endpoint.”

“This suggests further validation of CRISS as an independent primary endpoint for scleroderma clinical trials,” he concluded.
 

The phase 2b RISE-SSc study of riociguat

As in the focuSSced and ASSET studies, the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RISE-SSc study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat (Adempas) vs. placebo in 121 patients with early dcSSc, reported Oliver Distler, MD, a professor at University Hospital Zurich.

The mean change in mRSS at 52 weeks was 2.25 vs. 0.97 with riociguat vs. placebo, respectively (P = .08), although the difference in mRSS progression rate showed significant effects favoring riociguat (P = .02), he noted.

In this study, however, the proportion of patients with ACR CRISS probability of improvement (score of 0.60 or higher) at week 52 – a secondary study outcome – was the same at 18% in both arms, Dr. Distler said.

In a way, it’s helpful that the CRISS findings as well as the mRSS outcome in the RISE-SSc study were negative because it shows that “not everything comes up positive using the CRISS,” Dr. Spiera said.
 

An open-label extension trial of lenabasum

In the open-label extension of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum, Dr. Spiera and his colleagues also found the CRISS useful for assessing response in 36 patients. Lenabasum is a synthetic, nonimunosuppressive, selective cannabinoid receptor type 2 agonist that activates resolution of innate immune responses.

The agent continued to demonstrate acceptable safety and tolerability in dcSSc with no severe or serious adverse events or study discontinuations related to treatment during 12 months of open-label extension dosing, both from baseline and from the start of the extension, they reported in a poster at the ACR meeting. These assessments were based on ACR CRISS score, mRSS, physician global assessment, and multiple patient-reported outcomes.

The median CRISS score was 92% at week 52, and mRSS declined by a mean of 9.4 points (41.3% from baseline). More than a third of patients (35%) achieved a low mRSS of 10 or less.

The investigators noted, however, that definitive attribution of the findings to lenabasum is limited by the use of background therapy, the potential for spontaneous improvement in patients, and open-label dosing.
 

Evaluating immunosuppressive therapy in SSc

In another study presented at the ACR meeting, Boyang Zheng, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at McGill University in Montreal and his colleagues evaluated the effect of current immunosuppressive therapy on the ACR CRISS in 301 adult dcSSc patients without prior immunosuppression who were part of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) registry.

Patients newly treated with methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate and/or cyclophosphamide for at least 2 years (47 patients) were considered “exposed patients,” and untreated patients with at least the same follow-up duration were considered control subjects (254 patients).

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to balance potential confounders in the two groups, including age, sex, disease duration, and CRISS variables, in an effort “to create a statistical cohort that would resemble a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr Zheng explained.

Prior to IPTW, treated patients trended towards more improvement after 1 year, but with “unimpressive absolute values.”

“But [after IPTW], when you look at overall CRISS at 1 year, more of the treated patients had actually improved – 23% vs. 11.8% in the untreated patients. After adjusting for age, sex, and disease duration, immunosuppression was associated with an almost twofold higher likelihood of improvement, although this was not statistically significant,” he said.

“Most importantly, after our balancing in the statistical cohort – so after balancing and adjusting for covariates ... immunosuppression use was still associated with a higher likelihood of improving [with an] odds ratio of 1.85 and P-value of 0.018,” he said.

The treated patients were sicker, and the CRISS was still able to capture individual patient improvement, he added.

Though limited by the observational design and the fact that “IPTW balancing cannot correct for all possible confounders,” the findings “provide novel evidence to support the use of immunosuppression in diffuse systemic sclerosis, and this reassures us in our current practice; it provides evidence that the CRISS seems to have better sensitivity to change than the mean of individual disease measures,” he said.

However, it also shows that “we have a long way to go to have better treatment for our patients,” he added, noting that only a minority (23%) of the patients in this study improved on the CRISS.
 

Moving forward in systemic sclerosis

Indeed, in order to move forward in developing better treatment for SSc, it is important to have the best possible means for assessing the effects of the potential new treatments, Dr. Spiera said.

“The mRSS is a good, reliable outcome measure in terms of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and we know it has meaning in the real world; in a patient with rapidly progressive skin thickening and a skin score that is getting higher and higher, we know they have worse prognosis in terms of function and even survival,” he said. “On the other hand, it’s just one piece of this very complicated story when you’re dealing with patients with systemic sclerosis, some of whom can have important internal organ involvement and not even have skin involvement.”

The main challenge with the skin score is how it performs in clinical trials when it comes to demonstrating whether a drug works, he added.

“This is particularly relevant in an era where our better understanding of the disease has led to candidate therapeutic agents that we have reason to think might work, but where clinical trials haven’t shown a significant difference between the groups using the skin score.”

Conversely, there have been studies in which skin scores improve, but the patient is doing terribly, he noted.

“That patient would not be [shown to be] doing well using the CRISS,” he said, explaining that the complex formula used to determine the CRISS score, which is “heavily weighted toward skin score,” allows for an overall score that is “greater than the sum of its parts.” That is, if a patient is improving in multiple domains indicating that the patient is responding to therapy, more credit is given for each of those parts.

“So my sense, and I think it’s the consensus in the community of clinical investigators, is that the skin score is not adequately sensitive to change in the context of a trial and doesn’t capture the disease holistically enough to be the optimal measure for scleroderma clinical trials,” he said. “We think the CRISS score works better in terms of capturing improvement in the course of a trial, and also in capturing other outcomes that are really, really important to patients and to their physicians, like disability or lung function.”

The hope is that, given the evidence, regulatory agencies will look favorably on the ACR CRISS as an outcome measure in clinical trials moving forward, and that understanding of its use and value will increase across the rheumatology community, he said.

Dr. Spiera has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or other payments from many companies involved in SSc treatments, including Roche/Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals, which is developing lenabasum.

Dr. Khanna is a consultant to Roche/Genentech and Bayer, which markets riociguat, and other companies. He has received research grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (which markets abatacept), and Pfizer. The ASSET trial he presented was sponsored by an NIH/NIAID Clinical ACE grant and an investigator-initiated grant by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Distler has a consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding from Bayer, Roche/Genentech, and other companies. He also has a patent for a treatment for systemic sclerosis.

Dr. Zheng reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – At least three phase 3 randomized scleroderma treatment trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology failed to meet modified Rodnan Skin Score–based primary endpoints, but a different story emerged when data from the trials were analyzed using the novel ACR Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS).

The differences highlight the limitations of individual outcome measures like the modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and underscore the need for new measures that capture the complexity of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and are more sensitive to changes in disease severity, according to Robert Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Such measures are needed to better assess the effects of treatment interventions in scleroderma trials, Dr. Spiera said in an interview.
 

The ACR CRISS

Development of the ACR CRISS was led by Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, a professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He and his colleagues described the measure in 2016 (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311. doi: 10.1002/art.39501).

Its use involves a two-step process of identifying any significant disease worsening or new end-organ damage, and then calculating the probability of patient improvement after 1 year of treatment on a 0- to 1-point scale based on changes from baseline in five variables: the mRSS, percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), patient and physician global assessments, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Of note, subjects with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

To devise the CRISS, the investigators compiled 150 patient profiles with standardized clinical outcome elements using patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). The profiles were assessed by 40 scleroderma experts who rated patient improvement or lack thereof over 12 months.

Using the 79% of profiles for which a consensus was reached, the investigators “fit logistic regression models in which the binary outcome referred to whether the patient was improved or not, and the changes in the core set items from baseline to follow-up were entered as covariates,” they explained.

This led to the selection of the five measures included in the final version, which was found to have sensitivity of 0.982 and specificity of 0.931. When evaluated in a previously completed 1-year randomized controlled trial, the index differentiated the effect of methotrexate from the effect of placebo (P = .02), they reported.

Based on these findings, the ACR board of directors granted “provisional” endorsement of the CRISS for use in SSc clinical studies, signifying that it had been quantitatively validated using patient data, but had not undergone validation using an external data set.

New data presented at the 2018 ACR meeting will likely lead to full approval of the measure once the studies validating the measure are published, according to Dr. Spiera.
 

The focuSSced study of tocilizumab

For example, in the phase 3 focuSSced study comparing the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor–alpha antibody tocilizumab (Actemra) with placebo in patients with SSc, the primary endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met (–6.14 vs. –4.41 points with tocilizumab vs. placebo, respectively; P = .098), Dr. Khanna said during a report of findings from the double-blind portion of the study.

However, when the CRISS was applied and its performance prospectively assessed as an exploratory outcome at week 48 in the focuSSced trial, the differences between the groups were statistically significant. Dr. Khanna reported those findings in a separate presentation at the meeting, noting that they marked the first prospective evaluation of the ACR CRISS in a phase 3 trial in SSc.

The CRISS was applied – using a blinded review of adverse events and serious adverse events to complete step 1 – in all patients who received study treatment, stratified by baseline IL-6 levels.

Of 104 patients in the tocilizumab arm and 106 in the placebo arm, 6 and 13 patients, respectively, had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and therefore received a score of 0.

Using the ACR CRISS as a continuous measure, scores favored tocilizumab over placebo at week 48 with a median increase of 0.89 vs. 0.25 points (P = .023), and using the binary form of CRISS, 51% vs. 37% of patients in the treatment and placebo arms achieved the score cutoff of 0.60 or higher at week 48 (P = .035), he said.

“The focuSSced study validates the ACR CRISS endpoint for the first time in an independent prospective clinical trial and highlights the importance of step 1 as an indicator of reduced organ progression during 48 weeks of treatment,” Dr. Khanna concluded.
 

The ASSET trial of abatacept

Dr. Khanna also reported results from the 12-month phase 2 ASSET trial comparing abatacept (Orencia) and placebo in early dcSSc.

Again, the change from baseline in mRSS – the primary endpoint of the study – did not differ significantly with treatment vs. placebo (–6.24 vs. –4.49; P = .28).

And again, as presented separately in a poster session at ACR, application of CRISS at 12 months – a secondary outcome measure in the trial – showed a significant difference between the groups.

The investigators prospectively performed step 1 of the CRISS using a case report form. Of 63 patients with complete data available for relevant outcomes at 12 months, 10 (5 in each group) had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and thus were given a score of 0.

Overall, there was evidence of significantly improved CRISS scores in the abatacept group vs. the placebo group (P = .03), he said.

Most of the individual CRISS variables, except HAQ-DI and patient global assessment, had statistically significant correlations with the CRISS, he noted, adding that “although the degree of correlation is high between the mRSS and CRISS, there is evidence that CRISS may be more sensitive to clinically meaningful treatment changes than the standard skin score endpoint.”

“This suggests further validation of CRISS as an independent primary endpoint for scleroderma clinical trials,” he concluded.
 

The phase 2b RISE-SSc study of riociguat

As in the focuSSced and ASSET studies, the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RISE-SSc study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat (Adempas) vs. placebo in 121 patients with early dcSSc, reported Oliver Distler, MD, a professor at University Hospital Zurich.

