B-Cell Lymphoma ICYMI

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

Key Points:

• The “Migraine and Neck Pain Study” analyzed data from nearly 500 adult participants in an effort to uncover an association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine.
• The study participants included men and women aged 18 to 65, who had episodic migraine with aura and/or without aura.
• Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache.
• 30% of participants reported episodic vertigo at any point during their migraine attack, while 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand.
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom.

Alan M. Rapoport, MD:

Vertigo in a migraineur has long created confusion as to diagnosis and treatment. I myself always wondered how much I had to work up vertigo or even dizziness if a patient had migraine. I also did not know what to do when a patient with migraine had attacks of vertigo without headache. Were they manifestations of migraine and should they be treated that way?

This study examined a 500 adult patient population who had migraine with or without aura. Christian Lampl was interested in seeing how many had headache, and the timing of when vertigo occurred. It was carefully measured to determine if it usually occurred during or before the headache phase. Migraines were divided into 3 time segments for evaluation: (1) Onset of headache, (2) less than 2 hours before the onset of headache, and (3) 2 to 48 hours before the onset of headache, when prodrome occurs.

• The study determined that 30 % of the patients reported vertigo at some point during their migraine attack; 16% reported it at the start of headache, 10% reported it within 2 hours before their headache, and just 3% reported symptoms between 2 and 24 hours beforehand., which would have been in the prodromal phase.  
• The study concluded that episodic vertigo could be considered more of a “headache phase phenomenon” rather than a prodromal symptom. This was interesting but it left unanswered one of my questions which is, how many had vertigo unrelated to headache and what is that and how do we treat it.
• Although not addressed in this study, there is consensus that if there is enough vertigo in a migraineur, they should be placed on a migraine preventive therapy. It will be interesting to see what the new monoclonal antibodies to CGRP do to vertigo in a treated migraineur. Some headache specialists will even treat an attack of vertigo without headache with a triptan.

ORLANDO – Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising clinical activity in the phase 1 portion of a trial enrolling heavily pretreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The overall response rate exceeded 80%, and most patients in response at 6 months had maintained that response at the 9-month mark, said Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

“Clinical responses were rapid, improved with time, and were deep and durable,” Dr. Siddiqi said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

These findings have provided justification for conducting the phase 2 portion of the study, which is currently enrolling at the higher of two dose levels evaluated in phase 1, she added.

Dr. Siddiqi reported on a total of 23 patients enrolled in the study, known as TRANSCEND CLL 004. All patients had relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and had received at least two prior therapies, including ibrutinib, while about one-third had failed venetoclax as well.

The median patient age was 66 years, and 83% had high-risk features, according to Dr. Siddiqi, who said patients had received a median of five prior lines of therapy.

Nine patients were treated at dose level 1, or 50 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells, while 14 were treated at dose level 2, or 100 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells. Two patients experienced grade 3 or 4 dose-limiting toxicities at the second level, including hypertension in one patient, and encephalopathy, muscle weakness, and tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in the other.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 17 patients, though only two cases reached grade 3. Neurologic adverse events were seen in nine patients, of which five were grade 3 or 4.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 503.

ORLANDO – Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising clinical activity in the phase 1 portion of a trial enrolling heavily pretreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The overall response rate exceeded 80%, and most patients in response at 6 months had maintained that response at the 9-month mark, said Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

“Clinical responses were rapid, improved with time, and were deep and durable,” Dr. Siddiqi said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

These findings have provided justification for conducting the phase 2 portion of the study, which is currently enrolling at the higher of two dose levels evaluated in phase 1, she added.

Dr. Siddiqi reported on a total of 23 patients enrolled in the study, known as TRANSCEND CLL 004. All patients had relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and had received at least two prior therapies, including ibrutinib, while about one-third had failed venetoclax as well.

The median patient age was 66 years, and 83% had high-risk features, according to Dr. Siddiqi, who said patients had received a median of five prior lines of therapy.

Nine patients were treated at dose level 1, or 50 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells, while 14 were treated at dose level 2, or 100 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells. Two patients experienced grade 3 or 4 dose-limiting toxicities at the second level, including hypertension in one patient, and encephalopathy, muscle weakness, and tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in the other.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 17 patients, though only two cases reached grade 3. Neurologic adverse events were seen in nine patients, of which five were grade 3 or 4.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 503.

ORLANDO – Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising clinical activity in the phase 1 portion of a trial enrolling heavily pretreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The overall response rate exceeded 80%, and most patients in response at 6 months had maintained that response at the 9-month mark, said Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif.