The mean change in mRSS at 52 weeks was 2.25 vs. 0.97 with riociguat vs. placebo, respectively (P = .08), although the difference in mRSS progression rate showed significant effects favoring riociguat (P = .02), he noted.

In this study, however, the proportion of patients with ACR CRISS probability of improvement (score of 0.60 or higher) at week 52 – a secondary study outcome – was the same at 18% in both arms, Dr. Distler said.

In a way, it’s helpful that the CRISS findings as well as the mRSS outcome in the RISE-SSc study were negative because it shows that “not everything comes up positive using the CRISS,” Dr. Spiera said.
 

An open-label extension trial of lenabasum

In the open-label extension of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum, Dr. Spiera and his colleagues also found the CRISS useful for assessing response in 36 patients. Lenabasum is a synthetic, nonimunosuppressive, selective cannabinoid receptor type 2 agonist that activates resolution of innate immune responses.

The agent continued to demonstrate acceptable safety and tolerability in dcSSc with no severe or serious adverse events or study discontinuations related to treatment during 12 months of open-label extension dosing, both from baseline and from the start of the extension, they reported in a poster at the ACR meeting. These assessments were based on ACR CRISS score, mRSS, physician global assessment, and multiple patient-reported outcomes.

The median CRISS score was 92% at week 52, and mRSS declined by a mean of 9.4 points (41.3% from baseline). More than a third of patients (35%) achieved a low mRSS of 10 or less.

The investigators noted, however, that definitive attribution of the findings to lenabasum is limited by the use of background therapy, the potential for spontaneous improvement in patients, and open-label dosing.
 

Evaluating immunosuppressive therapy in SSc

In another study presented at the ACR meeting, Boyang Zheng, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at McGill University in Montreal and his colleagues evaluated the effect of current immunosuppressive therapy on the ACR CRISS in 301 adult dcSSc patients without prior immunosuppression who were part of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) registry.

Patients newly treated with methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate and/or cyclophosphamide for at least 2 years (47 patients) were considered “exposed patients,” and untreated patients with at least the same follow-up duration were considered control subjects (254 patients).

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to balance potential confounders in the two groups, including age, sex, disease duration, and CRISS variables, in an effort “to create a statistical cohort that would resemble a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr Zheng explained.

Prior to IPTW, treated patients trended towards more improvement after 1 year, but with “unimpressive absolute values.”

“But [after IPTW], when you look at overall CRISS at 1 year, more of the treated patients had actually improved – 23% vs. 11.8% in the untreated patients. After adjusting for age, sex, and disease duration, immunosuppression was associated with an almost twofold higher likelihood of improvement, although this was not statistically significant,” he said.

“Most importantly, after our balancing in the statistical cohort – so after balancing and adjusting for covariates ... immunosuppression use was still associated with a higher likelihood of improving [with an] odds ratio of 1.85 and P-value of 0.018,” he said.

The treated patients were sicker, and the CRISS was still able to capture individual patient improvement, he added.

Though limited by the observational design and the fact that “IPTW balancing cannot correct for all possible confounders,” the findings “provide novel evidence to support the use of immunosuppression in diffuse systemic sclerosis, and this reassures us in our current practice; it provides evidence that the CRISS seems to have better sensitivity to change than the mean of individual disease measures,” he said.

However, it also shows that “we have a long way to go to have better treatment for our patients,” he added, noting that only a minority (23%) of the patients in this study improved on the CRISS.
 

Moving forward in systemic sclerosis

Indeed, in order to move forward in developing better treatment for SSc, it is important to have the best possible means for assessing the effects of the potential new treatments, Dr. Spiera said.

“The mRSS is a good, reliable outcome measure in terms of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and we know it has meaning in the real world; in a patient with rapidly progressive skin thickening and a skin score that is getting higher and higher, we know they have worse prognosis in terms of function and even survival,” he said. “On the other hand, it’s just one piece of this very complicated story when you’re dealing with patients with systemic sclerosis, some of whom can have important internal organ involvement and not even have skin involvement.”

The main challenge with the skin score is how it performs in clinical trials when it comes to demonstrating whether a drug works, he added.

“This is particularly relevant in an era where our better understanding of the disease has led to candidate therapeutic agents that we have reason to think might work, but where clinical trials haven’t shown a significant difference between the groups using the skin score.”

Conversely, there have been studies in which skin scores improve, but the patient is doing terribly, he noted.

“That patient would not be [shown to be] doing well using the CRISS,” he said, explaining that the complex formula used to determine the CRISS score, which is “heavily weighted toward skin score,” allows for an overall score that is “greater than the sum of its parts.” That is, if a patient is improving in multiple domains indicating that the patient is responding to therapy, more credit is given for each of those parts.

“So my sense, and I think it’s the consensus in the community of clinical investigators, is that the skin score is not adequately sensitive to change in the context of a trial and doesn’t capture the disease holistically enough to be the optimal measure for scleroderma clinical trials,” he said. “We think the CRISS score works better in terms of capturing improvement in the course of a trial, and also in capturing other outcomes that are really, really important to patients and to their physicians, like disability or lung function.”

The hope is that, given the evidence, regulatory agencies will look favorably on the ACR CRISS as an outcome measure in clinical trials moving forward, and that understanding of its use and value will increase across the rheumatology community, he said.

Dr. Spiera has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or other payments from many companies involved in SSc treatments, including Roche/Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals, which is developing lenabasum.

Dr. Khanna is a consultant to Roche/Genentech and Bayer, which markets riociguat, and other companies. He has received research grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (which markets abatacept), and Pfizer. The ASSET trial he presented was sponsored by an NIH/NIAID Clinical ACE grant and an investigator-initiated grant by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Distler has a consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding from Bayer, Roche/Genentech, and other companies. He also has a patent for a treatment for systemic sclerosis.

Dr. Zheng reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – At least three phase 3 randomized scleroderma treatment trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology failed to meet modified Rodnan Skin Score–based primary endpoints, but a different story emerged when data from the trials were analyzed using the novel ACR Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS).

The differences highlight the limitations of individual outcome measures like the modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and underscore the need for new measures that capture the complexity of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and are more sensitive to changes in disease severity, according to Robert Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Such measures are needed to better assess the effects of treatment interventions in scleroderma trials, Dr. Spiera said in an interview.
 

The ACR CRISS

Development of the ACR CRISS was led by Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, a professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He and his colleagues described the measure in 2016 (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311. doi: 10.1002/art.39501).

Its use involves a two-step process of identifying any significant disease worsening or new end-organ damage, and then calculating the probability of patient improvement after 1 year of treatment on a 0- to 1-point scale based on changes from baseline in five variables: the mRSS, percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), patient and physician global assessments, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Of note, subjects with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

To devise the CRISS, the investigators compiled 150 patient profiles with standardized clinical outcome elements using patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). The profiles were assessed by 40 scleroderma experts who rated patient improvement or lack thereof over 12 months.

Using the 79% of profiles for which a consensus was reached, the investigators “fit logistic regression models in which the binary outcome referred to whether the patient was improved or not, and the changes in the core set items from baseline to follow-up were entered as covariates,” they explained.

This led to the selection of the five measures included in the final version, which was found to have sensitivity of 0.982 and specificity of 0.931. When evaluated in a previously completed 1-year randomized controlled trial, the index differentiated the effect of methotrexate from the effect of placebo (P = .02), they reported.

Based on these findings, the ACR board of directors granted “provisional” endorsement of the CRISS for use in SSc clinical studies, signifying that it had been quantitatively validated using patient data, but had not undergone validation using an external data set.

New data presented at the 2018 ACR meeting will likely lead to full approval of the measure once the studies validating the measure are published, according to Dr. Spiera.
 

The focuSSced study of tocilizumab

For example, in the phase 3 focuSSced study comparing the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor–alpha antibody tocilizumab (Actemra) with placebo in patients with SSc, the primary endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met (–6.14 vs. –4.41 points with tocilizumab vs. placebo, respectively; P = .098), Dr. Khanna said during a report of findings from the double-blind portion of the study.

However, when the CRISS was applied and its performance prospectively assessed as an exploratory outcome at week 48 in the focuSSced trial, the differences between the groups were statistically significant. Dr. Khanna reported those findings in a separate presentation at the meeting, noting that they marked the first prospective evaluation of the ACR CRISS in a phase 3 trial in SSc.

The CRISS was applied – using a blinded review of adverse events and serious adverse events to complete step 1 – in all patients who received study treatment, stratified by baseline IL-6 levels.

Of 104 patients in the tocilizumab arm and 106 in the placebo arm, 6 and 13 patients, respectively, had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and therefore received a score of 0.

Using the ACR CRISS as a continuous measure, scores favored tocilizumab over placebo at week 48 with a median increase of 0.89 vs. 0.25 points (P = .023), and using the binary form of CRISS, 51% vs. 37% of patients in the treatment and placebo arms achieved the score cutoff of 0.60 or higher at week 48 (P = .035), he said.

“The focuSSced study validates the ACR CRISS endpoint for the first time in an independent prospective clinical trial and highlights the importance of step 1 as an indicator of reduced organ progression during 48 weeks of treatment,” Dr. Khanna concluded.
 

The ASSET trial of abatacept

Dr. Khanna also reported results from the 12-month phase 2 ASSET trial comparing abatacept (Orencia) and placebo in early dcSSc.

Again, the change from baseline in mRSS – the primary endpoint of the study – did not differ significantly with treatment vs. placebo (–6.24 vs. –4.49; P = .28).

And again, as presented separately in a poster session at ACR, application of CRISS at 12 months – a secondary outcome measure in the trial – showed a significant difference between the groups.

The investigators prospectively performed step 1 of the CRISS using a case report form. Of 63 patients with complete data available for relevant outcomes at 12 months, 10 (5 in each group) had cardio-pulmonary-renal involvement and thus were given a score of 0.

Overall, there was evidence of significantly improved CRISS scores in the abatacept group vs. the placebo group (P = .03), he said.

Most of the individual CRISS variables, except HAQ-DI and patient global assessment, had statistically significant correlations with the CRISS, he noted, adding that “although the degree of correlation is high between the mRSS and CRISS, there is evidence that CRISS may be more sensitive to clinically meaningful treatment changes than the standard skin score endpoint.”

“This suggests further validation of CRISS as an independent primary endpoint for scleroderma clinical trials,” he concluded.
 

The phase 2b RISE-SSc study of riociguat

As in the focuSSced and ASSET studies, the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline in mRSS was not met in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RISE-SSc study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat (Adempas) vs. placebo in 121 patients with early dcSSc, reported Oliver Distler, MD, a professor at University Hospital Zurich.

The mean change in mRSS at 52 weeks was 2.25 vs. 0.97 with riociguat vs. placebo, respectively (P = .08), although the difference in mRSS progression rate showed significant effects favoring riociguat (P = .02), he noted.

In this study, however, the proportion of patients with ACR CRISS probability of improvement (score of 0.60 or higher) at week 52 – a secondary study outcome – was the same at 18% in both arms, Dr. Distler said.

In a way, it’s helpful that the CRISS findings as well as the mRSS outcome in the RISE-SSc study were negative because it shows that “not everything comes up positive using the CRISS,” Dr. Spiera said.
 

An open-label extension trial of lenabasum

In the open-label extension of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum, Dr. Spiera and his colleagues also found the CRISS useful for assessing response in 36 patients. Lenabasum is a synthetic, nonimunosuppressive, selective cannabinoid receptor type 2 agonist that activates resolution of innate immune responses.

The agent continued to demonstrate acceptable safety and tolerability in dcSSc with no severe or serious adverse events or study discontinuations related to treatment during 12 months of open-label extension dosing, both from baseline and from the start of the extension, they reported in a poster at the ACR meeting. These assessments were based on ACR CRISS score, mRSS, physician global assessment, and multiple patient-reported outcomes.

The median CRISS score was 92% at week 52, and mRSS declined by a mean of 9.4 points (41.3% from baseline). More than a third of patients (35%) achieved a low mRSS of 10 or less.

The investigators noted, however, that definitive attribution of the findings to lenabasum is limited by the use of background therapy, the potential for spontaneous improvement in patients, and open-label dosing.
 

Evaluating immunosuppressive therapy in SSc

In another study presented at the ACR meeting, Boyang Zheng, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at McGill University in Montreal and his colleagues evaluated the effect of current immunosuppressive therapy on the ACR CRISS in 301 adult dcSSc patients without prior immunosuppression who were part of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) registry.

Patients newly treated with methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate and/or cyclophosphamide for at least 2 years (47 patients) were considered “exposed patients,” and untreated patients with at least the same follow-up duration were considered control subjects (254 patients).

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to balance potential confounders in the two groups, including age, sex, disease duration, and CRISS variables, in an effort “to create a statistical cohort that would resemble a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr Zheng explained.

Prior to IPTW, treated patients trended towards more improvement after 1 year, but with “unimpressive absolute values.”

“But [after IPTW], when you look at overall CRISS at 1 year, more of the treated patients had actually improved – 23% vs. 11.8% in the untreated patients. After adjusting for age, sex, and disease duration, immunosuppression was associated with an almost twofold higher likelihood of improvement, although this was not statistically significant,” he said.

“Most importantly, after our balancing in the statistical cohort – so after balancing and adjusting for covariates ... immunosuppression use was still associated with a higher likelihood of improving [with an] odds ratio of 1.85 and P-value of 0.018,” he said.

The treated patients were sicker, and the CRISS was still able to capture individual patient improvement, he added.

Though limited by the observational design and the fact that “IPTW balancing cannot correct for all possible confounders,” the findings “provide novel evidence to support the use of immunosuppression in diffuse systemic sclerosis, and this reassures us in our current practice; it provides evidence that the CRISS seems to have better sensitivity to change than the mean of individual disease measures,” he said.

However, it also shows that “we have a long way to go to have better treatment for our patients,” he added, noting that only a minority (23%) of the patients in this study improved on the CRISS.
 

Moving forward in systemic sclerosis

Indeed, in order to move forward in developing better treatment for SSc, it is important to have the best possible means for assessing the effects of the potential new treatments, Dr. Spiera said.

“The mRSS is a good, reliable outcome measure in terms of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and we know it has meaning in the real world; in a patient with rapidly progressive skin thickening and a skin score that is getting higher and higher, we know they have worse prognosis in terms of function and even survival,” he said. “On the other hand, it’s just one piece of this very complicated story when you’re dealing with patients with systemic sclerosis, some of whom can have important internal organ involvement and not even have skin involvement.”

The main challenge with the skin score is how it performs in clinical trials when it comes to demonstrating whether a drug works, he added.

“This is particularly relevant in an era where our better understanding of the disease has led to candidate therapeutic agents that we have reason to think might work, but where clinical trials haven’t shown a significant difference between the groups using the skin score.”

Conversely, there have been studies in which skin scores improve, but the patient is doing terribly, he noted.

“That patient would not be [shown to be] doing well using the CRISS,” he said, explaining that the complex formula used to determine the CRISS score, which is “heavily weighted toward skin score,” allows for an overall score that is “greater than the sum of its parts.” That is, if a patient is improving in multiple domains indicating that the patient is responding to therapy, more credit is given for each of those parts.

“So my sense, and I think it’s the consensus in the community of clinical investigators, is that the skin score is not adequately sensitive to change in the context of a trial and doesn’t capture the disease holistically enough to be the optimal measure for scleroderma clinical trials,” he said. “We think the CRISS score works better in terms of capturing improvement in the course of a trial, and also in capturing other outcomes that are really, really important to patients and to their physicians, like disability or lung function.”

The hope is that, given the evidence, regulatory agencies will look favorably on the ACR CRISS as an outcome measure in clinical trials moving forward, and that understanding of its use and value will increase across the rheumatology community, he said.

Dr. Spiera has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or other payments from many companies involved in SSc treatments, including Roche/Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals, which is developing lenabasum.

Dr. Khanna is a consultant to Roche/Genentech and Bayer, which markets riociguat, and other companies. He has received research grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (which markets abatacept), and Pfizer. The ASSET trial he presented was sponsored by an NIH/NIAID Clinical ACE grant and an investigator-initiated grant by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Distler has a consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding from Bayer, Roche/Genentech, and other companies. He also has a patent for a treatment for systemic sclerosis.

Dr. Zheng reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Dual-antibody targeting with the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor monalizumab combined with the epidermal growth factor–receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab is safe and associated with deep and durable responses in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck, according to data from an ongoing cohort expansion study.

As of Aug. 21, 2018, the primary study endpoint of overall response rate in 40 evaluable patients enrolled in the single-arm, nonrandomized phase 1/2 study was 27.5%, Roger Cohen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

There were 11 confirmed responses, including 1 complete response and 10 partial responses at a median follow-up of 8 months, said Dr. Cohen, a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and director of clinical research at the Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.0 months and 10.3 months, respectively.

“We observed responses in patients who were naive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had received and progressed after immunotherapy. We observed responses in patients who were platinum resistant, and we also saw responses in [human papillomavirus (HPV)]–positive and –negative patients,” he said, adding that responses occurred relatively early at a median of 1.6 months, and that there was little difference between those who had and had not received prior immunotherapy with programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies.

A number of the responses, as well as the stable diseases, were durable for “a considerable period of time.” The median duration of response was 5.6 months, he said.

Study participants were mainly middle-aged men with recurrent or metastatic HPV-positive or -negative advanced disease and “decent” performance status. They received monalizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus cetuximab at the labeled loading dose of 400 mg/m² once weekly then 250 mg/m² once weekly. All had progressed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and had no more than two prior lines of therapy in the recurrent/metastatic setting; 17 (43%) had prior anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, 5 (13%) had prior cetuximab, but none of those patients were cetuximab resistant.

They were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity and were assessed every 8 weeks for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, he said.

This treatment combination was shown in the phase 1 portion of the study to have a favorable safety profile, and the safety profile was confirmed in this expansion cohort; adverse events related to the combination were dominated by EGFR antibody–related side effects in the skin, as well as hypomagnesemia. Most adverse events associated with monalizumab were grade 1-2.

“Serious adverse events are in the single digits,” Dr. Cohen said.

Monalizumab is a first-in-class humanized immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody against the human natural killer group 2A (NKG2A), which is the receptor for the NKG2A ligand, HLA-E.

“The HLA-E NKG2A diad shuts down NK cells and tumor-infiltrating CD8-positive T-cells,” he explained, adding that “the concept behind the antibody is that by blocking the interaction of the receptor for the ligand you can reduce this inhibitory signaling by NK cells and thereby unleash their ability to target tumor.”

Cetuximab is an established and approved EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of patients with head and neck SCC who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been associated with a 13% response rate.

“The therapeutic hypothesis is that dual targeting with these two antibodies will allow us to realize greater antitumor activity in head and neck cancer than is seen with cetuximab alone,” he said, later adding that “the combination of monalizumab and cetuximab results in early, deep, and durable responses in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck ... and the activity indeed is higher than cetuximab alone, compared with historical data.”

Additionally, the safety is acceptable, and preliminary translational analyses do show some immunological proof-of-concept – mainly that infiltration of the tumor stroma with NK and CD8-positive T cells is correlated with response, he said.

“Importantly, this study is continuing to enroll patients, and taking account of the ever-changing landscape in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, we are going to enroll another 40 patients, except this time we will require them to be platinum, as well as PD-1 antibody exposed. These patients still represent an enormous unmet medical need.

“We think these results do warrant further development of the combo of monalizumab and cetuximab in patients with advanced SCC of the head and neck,” he concluded.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving consulting fees and/or research funding from Cantargia, Celldex, Genocea, Innate, HEAT, Kyntherapeutics, Merck, Takeda Macrogenics, and Tmunity.

SOURCE: Cohen R et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 051.

WASHINGTON – Dual-antibody targeting with the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor monalizumab combined with the epidermal growth factor–receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab is safe and associated with deep and durable responses in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck, according to data from an ongoing cohort expansion study.

As of Aug. 21, 2018, the primary study endpoint of overall response rate in 40 evaluable patients enrolled in the single-arm, nonrandomized phase 1/2 study was 27.5%, Roger Cohen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

There were 11 confirmed responses, including 1 complete response and 10 partial responses at a median follow-up of 8 months, said Dr. Cohen, a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and director of clinical research at the Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.0 months and 10.3 months, respectively.

“We observed responses in patients who were naive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had received and progressed after immunotherapy. We observed responses in patients who were platinum resistant, and we also saw responses in [human papillomavirus (HPV)]–positive and –negative patients,” he said, adding that responses occurred relatively early at a median of 1.6 months, and that there was little difference between those who had and had not received prior immunotherapy with programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies.

A number of the responses, as well as the stable diseases, were durable for “a considerable period of time.” The median duration of response was 5.6 months, he said.

Study participants were mainly middle-aged men with recurrent or metastatic HPV-positive or -negative advanced disease and “decent” performance status. They received monalizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus cetuximab at the labeled loading dose of 400 mg/m² once weekly then 250 mg/m² once weekly. All had progressed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and had no more than two prior lines of therapy in the recurrent/metastatic setting; 17 (43%) had prior anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, 5 (13%) had prior cetuximab, but none of those patients were cetuximab resistant.

They were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity and were assessed every 8 weeks for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, he said.

This treatment combination was shown in the phase 1 portion of the study to have a favorable safety profile, and the safety profile was confirmed in this expansion cohort; adverse events related to the combination were dominated by EGFR antibody–related side effects in the skin, as well as hypomagnesemia. Most adverse events associated with monalizumab were grade 1-2.