“Clinical responses were rapid, improved with time, and were deep and durable,” Dr. Siddiqi said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

These findings have provided justification for conducting the phase 2 portion of the study, which is currently enrolling at the higher of two dose levels evaluated in phase 1, she added.

Dr. Siddiqi reported on a total of 23 patients enrolled in the study, known as TRANSCEND CLL 004. All patients had relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and had received at least two prior therapies, including ibrutinib, while about one-third had failed venetoclax as well.

The median patient age was 66 years, and 83% had high-risk features, according to Dr. Siddiqi, who said patients had received a median of five prior lines of therapy.

Nine patients were treated at dose level 1, or 50 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells, while 14 were treated at dose level 2, or 100 x 10⁶ CAR+ T cells. Two patients experienced grade 3 or 4 dose-limiting toxicities at the second level, including hypertension in one patient, and encephalopathy, muscle weakness, and tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in the other.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 17 patients, though only two cases reached grade 3. Neurologic adverse events were seen in nine patients, of which five were grade 3 or 4.

SOURCE: Siddiqi T et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 503.

ORLANDO – A phase 1 trial of the next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor LOXO-305 has demonstrated safety and provided evidence of its efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with B-cell malignancies, including some with acquired resistance to other BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The antitumor activity of this highly selective investigational oral BTK inhibitor was significant in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), with a rapid onset of action and resolution of lymphocytosis “consistent with effective BTK target inhibition,” said Anthony R. Mato, MD, of the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Responses were also seen in patients with BTK C481 mutations, the primary cause of progressive CLL after BTK inhibitor use, Dr. Mato said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The safety and tolerability profile of LOXO-305 is “consistent with highly selective drug design,” with no evidence of off-target effects, he said. “Collectively, these data demonstrate that BTK remains a highly actionable target despite progression on covalent BTK inhibitors.”

While BTK inhibitors have transformed treatment of B-cell malignancies, resistance remains a major problem, said Dr. Mato, citing 5-year ibrutinib discontinuation rates of 41% in the front line setting and 53.7% in the relapsed/refractory setting.

Key reasons for discontinuation are intolerance, events such as atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, progression of disease, and the appearance of BTK C481 mutations, which prevent covalent BTK inhibitors from achieving effective target inhibition, he said. In contrast, LOXO-305 is designed to non-covalently bind to BTK, regardless of C481 status.

Dr. Mato described results of the phase 1 BRUIN trial, in which 28 adult patients with CLL or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas received once daily oral LOXO-305 at doses ranging from 25 mg to 200 mg. All patients had received at least two lines of prior therapy and had active disease in need of treatment.

For 13 evaluable CLL patients, the overall response rate was 77% (10 patients), Dr. Mato reported. Overall response rates for MCL and other B-cell malignancies were 50%, or three out of six MCL patients and two of four patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or marginal zone lymphoma.

Though only a small subset of CLL patients have had multiple response assessments, the available data suggest that responses “deepen over time” with continued LOXO-305 treatment, Dr. Mato said.

With the median follow-up of 2.7 months, 24 of 28 patients remain on therapy, including all responders. “Some of the responses appear to be quite durable,” Dr. Mato said.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose has not been reached, and there have been no notable adverse events characteristic of covalent BTK inhibitors – namely atrial fibrillation or major bleeding – despite frequent monitoring, according to Dr. Mato.

There were two grade 3 events (leukocytosis and neutropenia), but the remaining treatment-emergent adverse events have been grade 1-2. “Having managed many of these patients, I can tell you that these adverse events were quite manageable,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

BRUIN is a global trial that continues to enroll patients at 18 sites in 3 countries, with a plan in 2020 to incorporate “rational combinations” of agents, according to the investigator.

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, LOXO, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 501.

ORLANDO – A phase 1 trial of the next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor LOXO-305 has demonstrated safety and provided evidence of its efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with B-cell malignancies, including some with acquired resistance to other BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The antitumor activity of this highly selective investigational oral BTK inhibitor was significant in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), with a rapid onset of action and resolution of lymphocytosis “consistent with effective BTK target inhibition,” said Anthony R. Mato, MD, of the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Responses were also seen in patients with BTK C481 mutations, the primary cause of progressive CLL after BTK inhibitor use, Dr. Mato said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The safety and tolerability profile of LOXO-305 is “consistent with highly selective drug design,” with no evidence of off-target effects, he said. “Collectively, these data demonstrate that BTK remains a highly actionable target despite progression on covalent BTK inhibitors.”

While BTK inhibitors have transformed treatment of B-cell malignancies, resistance remains a major problem, said Dr. Mato, citing 5-year ibrutinib discontinuation rates of 41% in the front line setting and 53.7% in the relapsed/refractory setting.