“Serious adverse events are in the single digits,” Dr. Cohen said.

Monalizumab is a first-in-class humanized immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody against the human natural killer group 2A (NKG2A), which is the receptor for the NKG2A ligand, HLA-E.

“The HLA-E NKG2A diad shuts down NK cells and tumor-infiltrating CD8-positive T-cells,” he explained, adding that “the concept behind the antibody is that by blocking the interaction of the receptor for the ligand you can reduce this inhibitory signaling by NK cells and thereby unleash their ability to target tumor.”

Cetuximab is an established and approved EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of patients with head and neck SCC who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been associated with a 13% response rate.

“The therapeutic hypothesis is that dual targeting with these two antibodies will allow us to realize greater antitumor activity in head and neck cancer than is seen with cetuximab alone,” he said, later adding that “the combination of monalizumab and cetuximab results in early, deep, and durable responses in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck ... and the activity indeed is higher than cetuximab alone, compared with historical data.”

Additionally, the safety is acceptable, and preliminary translational analyses do show some immunological proof-of-concept – mainly that infiltration of the tumor stroma with NK and CD8-positive T cells is correlated with response, he said.

“Importantly, this study is continuing to enroll patients, and taking account of the ever-changing landscape in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, we are going to enroll another 40 patients, except this time we will require them to be platinum, as well as PD-1 antibody exposed. These patients still represent an enormous unmet medical need.

“We think these results do warrant further development of the combo of monalizumab and cetuximab in patients with advanced SCC of the head and neck,” he concluded.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving consulting fees and/or research funding from Cantargia, Celldex, Genocea, Innate, HEAT, Kyntherapeutics, Merck, Takeda Macrogenics, and Tmunity.

SOURCE: Cohen R et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 051.

WASHINGTON – Dual-antibody targeting with the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor monalizumab combined with the epidermal growth factor–receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab is safe and associated with deep and durable responses in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck, according to data from an ongoing cohort expansion study.

As of Aug. 21, 2018, the primary study endpoint of overall response rate in 40 evaluable patients enrolled in the single-arm, nonrandomized phase 1/2 study was 27.5%, Roger Cohen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

There were 11 confirmed responses, including 1 complete response and 10 partial responses at a median follow-up of 8 months, said Dr. Cohen, a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and director of clinical research at the Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.0 months and 10.3 months, respectively.

“We observed responses in patients who were naive to immunotherapy, as well as patients who had received and progressed after immunotherapy. We observed responses in patients who were platinum resistant, and we also saw responses in [human papillomavirus (HPV)]–positive and –negative patients,” he said, adding that responses occurred relatively early at a median of 1.6 months, and that there was little difference between those who had and had not received prior immunotherapy with programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies.

A number of the responses, as well as the stable diseases, were durable for “a considerable period of time.” The median duration of response was 5.6 months, he said.

Study participants were mainly middle-aged men with recurrent or metastatic HPV-positive or -negative advanced disease and “decent” performance status. They received monalizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus cetuximab at the labeled loading dose of 400 mg/m² once weekly then 250 mg/m² once weekly. All had progressed after prior platinum-based chemotherapy and had no more than two prior lines of therapy in the recurrent/metastatic setting; 17 (43%) had prior anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, 5 (13%) had prior cetuximab, but none of those patients were cetuximab resistant.

They were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity and were assessed every 8 weeks for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, he said.

This treatment combination was shown in the phase 1 portion of the study to have a favorable safety profile, and the safety profile was confirmed in this expansion cohort; adverse events related to the combination were dominated by EGFR antibody–related side effects in the skin, as well as hypomagnesemia. Most adverse events associated with monalizumab were grade 1-2.

“Serious adverse events are in the single digits,” Dr. Cohen said.

Monalizumab is a first-in-class humanized immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody against the human natural killer group 2A (NKG2A), which is the receptor for the NKG2A ligand, HLA-E.

“The HLA-E NKG2A diad shuts down NK cells and tumor-infiltrating CD8-positive T-cells,” he explained, adding that “the concept behind the antibody is that by blocking the interaction of the receptor for the ligand you can reduce this inhibitory signaling by NK cells and thereby unleash their ability to target tumor.”

Cetuximab is an established and approved EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of patients with head and neck SCC who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been associated with a 13% response rate.

“The therapeutic hypothesis is that dual targeting with these two antibodies will allow us to realize greater antitumor activity in head and neck cancer than is seen with cetuximab alone,” he said, later adding that “the combination of monalizumab and cetuximab results in early, deep, and durable responses in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck ... and the activity indeed is higher than cetuximab alone, compared with historical data.”

Additionally, the safety is acceptable, and preliminary translational analyses do show some immunological proof-of-concept – mainly that infiltration of the tumor stroma with NK and CD8-positive T cells is correlated with response, he said.

“Importantly, this study is continuing to enroll patients, and taking account of the ever-changing landscape in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, we are going to enroll another 40 patients, except this time we will require them to be platinum, as well as PD-1 antibody exposed. These patients still represent an enormous unmet medical need.

“We think these results do warrant further development of the combo of monalizumab and cetuximab in patients with advanced SCC of the head and neck,” he concluded.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving consulting fees and/or research funding from Cantargia, Celldex, Genocea, Innate, HEAT, Kyntherapeutics, Merck, Takeda Macrogenics, and Tmunity.

SOURCE: Cohen R et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 051.

CHICAGO – The novel reversible B-cell inhibitor XmAb5871 showed promise for delaying loss of improvement after steroid therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Patients with moderate to severe nonorgan-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who underwent biweekly treatment with XmAb5871 after intramuscular glucocorticoid therapy more often achieved the trial’s primary endpoint of no loss of improvement through day 225 than did patients who took placebo. Overall, 21 (42%) of 50 patients who were randomized to receive active treatment reached this outcome, compared with 12 (29%) of 42 who received placebo based on the “efficacy-evaluable” patient population, defined as those who completed day 225, had a loss of improvement, or discontinued because of a drug-related adverse even. The difference between the treatment and placebo groups with respect to loss of improvement through day 225 reflected a positive trend, but did not reach statistical significance (P = .18), Debra J. Zack, MD, of Xencor in Monrovia, Calif., and her colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of the patients who didn’t achieve the primary endpoint, 23 (46%) in the XmAb5871 arm versus 30 (71%) in the placebo arm experienced loss of improvement at any visit, the investigators noted. Six patients in the treatment arm discontinued for toxicity and were also considered nonresponders.

Treatment with XmAb5871 also led to a longer median time to loss of improvement of 230 days in comparison with the 130 days observed in placebo-treated patients. The difference was statistically significant in the efficacy-evaluable population (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .025) and nearly statistically significant in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of 52 patients in each group (HR, 0.59; P = .06), they noted.

Maintenance of improvement, which was another secondary endpoint, did not differ significantly between the groups in the efficacy-evaluable population (58.0% vs. 40.5%, respectively; P = .11), but did differ significantly with treatment versus placebo at both day 225 (response rates of 44.0% vs. 23.1%, respectively; P = .06) and at day 169 (57.7% vs. 34.6%; P = .02) in the ITT population, they said.

Of note, patients in the treatment group stayed in the study longer (median of 6.9 vs. 3.6 months) and received more infusions (median of 15.0 vs. 8.5).

“Antigen-activated B cells are down-regulated by engagement of immune complexes with the inhibitory Fcy receptor FcyRIIB on the B cell surface. XmAb5871 is an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody engineered to enhance binding to FcyRIIB,” they explained, adding that the study was designed using unique methodology to minimize background medication and placebo responses to allow for better interpretation of the results in patients with complex, heterogeneous disease.

Participants were adults with a median age of 44.5 years; most (99 of 104) were women. All received an intramuscular glucocorticoid injection at the start of the screening period as background immunosuppressants were stopped, and those who experienced at least a 4-point decrease on the SLE disease activity index or at least a 1-grade decrease in at least one British Isles Lupus Activity Group A or B score were eligible for enrollment. Background immunosuppressants had to be stopped by the time of enrollment, but patients were allowed to remain on hydroxychloroquine and prednisone 10 mg or less daily or the equivalent.

Those enrolled were randomized to receive intravenous XmAb5871 at a dose of 5 mg/kg or placebo every 14 days for up to 16 doses until day 225 or loss of improvement (at which time patients could receive standard of care and withdraw from the study); all received intramuscular glucocorticoids (Depo-Medrol 80 mg [methylprednisolone acetate]) on days 1 and 15.

XmAb5871 was well tolerated in this study and had a safety profile consistent with that seen in previous SLE studies, with the exception of six withdrawals caused by infusion reactions, the investigators said. They noted that a subcutaneous formulation showed no infusion reactions or gastrointestinal-related infusion reactions in a bioavailability study of 40 healthy subjects, and so a formulation for subcutaneous injection will be used in future studies.

The vast majority of the 149 treatment-related adverse events that occurred in 41 patients in the current study (including 26% in placebo group patients) were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 13 serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 11 patients, and included fever, SLE flare (lung), atrial fibrillation, worsening hypertension, iron deficiency anemia, pneumonia (occurring 36 days, or 10 half-lives, after the last dose), infusion-related reaction, and vertigo in the XmAb5871 patients, and anemia SLE flare, SLE flare (enteritis), angioedema, and migraine headache in the placebo group.

“All SAEs were considered not or unlikely related except the infusion-related reaction. There were no deaths and no opportunistic infections,” they wrote.

Although the primary endpoint of loss of improvement by day 225 was not significantly better in the treatment group in this study, a positive trend was noted, the median time to loss of improvement was extended by 76%, and the risk of increased SLE disease activity was reduced by 47% in those who received XmAb5871, they said, concluding that the findings support further evaluation of the agent in patients with SLE.

The study was supported by Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zack DJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract L14.

CHICAGO – The novel reversible B-cell inhibitor XmAb5871 showed promise for delaying loss of improvement after steroid therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Patients with moderate to severe nonorgan-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who underwent biweekly treatment with XmAb5871 after intramuscular glucocorticoid therapy more often achieved the trial’s primary endpoint of no loss of improvement through day 225 than did patients who took placebo. Overall, 21 (42%) of 50 patients who were randomized to receive active treatment reached this outcome, compared with 12 (29%) of 42 who received placebo based on the “efficacy-evaluable” patient population, defined as those who completed day 225, had a loss of improvement, or discontinued because of a drug-related adverse even. The difference between the treatment and placebo groups with respect to loss of improvement through day 225 reflected a positive trend, but did not reach statistical significance (P = .18), Debra J. Zack, MD, of Xencor in Monrovia, Calif., and her colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of the patients who didn’t achieve the primary endpoint, 23 (46%) in the XmAb5871 arm versus 30 (71%) in the placebo arm experienced loss of improvement at any visit, the investigators noted. Six patients in the treatment arm discontinued for toxicity and were also considered nonresponders.