Key reasons for discontinuation are intolerance, events such as atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, progression of disease, and the appearance of BTK C481 mutations, which prevent covalent BTK inhibitors from achieving effective target inhibition, he said. In contrast, LOXO-305 is designed to non-covalently bind to BTK, regardless of C481 status.

Dr. Mato described results of the phase 1 BRUIN trial, in which 28 adult patients with CLL or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas received once daily oral LOXO-305 at doses ranging from 25 mg to 200 mg. All patients had received at least two lines of prior therapy and had active disease in need of treatment.

For 13 evaluable CLL patients, the overall response rate was 77% (10 patients), Dr. Mato reported. Overall response rates for MCL and other B-cell malignancies were 50%, or three out of six MCL patients and two of four patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or marginal zone lymphoma.

Though only a small subset of CLL patients have had multiple response assessments, the available data suggest that responses “deepen over time” with continued LOXO-305 treatment, Dr. Mato said.

With the median follow-up of 2.7 months, 24 of 28 patients remain on therapy, including all responders. “Some of the responses appear to be quite durable,” Dr. Mato said.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose has not been reached, and there have been no notable adverse events characteristic of covalent BTK inhibitors – namely atrial fibrillation or major bleeding – despite frequent monitoring, according to Dr. Mato.

There were two grade 3 events (leukocytosis and neutropenia), but the remaining treatment-emergent adverse events have been grade 1-2. “Having managed many of these patients, I can tell you that these adverse events were quite manageable,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

BRUIN is a global trial that continues to enroll patients at 18 sites in 3 countries, with a plan in 2020 to incorporate “rational combinations” of agents, according to the investigator.

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, LOXO, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 501.

ORLANDO – A phase 1 trial of the next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor LOXO-305 has demonstrated safety and provided evidence of its efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with B-cell malignancies, including some with acquired resistance to other BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, according to an investigator.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The antitumor activity of this highly selective investigational oral BTK inhibitor was significant in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), with a rapid onset of action and resolution of lymphocytosis “consistent with effective BTK target inhibition,” said Anthony R. Mato, MD, of the Center for CLL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Responses were also seen in patients with BTK C481 mutations, the primary cause of progressive CLL after BTK inhibitor use, Dr. Mato said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The safety and tolerability profile of LOXO-305 is “consistent with highly selective drug design,” with no evidence of off-target effects, he said. “Collectively, these data demonstrate that BTK remains a highly actionable target despite progression on covalent BTK inhibitors.”

While BTK inhibitors have transformed treatment of B-cell malignancies, resistance remains a major problem, said Dr. Mato, citing 5-year ibrutinib discontinuation rates of 41% in the front line setting and 53.7% in the relapsed/refractory setting.

Key reasons for discontinuation are intolerance, events such as atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, progression of disease, and the appearance of BTK C481 mutations, which prevent covalent BTK inhibitors from achieving effective target inhibition, he said. In contrast, LOXO-305 is designed to non-covalently bind to BTK, regardless of C481 status.

Dr. Mato described results of the phase 1 BRUIN trial, in which 28 adult patients with CLL or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas received once daily oral LOXO-305 at doses ranging from 25 mg to 200 mg. All patients had received at least two lines of prior therapy and had active disease in need of treatment.

For 13 evaluable CLL patients, the overall response rate was 77% (10 patients), Dr. Mato reported. Overall response rates for MCL and other B-cell malignancies were 50%, or three out of six MCL patients and two of four patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or marginal zone lymphoma.

Though only a small subset of CLL patients have had multiple response assessments, the available data suggest that responses “deepen over time” with continued LOXO-305 treatment, Dr. Mato said.

With the median follow-up of 2.7 months, 24 of 28 patients remain on therapy, including all responders. “Some of the responses appear to be quite durable,” Dr. Mato said.

There have been no dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose has not been reached, and there have been no notable adverse events characteristic of covalent BTK inhibitors – namely atrial fibrillation or major bleeding – despite frequent monitoring, according to Dr. Mato.

There were two grade 3 events (leukocytosis and neutropenia), but the remaining treatment-emergent adverse events have been grade 1-2. “Having managed many of these patients, I can tell you that these adverse events were quite manageable,” Dr. Mato told attendees.

BRUIN is a global trial that continues to enroll patients at 18 sites in 3 countries, with a plan in 2020 to incorporate “rational combinations” of agents, according to the investigator.