Treatment with XmAb5871 also led to a longer median time to loss of improvement of 230 days in comparison with the 130 days observed in placebo-treated patients. The difference was statistically significant in the efficacy-evaluable population (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .025) and nearly statistically significant in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of 52 patients in each group (HR, 0.59; P = .06), they noted.

Maintenance of improvement, which was another secondary endpoint, did not differ significantly between the groups in the efficacy-evaluable population (58.0% vs. 40.5%, respectively; P = .11), but did differ significantly with treatment versus placebo at both day 225 (response rates of 44.0% vs. 23.1%, respectively; P = .06) and at day 169 (57.7% vs. 34.6%; P = .02) in the ITT population, they said.

Of note, patients in the treatment group stayed in the study longer (median of 6.9 vs. 3.6 months) and received more infusions (median of 15.0 vs. 8.5).

“Antigen-activated B cells are down-regulated by engagement of immune complexes with the inhibitory Fcy receptor FcyRIIB on the B cell surface. XmAb5871 is an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody engineered to enhance binding to FcyRIIB,” they explained, adding that the study was designed using unique methodology to minimize background medication and placebo responses to allow for better interpretation of the results in patients with complex, heterogeneous disease.

Participants were adults with a median age of 44.5 years; most (99 of 104) were women. All received an intramuscular glucocorticoid injection at the start of the screening period as background immunosuppressants were stopped, and those who experienced at least a 4-point decrease on the SLE disease activity index or at least a 1-grade decrease in at least one British Isles Lupus Activity Group A or B score were eligible for enrollment. Background immunosuppressants had to be stopped by the time of enrollment, but patients were allowed to remain on hydroxychloroquine and prednisone 10 mg or less daily or the equivalent.

Those enrolled were randomized to receive intravenous XmAb5871 at a dose of 5 mg/kg or placebo every 14 days for up to 16 doses until day 225 or loss of improvement (at which time patients could receive standard of care and withdraw from the study); all received intramuscular glucocorticoids (Depo-Medrol 80 mg [methylprednisolone acetate]) on days 1 and 15.

XmAb5871 was well tolerated in this study and had a safety profile consistent with that seen in previous SLE studies, with the exception of six withdrawals caused by infusion reactions, the investigators said. They noted that a subcutaneous formulation showed no infusion reactions or gastrointestinal-related infusion reactions in a bioavailability study of 40 healthy subjects, and so a formulation for subcutaneous injection will be used in future studies.

The vast majority of the 149 treatment-related adverse events that occurred in 41 patients in the current study (including 26% in placebo group patients) were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 13 serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 11 patients, and included fever, SLE flare (lung), atrial fibrillation, worsening hypertension, iron deficiency anemia, pneumonia (occurring 36 days, or 10 half-lives, after the last dose), infusion-related reaction, and vertigo in the XmAb5871 patients, and anemia SLE flare, SLE flare (enteritis), angioedema, and migraine headache in the placebo group.

“All SAEs were considered not or unlikely related except the infusion-related reaction. There were no deaths and no opportunistic infections,” they wrote.

Although the primary endpoint of loss of improvement by day 225 was not significantly better in the treatment group in this study, a positive trend was noted, the median time to loss of improvement was extended by 76%, and the risk of increased SLE disease activity was reduced by 47% in those who received XmAb5871, they said, concluding that the findings support further evaluation of the agent in patients with SLE.

The study was supported by Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zack DJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract L14.

CHICAGO – The novel reversible B-cell inhibitor XmAb5871 showed promise for delaying loss of improvement after steroid therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Patients with moderate to severe nonorgan-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who underwent biweekly treatment with XmAb5871 after intramuscular glucocorticoid therapy more often achieved the trial’s primary endpoint of no loss of improvement through day 225 than did patients who took placebo. Overall, 21 (42%) of 50 patients who were randomized to receive active treatment reached this outcome, compared with 12 (29%) of 42 who received placebo based on the “efficacy-evaluable” patient population, defined as those who completed day 225, had a loss of improvement, or discontinued because of a drug-related adverse even. The difference between the treatment and placebo groups with respect to loss of improvement through day 225 reflected a positive trend, but did not reach statistical significance (P = .18), Debra J. Zack, MD, of Xencor in Monrovia, Calif., and her colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of the patients who didn’t achieve the primary endpoint, 23 (46%) in the XmAb5871 arm versus 30 (71%) in the placebo arm experienced loss of improvement at any visit, the investigators noted. Six patients in the treatment arm discontinued for toxicity and were also considered nonresponders.

Treatment with XmAb5871 also led to a longer median time to loss of improvement of 230 days in comparison with the 130 days observed in placebo-treated patients. The difference was statistically significant in the efficacy-evaluable population (hazard ratio, 0.53; P = .025) and nearly statistically significant in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of 52 patients in each group (HR, 0.59; P = .06), they noted.

Maintenance of improvement, which was another secondary endpoint, did not differ significantly between the groups in the efficacy-evaluable population (58.0% vs. 40.5%, respectively; P = .11), but did differ significantly with treatment versus placebo at both day 225 (response rates of 44.0% vs. 23.1%, respectively; P = .06) and at day 169 (57.7% vs. 34.6%; P = .02) in the ITT population, they said.

Of note, patients in the treatment group stayed in the study longer (median of 6.9 vs. 3.6 months) and received more infusions (median of 15.0 vs. 8.5).

“Antigen-activated B cells are down-regulated by engagement of immune complexes with the inhibitory Fcy receptor FcyRIIB on the B cell surface. XmAb5871 is an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody engineered to enhance binding to FcyRIIB,” they explained, adding that the study was designed using unique methodology to minimize background medication and placebo responses to allow for better interpretation of the results in patients with complex, heterogeneous disease.

Participants were adults with a median age of 44.5 years; most (99 of 104) were women. All received an intramuscular glucocorticoid injection at the start of the screening period as background immunosuppressants were stopped, and those who experienced at least a 4-point decrease on the SLE disease activity index or at least a 1-grade decrease in at least one British Isles Lupus Activity Group A or B score were eligible for enrollment. Background immunosuppressants had to be stopped by the time of enrollment, but patients were allowed to remain on hydroxychloroquine and prednisone 10 mg or less daily or the equivalent.

Those enrolled were randomized to receive intravenous XmAb5871 at a dose of 5 mg/kg or placebo every 14 days for up to 16 doses until day 225 or loss of improvement (at which time patients could receive standard of care and withdraw from the study); all received intramuscular glucocorticoids (Depo-Medrol 80 mg [methylprednisolone acetate]) on days 1 and 15.

XmAb5871 was well tolerated in this study and had a safety profile consistent with that seen in previous SLE studies, with the exception of six withdrawals caused by infusion reactions, the investigators said. They noted that a subcutaneous formulation showed no infusion reactions or gastrointestinal-related infusion reactions in a bioavailability study of 40 healthy subjects, and so a formulation for subcutaneous injection will be used in future studies.

The vast majority of the 149 treatment-related adverse events that occurred in 41 patients in the current study (including 26% in placebo group patients) were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 13 serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 11 patients, and included fever, SLE flare (lung), atrial fibrillation, worsening hypertension, iron deficiency anemia, pneumonia (occurring 36 days, or 10 half-lives, after the last dose), infusion-related reaction, and vertigo in the XmAb5871 patients, and anemia SLE flare, SLE flare (enteritis), angioedema, and migraine headache in the placebo group.

“All SAEs were considered not or unlikely related except the infusion-related reaction. There were no deaths and no opportunistic infections,” they wrote.

Although the primary endpoint of loss of improvement by day 225 was not significantly better in the treatment group in this study, a positive trend was noted, the median time to loss of improvement was extended by 76%, and the risk of increased SLE disease activity was reduced by 47% in those who received XmAb5871, they said, concluding that the findings support further evaluation of the agent in patients with SLE.

The study was supported by Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zack DJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract L14.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brentuximab vedotin – in combination with chemotherapy – to certain types of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), marking the first FDA approval of a treatment for newly-diagnosed PTCL.

The drug, which is marketed by Seattle Genetics as Adcetris, is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD30 protein found on some cancer cells.

It was previously approved for adult patients with untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), cHL after relapse, cHL after stem cell transplant in patients at high risk for relapse or progression, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) after other treatments fail, and primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides after other treatments fail.

The expanded approval, which followed the granting of Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy designations for the supplemental Biologic License Application, was made using the FDA’s new Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program (RTOR). This program allows for data review and communication with a sponsor prior to official application submission with the goal of speeding up the review process.

The brentuximab vedotin approval now extends to previously untreated systemic ALCL and other CD30-expressing PTCLs in combination with chemotherapy.

Approval was based on the ECHELON-2 clinical trial involving 452 patients, which demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with certain types of PTCL who were treated first-line with either brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone (CHP), or standard chemotherapy with CHP and vincristine (CHOP). Median PFS was 48 months vs. 21 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71).

Courtesy Larry Young

The FDA advises health care providers to “monitor patients for infusion reactions, life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), neuropathy, fever, gastrointestinal complications, and infections,” according to a press release announcing the approval, which also states that patients should be monitored for tumor lysis syndrome, serious skin reactions, pulmonary toxicity, and hepatotoxicity.

The drug may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn and should not be used in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. A Boxed Warning regarding risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is also included in the prescribing information.

The current standard of care for initial treatment of PTCL is multiagent chemotherapy – a treatment that “has not significantly changed in decades and is too often unsuccessful in leading to long-term remissions, underscoring the need for new treatments, ” Steven Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a statement issued by Seattle Genetics.

“With this approval, clinicians have the opportunity to transform the way newly diagnosed CD30-expressing PTCL patients are treated,” Dr. Horwitz said.

The ECHELON-2 data will be presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting in San Diego on Monday, Dec. 3, 2018.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brentuximab vedotin – in combination with chemotherapy – to certain types of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), marking the first FDA approval of a treatment for newly-diagnosed PTCL.

The drug, which is marketed by Seattle Genetics as Adcetris, is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD30 protein found on some cancer cells.

It was previously approved for adult patients with untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), cHL after relapse, cHL after stem cell transplant in patients at high risk for relapse or progression, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) after other treatments fail, and primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides after other treatments fail.

The expanded approval, which followed the granting of Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy designations for the supplemental Biologic License Application, was made using the FDA’s new Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program (RTOR). This program allows for data review and communication with a sponsor prior to official application submission with the goal of speeding up the review process.

The brentuximab vedotin approval now extends to previously untreated systemic ALCL and other CD30-expressing PTCLs in combination with chemotherapy.

Approval was based on the ECHELON-2 clinical trial involving 452 patients, which demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with certain types of PTCL who were treated first-line with either brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone (CHP), or standard chemotherapy with CHP and vincristine (CHOP). Median PFS was 48 months vs. 21 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71).

Courtesy Larry Young

The FDA advises health care providers to “monitor patients for infusion reactions, life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), neuropathy, fever, gastrointestinal complications, and infections,” according to a press release announcing the approval, which also states that patients should be monitored for tumor lysis syndrome, serious skin reactions, pulmonary toxicity, and hepatotoxicity.

The drug may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn and should not be used in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. A Boxed Warning regarding risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is also included in the prescribing information.

The current standard of care for initial treatment of PTCL is multiagent chemotherapy – a treatment that “has not significantly changed in decades and is too often unsuccessful in leading to long-term remissions, underscoring the need for new treatments, ” Steven Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a statement issued by Seattle Genetics.

“With this approval, clinicians have the opportunity to transform the way newly diagnosed CD30-expressing PTCL patients are treated,” Dr. Horwitz said.

The ECHELON-2 data will be presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting in San Diego on Monday, Dec. 3, 2018.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brentuximab vedotin – in combination with chemotherapy – to certain types of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), marking the first FDA approval of a treatment for newly-diagnosed PTCL.

The drug, which is marketed by Seattle Genetics as Adcetris, is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD30 protein found on some cancer cells.

It was previously approved for adult patients with untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), cHL after relapse, cHL after stem cell transplant in patients at high risk for relapse or progression, systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) after other treatments fail, and primary cutaneous ALCL or CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides after other treatments fail.

The expanded approval, which followed the granting of Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy designations for the supplemental Biologic License Application, was made using the FDA’s new Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program (RTOR). This program allows for data review and communication with a sponsor prior to official application submission with the goal of speeding up the review process.

The brentuximab vedotin approval now extends to previously untreated systemic ALCL and other CD30-expressing PTCLs in combination with chemotherapy.

Approval was based on the ECHELON-2 clinical trial involving 452 patients, which demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with certain types of PTCL who were treated first-line with either brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone (CHP), or standard chemotherapy with CHP and vincristine (CHOP). Median PFS was 48 months vs. 21 months in the groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71).

Courtesy Larry Young

The FDA advises health care providers to “monitor patients for infusion reactions, life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis), neuropathy, fever, gastrointestinal complications, and infections,” according to a press release announcing the approval, which also states that patients should be monitored for tumor lysis syndrome, serious skin reactions, pulmonary toxicity, and hepatotoxicity.

The drug may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn and should not be used in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. A Boxed Warning regarding risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is also included in the prescribing information.

The current standard of care for initial treatment of PTCL is multiagent chemotherapy – a treatment that “has not significantly changed in decades and is too often unsuccessful in leading to long-term remissions, underscoring the need for new treatments, ” Steven Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in a statement issued by Seattle Genetics.

“With this approval, clinicians have the opportunity to transform the way newly diagnosed CD30-expressing PTCL patients are treated,” Dr. Horwitz said.

The ECHELON-2 data will be presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting in San Diego on Monday, Dec. 3, 2018.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are particularly useful in the setting of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Venetoclax and lenalidomide can also be considered in the relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) setting, Dr. Blum, a professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

“I tend to favor BTK inhibitors as my first line of therapy,” she said, later qualifying that this applies when clinical trial enrollment is unavailable.
 

Ibrutinib

The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib is well established as a treatment for MCL and for use in the relapsed setting, she said, noting that pooled data from the phase 2 CYC-1104 trial, the phase 2 MCL 2001 (SPARK) trial, and the phase 3 MCL3001 (RAY) trial showed an overall response (OR) rate of 66% in 370 patients and a complete response (CR) rate of 20%.

The median duration of response (DOR) was 18.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 25 months (Br J Haematol. 2017 Nov;179[3]:430-8).

Adding rituximab to ibrutinib (R-ibrutinib) improved outcomes, at least in one single center phase 2 trial of 50 relapsed patients with a median of three prior therapies, she said. The OR rate in that study was 88%, and the CR rate was 58% (Br J Haematol. 2018 May;182[3]:404-11).

“What was really impressive to me was that the median duration of response was about 46 months. PFS was 43 months, and patients were on [treatment] as long as 56 cycles,” she said.
 

Acalabrutinib

The newer BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib also shows benefit in the relapsed MCL setting, Dr. Blum said.

In a recent multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of 124 patients with a median age of 68 years and a median of two prior therapies, acalabrutinib at a dose of 100 mg twice daily was associated with an OR rate of 81% and a CR rate of 40% (Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391:659-67).

“Seems a little better than what you’d expect with single agent ibrutinib,” she said, noting that median DOR and PFS have not been reached in that study.

The main toxicities have been “headache and some diarrhea,” but follow-up is currently only about 15 months, she added.

Venetoclax

Another option in this setting is the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax, which was shown in a recent phase 1 study of patients with various lymphoma subtypes to have activity in relapsed MCL, Dr. Blum said.

The OR rate in 28 relapsed MCL patients in that study was 75%, and the median PFS was 14 months (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35:826-33).

Additionally, an “intriguing combination study of venetoclax and ibrutinib” was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, she noted.

That study included only 23 patients with relapsed MCL, but they were a “pretty high-risk” group with a median age of 68 years, about half having a TP53 abnormality, and 30% having a prior transplant.

The OR and CR rates at 16 weeks by positron emission tomography were 71% and 62%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378:1211-23).

“Actually, about 40% achieved [minimal residual disease] negativity, but this was only checked in about half the patients,” she said. “So this is an intriguing combination and hopefully something we’ll see more of in the upcoming years.”
 

Lenalidomide

In the randomized phase 2 SPRINT study, patients received either single-agent lenolidamine or the investigator’s choice of single-agent rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine.

The expected OR rate in 170 patients treated with lenalidomide was 40% versus 11% in 84 patients treated with investigator’s choice of treatment, and the respective CR rates were 5% and 0% (Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):319-31).

Median DOR was 16 months versus 10.4 months, PFS was 8.7 versus 5.2 months, and median OS was 27.9 versus 21.1 months in the groups, respectively.
 

Other options

Combination regimens, such as R-CHOP and R-bendamustine, are also options for the treatment of relapsed MCL patients who haven’t received combination therapy in the past, Dr. Blum said. Transplant is another option in some patients.

“I will consider transplants for younger patients if they come to me and they actually hadn’t had one in [their] first CR,” she said.

Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are particularly useful in the setting of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Venetoclax and lenalidomide can also be considered in the relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) setting, Dr. Blum, a professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

“I tend to favor BTK inhibitors as my first line of therapy,” she said, later qualifying that this applies when clinical trial enrollment is unavailable.
 

Ibrutinib

The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib is well established as a treatment for MCL and for use in the relapsed setting, she said, noting that pooled data from the phase 2 CYC-1104 trial, the phase 2 MCL 2001 (SPARK) trial, and the phase 3 MCL3001 (RAY) trial showed an overall response (OR) rate of 66% in 370 patients and a complete response (CR) rate of 20%.

The median duration of response (DOR) was 18.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 25 months (Br J Haematol. 2017 Nov;179[3]:430-8).

Adding rituximab to ibrutinib (R-ibrutinib) improved outcomes, at least in one single center phase 2 trial of 50 relapsed patients with a median of three prior therapies, she said. The OR rate in that study was 88%, and the CR rate was 58% (Br J Haematol. 2018 May;182[3]:404-11).

“What was really impressive to me was that the median duration of response was about 46 months. PFS was 43 months, and patients were on [treatment] as long as 56 cycles,” she said.
 

Acalabrutinib

The newer BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib also shows benefit in the relapsed MCL setting, Dr. Blum said.

In a recent multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of 124 patients with a median age of 68 years and a median of two prior therapies, acalabrutinib at a dose of 100 mg twice daily was associated with an OR rate of 81% and a CR rate of 40% (Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391:659-67).

“Seems a little better than what you’d expect with single agent ibrutinib,” she said, noting that median DOR and PFS have not been reached in that study.

The main toxicities have been “headache and some diarrhea,” but follow-up is currently only about 15 months, she added.

Venetoclax

Another option in this setting is the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax, which was shown in a recent phase 1 study of patients with various lymphoma subtypes to have activity in relapsed MCL, Dr. Blum said.

The OR rate in 28 relapsed MCL patients in that study was 75%, and the median PFS was 14 months (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35:826-33).

Additionally, an “intriguing combination study of venetoclax and ibrutinib” was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, she noted.

That study included only 23 patients with relapsed MCL, but they were a “pretty high-risk” group with a median age of 68 years, about half having a TP53 abnormality, and 30% having a prior transplant.

The OR and CR rates at 16 weeks by positron emission tomography were 71% and 62%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378:1211-23).

“Actually, about 40% achieved [minimal residual disease] negativity, but this was only checked in about half the patients,” she said. “So this is an intriguing combination and hopefully something we’ll see more of in the upcoming years.”
 

Lenalidomide

In the randomized phase 2 SPRINT study, patients received either single-agent lenolidamine or the investigator’s choice of single-agent rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine.

The expected OR rate in 170 patients treated with lenalidomide was 40% versus 11% in 84 patients treated with investigator’s choice of treatment, and the respective CR rates were 5% and 0% (Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):319-31).

Median DOR was 16 months versus 10.4 months, PFS was 8.7 versus 5.2 months, and median OS was 27.9 versus 21.1 months in the groups, respectively.
 

Other options

Combination regimens, such as R-CHOP and R-bendamustine, are also options for the treatment of relapsed MCL patients who haven’t received combination therapy in the past, Dr. Blum said. Transplant is another option in some patients.

“I will consider transplants for younger patients if they come to me and they actually hadn’t had one in [their] first CR,” she said.

Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are particularly useful in the setting of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.

Venetoclax and lenalidomide can also be considered in the relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) setting, Dr. Blum, a professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

“I tend to favor BTK inhibitors as my first line of therapy,” she said, later qualifying that this applies when clinical trial enrollment is unavailable.
 

Ibrutinib

The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib is well established as a treatment for MCL and for use in the relapsed setting, she said, noting that pooled data from the phase 2 CYC-1104 trial, the phase 2 MCL 2001 (SPARK) trial, and the phase 3 MCL3001 (RAY) trial showed an overall response (OR) rate of 66% in 370 patients and a complete response (CR) rate of 20%.

The median duration of response (DOR) was 18.6 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 25 months (Br J Haematol. 2017 Nov;179[3]:430-8).

Adding rituximab to ibrutinib (R-ibrutinib) improved outcomes, at least in one single center phase 2 trial of 50 relapsed patients with a median of three prior therapies, she said. The OR rate in that study was 88%, and the CR rate was 58% (Br J Haematol. 2018 May;182[3]:404-11).

“What was really impressive to me was that the median duration of response was about 46 months. PFS was 43 months, and patients were on [treatment] as long as 56 cycles,” she said.
 

Acalabrutinib

The newer BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib also shows benefit in the relapsed MCL setting, Dr. Blum said.