Dr. Mato reported disclosures related to Gilead, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Sunesis, Johnson & Johnson, TG Therapeutics, LOXO, DTRM Biopharma, Genentech, Janssen, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, and Celgene.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 501.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

ORLANDO – Updated results from the TRANSCEND NHL trial include survival data with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months, and the median overall survival was 21.1 months. PFS results were best among complete responders and among patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma.

Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“TRANSCEND NHL is the largest clinical study to date of CD19-directed CAR T cells in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma,” Dr. Abramson said.

The phase 1 trial (NCT02631044) includes 269 patients who received liso-cel. They were diagnosed with transformed follicular lymphoma (22%) or other indolent lymphoma (7%), high-grade B-cell lymphoma (13%), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (6%), grade 3B follicular lymphoma (1%), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (51%).

At baseline, patients had received a median of three prior systemic therapies (range, one to eight). Some patients had received autologous (33%) or allogeneic (3%) transplant. Many patients were chemotherapy refractory (67%) or had never achieved a complete response to prior therapy (44%).

More than half of patients (59%) received bridging therapy during liso-cel manufacturing. All patients received lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, followed by liso-cel at 50 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, 100 x 10⁶ CAR T cells, or 150 x 10⁶ CAR T cells.

Response and survival

The median follow-up was 12.0 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and the complete response rate was 53%.

“Remissions were rapid, with a median of 1 month from CAR T-cell infusion, and durable, with a median duration of response that has not been reached and 55% of patients remaining in response at 1 year,” Dr. Abramson said.

The median PFS was 6.8 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 2.8 months for patients with a partial response, and 1.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

The median PFS was not reached for patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma or transformed follicular lymphoma, 5.0 months for high-grade B-cell lymphoma, 3.0 months for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, and 2.9 months in transformed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The median overall survival was 21.1 months overall, not reached for patients who achieved a complete response, 9.0 months for patients who had a partial response, and 5.1 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease.

Safety

Common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (63%), anemia (48%), fatigue (44%), nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (31%), headache (30%), decreased appetite (28%), and diarrhea (26%).

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 42% of patients, and neurologic events occurred in 30%. Grade 3-4 CRS occurred in 2% of patients, and grade 3-4 neurologic events occurred in 10%. There were no cases of grade 5 CRS or neurologic events.

The median time to CRS onset was 5 days, and the median time to onset of neurologic events was 9 days. The median time to resolution of CRS and neurologic events was 5 days and 11 days, respectively.

“The low incidence of severe CRS and neurologic events and their late time of onset support using this product in a large range of patients and in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Abramson said.

There were seven grade 5 treatment-related adverse events, including diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary hemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, cardiomyopathy, fludarabine leukoencephalopathy, septic shock, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

This trial is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Abramson reported relationships with Juno Therapeutics and Celgene, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a range of other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 241.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent studies that reinforce prior diagnostic and treatment preferences among many oncologists and will certainly influence the discussions we all will have with our patients in the coming weeks and months.

Rituximab maintenance in follicular lymphoma

The largest trial addressing the role of maintenance CD20-targeted antibody therapy was the Primary Rituximab and Maintenance (PRIMA) phase 3, intergroup study in 1,018 advanced follicular lymphoma patients with an initial response to induction chemoimmunotherapy. The induction regimen could be either of three commonly used regimens plus rituximab. Importantly, none of the induction regimens included bendamustine.

Patients were randomized to 2 years of rituximab maintenance or observation. Prior interim analyses at 3 and 6 years showed improvements for the rituximab maintenance patients in progression-free survival and other secondary endpoints, but no improvement in overall survival. Emmanuel Bachy, MD, PhD, and colleagues published the final survival data after 9 years of follow-up, including a final safety analysis (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;37[31]:2815-24).

Among the 607 patients consenting to extended follow-up, median progression-free survival was 10.5 years with rituximab maintenance, compared with 4.1 years for observation (hazard ratio, 0.61; P less than .001). There were more patients with progression-free survival at 3 years, complete response or unconfirmed complete response at 2 years, longer time to next antilymphoma treatment, and later time to next chemotherapy. But the 10-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, as were the quality of life ratings.

In all, 503 patients experienced disease progression. Overall survival after progression was shorter in the rituximab maintenance arm versus the observation arm. Among the approximately 4% of patients experiencing transformation from follicular lymphoma to a more aggressive histology, there was no difference observed in time to transformation. Results were independent of the induction regimen received, response to induction, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, and other clinical factors.

In the safety analysis, there were more grade 3-4 adverse events among the rituximab maintenance patients – primarily cytopenia and infections – more serious adverse events, and more adverse events overall. Fatal adverse events were low in both groups (1.6 vs. 0.6%).
 