In a recent multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of 124 patients with a median age of 68 years and a median of two prior therapies, acalabrutinib at a dose of 100 mg twice daily was associated with an OR rate of 81% and a CR rate of 40% (Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391:659-67).

“Seems a little better than what you’d expect with single agent ibrutinib,” she said, noting that median DOR and PFS have not been reached in that study.

The main toxicities have been “headache and some diarrhea,” but follow-up is currently only about 15 months, she added.

Venetoclax

Another option in this setting is the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax, which was shown in a recent phase 1 study of patients with various lymphoma subtypes to have activity in relapsed MCL, Dr. Blum said.

The OR rate in 28 relapsed MCL patients in that study was 75%, and the median PFS was 14 months (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35:826-33).

Additionally, an “intriguing combination study of venetoclax and ibrutinib” was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, she noted.

That study included only 23 patients with relapsed MCL, but they were a “pretty high-risk” group with a median age of 68 years, about half having a TP53 abnormality, and 30% having a prior transplant.

The OR and CR rates at 16 weeks by positron emission tomography were 71% and 62%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378:1211-23).

“Actually, about 40% achieved [minimal residual disease] negativity, but this was only checked in about half the patients,” she said. “So this is an intriguing combination and hopefully something we’ll see more of in the upcoming years.”
 

Lenalidomide

In the randomized phase 2 SPRINT study, patients received either single-agent lenolidamine or the investigator’s choice of single-agent rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine.

The expected OR rate in 170 patients treated with lenalidomide was 40% versus 11% in 84 patients treated with investigator’s choice of treatment, and the respective CR rates were 5% and 0% (Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):319-31).

Median DOR was 16 months versus 10.4 months, PFS was 8.7 versus 5.2 months, and median OS was 27.9 versus 21.1 months in the groups, respectively.
 

Other options

Combination regimens, such as R-CHOP and R-bendamustine, are also options for the treatment of relapsed MCL patients who haven’t received combination therapy in the past, Dr. Blum said. Transplant is another option in some patients.

“I will consider transplants for younger patients if they come to me and they actually hadn’t had one in [their] first CR,” she said.

Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.

CHICAGO – Changes in quantitative lung CT scores for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease independently validate the superiority of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus cyclophosphamide for severe systemic sclerosis, according to findings in a subset of patients from the SCOT (Scleroderma: Cyclophosphamide or Transplantation) trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The recently published findings from the SCOT trial showed that myeloablation followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) significantly improved event-free and overall survival of systemic sclerosis patients at 54 months, compared with 12 monthly treatments with intravenous cyclophosphamide (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:35-47).

In a subset of 75 patients from the SCOT trial, the investigators analyzed changes in lung parenchymal abnormalities on high-resolution CT scans between baseline and serial follow-up exams performed yearly for up to 5 years. Follow-up scans at 14, 26, 48, and 54 months in available patients at each time point showed that whole-lung quantitative interstitial lung disease (QILD) scores – a validated measure that combines various CT texture-based characteristics to determine disease extent – decreased significantly by 7% at 54 months in patients who underwent HSCT, compared with no change in those who received cyclophosphamide (CYC; P = .024), Keith M. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Additionally, whole-lung quantitative lung fibrosis (QLF) scores were stable (–1%) in the HSCT patients, but increased 3% in the CYC patients (P = .047), said Dr. Sullivan, a professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.


Dr. Sullivan was the first author on the SCOT trial, and he reported the current study results on behalf of lead investigator Jonathan Goldin, MD, PhD, of the department of radiologic sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“These are really kind of meaningful associations, especially since the worst of the [CYC] treatment group didn’t make it to month 54,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Quantitative scores of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were measured using computer-based quantitative image analysis of standardized, noncontrast, volumetric, thin-section, thoracic, high-resolution CT. The same CT machine was used for all time points (except for one subject) with careful attention to breath hold reproducibility and image quality. Baseline characteristics were not different between the HSCT and CYC groups, he noted, stressing the rigorous study design.

CT assessments were also compared for the most severe lobe in each patient and showed similar findings, with both QILD and QLF scores for that lobe improving in the HSCT patients relative to the CYC patients (P = .004 and P = .002, respectively), Dr. Sullivan said, adding that the direction of change in structural measures of QILD and QLF for both whole lung and most severe lobe CTs tracked with physiological pulmonary function tests, including forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

“The FVC improved while QILD decreased, and that’s what you would expect to see,” he said. “So for each of these ways of displaying data, there was an expected and sensible inverse correlation.”

Scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in severe systemic sclerosis. In the wake of the SCOT trial findings, questions remained with respect to correlation between those findings and pulmonary function; if the improvements with HSCT are real and meaningful, they should have meaningful correlation with pulmonary function, and these findings demonstrate those correlates, he said.

“Changes in quantitative lung CT scoring of scleroderma lung disease provide an objective radiologic validation of the long-term benefits of transplant compared to cyclophosphamide in individuals with severe scleroderma and lung involvement. Improvement in imaging after transplant continues for up to 54 months after randomization, giving radiologic confirmation of a durable treatment benefit,” Dr. Sullivan concluded.

The investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldin J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 901.

CHICAGO – Changes in quantitative lung CT scores for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease independently validate the superiority of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus cyclophosphamide for severe systemic sclerosis, according to findings in a subset of patients from the SCOT (Scleroderma: Cyclophosphamide or Transplantation) trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The recently published findings from the SCOT trial showed that myeloablation followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) significantly improved event-free and overall survival of systemic sclerosis patients at 54 months, compared with 12 monthly treatments with intravenous cyclophosphamide (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:35-47).

In a subset of 75 patients from the SCOT trial, the investigators analyzed changes in lung parenchymal abnormalities on high-resolution CT scans between baseline and serial follow-up exams performed yearly for up to 5 years. Follow-up scans at 14, 26, 48, and 54 months in available patients at each time point showed that whole-lung quantitative interstitial lung disease (QILD) scores – a validated measure that combines various CT texture-based characteristics to determine disease extent – decreased significantly by 7% at 54 months in patients who underwent HSCT, compared with no change in those who received cyclophosphamide (CYC; P = .024), Keith M. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Additionally, whole-lung quantitative lung fibrosis (QLF) scores were stable (–1%) in the HSCT patients, but increased 3% in the CYC patients (P = .047), said Dr. Sullivan, a professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.


Dr. Sullivan was the first author on the SCOT trial, and he reported the current study results on behalf of lead investigator Jonathan Goldin, MD, PhD, of the department of radiologic sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“These are really kind of meaningful associations, especially since the worst of the [CYC] treatment group didn’t make it to month 54,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Quantitative scores of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were measured using computer-based quantitative image analysis of standardized, noncontrast, volumetric, thin-section, thoracic, high-resolution CT. The same CT machine was used for all time points (except for one subject) with careful attention to breath hold reproducibility and image quality. Baseline characteristics were not different between the HSCT and CYC groups, he noted, stressing the rigorous study design.

CT assessments were also compared for the most severe lobe in each patient and showed similar findings, with both QILD and QLF scores for that lobe improving in the HSCT patients relative to the CYC patients (P = .004 and P = .002, respectively), Dr. Sullivan said, adding that the direction of change in structural measures of QILD and QLF for both whole lung and most severe lobe CTs tracked with physiological pulmonary function tests, including forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

“The FVC improved while QILD decreased, and that’s what you would expect to see,” he said. “So for each of these ways of displaying data, there was an expected and sensible inverse correlation.”

Scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in severe systemic sclerosis. In the wake of the SCOT trial findings, questions remained with respect to correlation between those findings and pulmonary function; if the improvements with HSCT are real and meaningful, they should have meaningful correlation with pulmonary function, and these findings demonstrate those correlates, he said.

“Changes in quantitative lung CT scoring of scleroderma lung disease provide an objective radiologic validation of the long-term benefits of transplant compared to cyclophosphamide in individuals with severe scleroderma and lung involvement. Improvement in imaging after transplant continues for up to 54 months after randomization, giving radiologic confirmation of a durable treatment benefit,” Dr. Sullivan concluded.

The investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldin J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 901.

CHICAGO – Changes in quantitative lung CT scores for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease independently validate the superiority of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus cyclophosphamide for severe systemic sclerosis, according to findings in a subset of patients from the SCOT (Scleroderma: Cyclophosphamide or Transplantation) trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The recently published findings from the SCOT trial showed that myeloablation followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) significantly improved event-free and overall survival of systemic sclerosis patients at 54 months, compared with 12 monthly treatments with intravenous cyclophosphamide (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:35-47).

In a subset of 75 patients from the SCOT trial, the investigators analyzed changes in lung parenchymal abnormalities on high-resolution CT scans between baseline and serial follow-up exams performed yearly for up to 5 years. Follow-up scans at 14, 26, 48, and 54 months in available patients at each time point showed that whole-lung quantitative interstitial lung disease (QILD) scores – a validated measure that combines various CT texture-based characteristics to determine disease extent – decreased significantly by 7% at 54 months in patients who underwent HSCT, compared with no change in those who received cyclophosphamide (CYC; P = .024), Keith M. Sullivan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Additionally, whole-lung quantitative lung fibrosis (QLF) scores were stable (–1%) in the HSCT patients, but increased 3% in the CYC patients (P = .047), said Dr. Sullivan, a professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.


Dr. Sullivan was the first author on the SCOT trial, and he reported the current study results on behalf of lead investigator Jonathan Goldin, MD, PhD, of the department of radiologic sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“These are really kind of meaningful associations, especially since the worst of the [CYC] treatment group didn’t make it to month 54,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Quantitative scores of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were measured using computer-based quantitative image analysis of standardized, noncontrast, volumetric, thin-section, thoracic, high-resolution CT. The same CT machine was used for all time points (except for one subject) with careful attention to breath hold reproducibility and image quality. Baseline characteristics were not different between the HSCT and CYC groups, he noted, stressing the rigorous study design.

CT assessments were also compared for the most severe lobe in each patient and showed similar findings, with both QILD and QLF scores for that lobe improving in the HSCT patients relative to the CYC patients (P = .004 and P = .002, respectively), Dr. Sullivan said, adding that the direction of change in structural measures of QILD and QLF for both whole lung and most severe lobe CTs tracked with physiological pulmonary function tests, including forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

“The FVC improved while QILD decreased, and that’s what you would expect to see,” he said. “So for each of these ways of displaying data, there was an expected and sensible inverse correlation.”

Scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in severe systemic sclerosis. In the wake of the SCOT trial findings, questions remained with respect to correlation between those findings and pulmonary function; if the improvements with HSCT are real and meaningful, they should have meaningful correlation with pulmonary function, and these findings demonstrate those correlates, he said.

“Changes in quantitative lung CT scoring of scleroderma lung disease provide an objective radiologic validation of the long-term benefits of transplant compared to cyclophosphamide in individuals with severe scleroderma and lung involvement. Improvement in imaging after transplant continues for up to 54 months after randomization, giving radiologic confirmation of a durable treatment benefit,” Dr. Sullivan concluded.

The investigators reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldin J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 901.

CHICAGO – Asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients should be observed, but consider therapy when symptoms develop, said Paul M. Barr, MD.

Courtesy Matt Wittmeyer/University of Rochester Medical Center

He described a patient who had been observed for 7 years when he began to complain of increasing fatigue and lost work time. A complete blood count (CBC) showed thrombocytopenia.

The recently updated International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (iwCLL) guidelines state that assessments before treatment in this type of patient should include history and physical, evaluation of infectious disease status, and routine laboratory testing – including CBC and differential, chemistry, serum immunoglobulin, and direct antiglobulin test.

“Bone marrow biopsies and [computed tomography] scans are listed as ‘not necessarily required,’ ” Dr. Barr, medical director of the Clinical Trials Office for Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

He added that he opts for CT scans prior to therapy “to understand the patient’s disease burden and potentially to compare to later” and that bone marrow biopsy is “still very reasonable” for understanding the source of a patient’s cytopenias.

“Is it marrow failure or [immune thrombocytopenia]? Could the patient have [myelodysplastic syndrome]? All important considerations,” he said.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans, however, are only considered when there is concern about transformation, he noted.

Predictive tests that should be conducted before initiating therapy, and that could help in guiding therapy decisions, include TP53 mutation testing and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) mutational status testing (although this doesn’t need to be repeated if it was done at diagnosis because mutational status doesn’t change). Another helpful test is molecular cytogenetics using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for del(13q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes. This should be repeated even it was done at diagnosis because patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time, Dr. Barr said.

Among the data that justify this advice for predictive testing are studies showing the curative potential of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (FCR) in mutated IGHV CLL, the progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of ibrutinib for patients with del(17p), and the activity of idelalisib in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, including those with TP53 dysfunction.

“The IGHV mutation status is useful to know what to expect from chemoimmunotherapy over time,” Dr. Barr said, explaining that several analyses demonstrate that patients with mutated IGHV genes (patients with low-risk disease) respond exceptionally well to chemoimmunotherapy, especially FCR.

In fact, studies, including a 2016 study by Philip A. Thompson and his colleagues and another by Kirsten Fischer and her colleagues, show that nearly 60% of patients with IGHV mutation remain in remission 10 years after FCR treatment, he said. However, the same is not necessarily true for bendamustine/rituximab (BR); the CLL10 study showed a significantly greater PFS with FCR, compared with that seen with BR.

Unmutated patients in that study had lower PFS, but the outcomes were still better with FCR than with BR, he said.

Studies of novel agents, including ibrutinib and idelalisib, suggest they may have particular benefit in higher-risk patients.

Ibrutinib was shown in a phase 2 study to be of benefit regardless of IGHV status, and this was replicated in the first-line RESONATE 2 study, which compared ibrutinib with chlorambucil and showed it had better PFS than that seen in unmutated patients treated with FCR in other studies, said Dr. Barr, the first author on that study.

“So you can see how the treatment paradigms are starting to evolve. It does look like ... comparing across trials, that ibrutinib leads to better remission durations, compared to chemoimmunotherapy, so far,” he said.

Ibrutinib has also been shown to be of benefit for patients with del(17p). A single-arm phase 2 study showed 79% PFS in relapsed, high-risk patients, which is much better than has been seen with chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

“Venetoclax is also a very good option for this patient population in the relapse setting,” he said, adding that the PFS with venetoclax has been shown to be very similar to that with ibrutinib.

Similarly, idelalisib has been shown to provide comparable benefit in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, with and without del(17p)/TP53 mutation, he said.

Dr. Barr is a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Infinity, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics and has received research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients should be observed, but consider therapy when symptoms develop, said Paul M. Barr, MD.

Courtesy Matt Wittmeyer/University of Rochester Medical Center

He described a patient who had been observed for 7 years when he began to complain of increasing fatigue and lost work time. A complete blood count (CBC) showed thrombocytopenia.

The recently updated International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (iwCLL) guidelines state that assessments before treatment in this type of patient should include history and physical, evaluation of infectious disease status, and routine laboratory testing – including CBC and differential, chemistry, serum immunoglobulin, and direct antiglobulin test.

“Bone marrow biopsies and [computed tomography] scans are listed as ‘not necessarily required,’ ” Dr. Barr, medical director of the Clinical Trials Office for Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

He added that he opts for CT scans prior to therapy “to understand the patient’s disease burden and potentially to compare to later” and that bone marrow biopsy is “still very reasonable” for understanding the source of a patient’s cytopenias.

“Is it marrow failure or [immune thrombocytopenia]? Could the patient have [myelodysplastic syndrome]? All important considerations,” he said.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans, however, are only considered when there is concern about transformation, he noted.

Predictive tests that should be conducted before initiating therapy, and that could help in guiding therapy decisions, include TP53 mutation testing and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) mutational status testing (although this doesn’t need to be repeated if it was done at diagnosis because mutational status doesn’t change). Another helpful test is molecular cytogenetics using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for del(13q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes. This should be repeated even it was done at diagnosis because patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time, Dr. Barr said.

Among the data that justify this advice for predictive testing are studies showing the curative potential of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (FCR) in mutated IGHV CLL, the progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of ibrutinib for patients with del(17p), and the activity of idelalisib in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, including those with TP53 dysfunction.

“The IGHV mutation status is useful to know what to expect from chemoimmunotherapy over time,” Dr. Barr said, explaining that several analyses demonstrate that patients with mutated IGHV genes (patients with low-risk disease) respond exceptionally well to chemoimmunotherapy, especially FCR.

In fact, studies, including a 2016 study by Philip A. Thompson and his colleagues and another by Kirsten Fischer and her colleagues, show that nearly 60% of patients with IGHV mutation remain in remission 10 years after FCR treatment, he said. However, the same is not necessarily true for bendamustine/rituximab (BR); the CLL10 study showed a significantly greater PFS with FCR, compared with that seen with BR.

Unmutated patients in that study had lower PFS, but the outcomes were still better with FCR than with BR, he said.

Studies of novel agents, including ibrutinib and idelalisib, suggest they may have particular benefit in higher-risk patients.

Ibrutinib was shown in a phase 2 study to be of benefit regardless of IGHV status, and this was replicated in the first-line RESONATE 2 study, which compared ibrutinib with chlorambucil and showed it had better PFS than that seen in unmutated patients treated with FCR in other studies, said Dr. Barr, the first author on that study.

“So you can see how the treatment paradigms are starting to evolve. It does look like ... comparing across trials, that ibrutinib leads to better remission durations, compared to chemoimmunotherapy, so far,” he said.

Ibrutinib has also been shown to be of benefit for patients with del(17p). A single-arm phase 2 study showed 79% PFS in relapsed, high-risk patients, which is much better than has been seen with chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

“Venetoclax is also a very good option for this patient population in the relapse setting,” he said, adding that the PFS with venetoclax has been shown to be very similar to that with ibrutinib.

Similarly, idelalisib has been shown to provide comparable benefit in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, with and without del(17p)/TP53 mutation, he said.

Dr. Barr is a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Infinity, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics and has received research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients should be observed, but consider therapy when symptoms develop, said Paul M. Barr, MD.

Courtesy Matt Wittmeyer/University of Rochester Medical Center

He described a patient who had been observed for 7 years when he began to complain of increasing fatigue and lost work time. A complete blood count (CBC) showed thrombocytopenia.

The recently updated International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (iwCLL) guidelines state that assessments before treatment in this type of patient should include history and physical, evaluation of infectious disease status, and routine laboratory testing – including CBC and differential, chemistry, serum immunoglobulin, and direct antiglobulin test.

“Bone marrow biopsies and [computed tomography] scans are listed as ‘not necessarily required,’ ” Dr. Barr, medical director of the Clinical Trials Office for Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

He added that he opts for CT scans prior to therapy “to understand the patient’s disease burden and potentially to compare to later” and that bone marrow biopsy is “still very reasonable” for understanding the source of a patient’s cytopenias.

“Is it marrow failure or [immune thrombocytopenia]? Could the patient have [myelodysplastic syndrome]? All important considerations,” he said.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans, however, are only considered when there is concern about transformation, he noted.

Predictive tests that should be conducted before initiating therapy, and that could help in guiding therapy decisions, include TP53 mutation testing and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) mutational status testing (although this doesn’t need to be repeated if it was done at diagnosis because mutational status doesn’t change). Another helpful test is molecular cytogenetics using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for del(13q), del(17p), and trisomy 12 in peripheral blood lymphocytes. This should be repeated even it was done at diagnosis because patients can acquire additional molecular aberrations over time, Dr. Barr said.

Among the data that justify this advice for predictive testing are studies showing the curative potential of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (FCR) in mutated IGHV CLL, the progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of ibrutinib for patients with del(17p), and the activity of idelalisib in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, including those with TP53 dysfunction.

“The IGHV mutation status is useful to know what to expect from chemoimmunotherapy over time,” Dr. Barr said, explaining that several analyses demonstrate that patients with mutated IGHV genes (patients with low-risk disease) respond exceptionally well to chemoimmunotherapy, especially FCR.

In fact, studies, including a 2016 study by Philip A. Thompson and his colleagues and another by Kirsten Fischer and her colleagues, show that nearly 60% of patients with IGHV mutation remain in remission 10 years after FCR treatment, he said. However, the same is not necessarily true for bendamustine/rituximab (BR); the CLL10 study showed a significantly greater PFS with FCR, compared with that seen with BR.

Unmutated patients in that study had lower PFS, but the outcomes were still better with FCR than with BR, he said.

Studies of novel agents, including ibrutinib and idelalisib, suggest they may have particular benefit in higher-risk patients.

Ibrutinib was shown in a phase 2 study to be of benefit regardless of IGHV status, and this was replicated in the first-line RESONATE 2 study, which compared ibrutinib with chlorambucil and showed it had better PFS than that seen in unmutated patients treated with FCR in other studies, said Dr. Barr, the first author on that study.

“So you can see how the treatment paradigms are starting to evolve. It does look like ... comparing across trials, that ibrutinib leads to better remission durations, compared to chemoimmunotherapy, so far,” he said.

Ibrutinib has also been shown to be of benefit for patients with del(17p). A single-arm phase 2 study showed 79% PFS in relapsed, high-risk patients, which is much better than has been seen with chemoimmunotherapy, he noted.

“Venetoclax is also a very good option for this patient population in the relapse setting,” he said, adding that the PFS with venetoclax has been shown to be very similar to that with ibrutinib.

Similarly, idelalisib has been shown to provide comparable benefit in relapsed/refractory CLL patients, with and without del(17p)/TP53 mutation, he said.

Dr. Barr is a consultant for Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Infinity, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics and has received research funding from Pharmacyclics and AbbVie.

[email protected]