How these results influence practice

Many years ago, a senior mentor of mine taught that “progression-free survival is an important endpoint since the quality of life for patients is generally superior before relapse than afterwards.”

With that mantra playing in my mind and with the reality that discussions about relapse and subsequent treatment are never easy, the results of PRIMA seem straightforward: Rituximab maintenance is beneficial, despite the absence of an overall survival benefit, in a disease with multiple options for subsequent therapy and a long natural history. In this 9-year, final analysis of PRIMA, rituximab maintenance seems to have achieved its goals of deepening responses with low (but not inconsequential) toxicity and delaying substantially those difficult conversations with patients about how to proceed after relapse.

The influence of the final analysis of PRIMA, however, may be more complicated that it would initially seem. Bendamustine-containing regimens were not employed, are commonly used now, and some studies with bendamustine have suggested higher nonrelapse mortality with rituximab maintenance.

Low-grade adverse events take on greater importance for patients on long-term therapy than they do for patients receiving abbreviated treatment, and with noncurative treatment, the higher adverse event profile with 2 years of rituximab maintenance needs to be taken seriously. Induction and maintenance regimens involving rituximab alone, lenalidomide, or obinutuzumab may be preferred for some patients. For all of those reasons, the discussion about rituximab with advanced follicular lymphoma patients remains a long one, demanding detailed descriptions of risks, benefits, limitations of the data, and multiple modern day alternatives to the treatments employed in PRIMA.
 

Supplemental MRI for dense breast tissue

In the DENSE trial, investigators assigned 40,373 women with extremely dense breast tissue and negative results on screening mammography to be offered either supplemental MRI or mammography screening every other year only. The women were 50-75 years old and were enrolled in the Dutch population-based digital mammography screening program. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of cancers that developed in the 2-year interval between mammograms (N Engl J Med 2019;381:2091-102).

The interval cancer rate was 2.5 per 1,000 screenings among 4,783 women in the “MRI-invitation” group (41% of whom did not actually agree to have an MRI), and 5 per 1,000 in the 32,312 women in the “mammography-only” group, a difference of 2.5 per 1,000 screenings (P less than .001).

Of the 20 interval cancers diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the 59% of women who had undergone MRI (0.8 per 1,000 screenings). The remaining 16 were diagnosed in those who had declined an MRI (4.9 per 1,000 screenings) – virtually identical to the rate of interval cancers in the group that was not invited to have an MRI. This speaks against nonrandom allocation of patients between the mammography-only and the supplemental MRI groups.

Although supplemental MRI was associated with a cancer-detection rate of 16.5 per 1,000 screenings, there was a false positive rate of 8.0% (79.8 per 1,000 screenings). Of the women who underwent a breast biopsy after MRI, 73.7% did not have cancer. Among the women who had MRI-detected cancers, in general, the malignancies diagnosed were smaller, more likely node negative, better differentiated, and more often hormone receptor–positive, compared with those in the mammography-only group.

At the next screening mammogram, the cancer detection rate was lower in the MRI-screened group (2 per 1,000 screenings) than in the MRI–“offered but declined” (7.1 per 1,000 screenings) or mammogram-only groups (6 per 1,000 screenings).
 

How these results influence practice

American physicians are obligated to inform women with dense breast tissue about the limitations (for them) of conventional mammography, an unquantified, but elevated, risk of breast cancer in women with dense breast tissue, and the fact that there are no universally accepted recommended subsequent steps those women should take.

One side benefit of the requirement to disclose information about breast density, however, is that disclosure can prompt discussions about breast cancer risk reduction – an important discussion with multiple possible health-maintaining interventions.

The DENSE trial is very important news, with potential for even more value in future years. It is finite (2 years of study, with only one MRI scan mandated), narrow (Vopara or BI-RADs breast density grade 4 only), and oligo-institutional (eight participating centers in the Netherlands). Still, it provides randomized, rigorously gathered and analyzed data where there were previously none. Importantly, it answers the question, “So what can I do now, doctor?”

I have some concerns about whether we, as a medical community, have the discipline to restrict application of supplemental MRI screening beyond the population that was studied in the Netherlands. Will we be able to restrain ourselves from ordering MRI scans in women with heterogeneously dense – but not extremely dense – breasts? Will we truly manage patients whose MRI scans had BI-RADs readings of less than 4 in the rigorous, but conservative, fashion employed in the trial? Would we miss fewer significant cancers and subject fewer patients to potential expense and harm with annual mammography, instead of the biennial screening performed in the Netherlands? Does tomo-synthesis improve the interpretation of screening mammograms so much that the interval cancer rate is a lot closer to the rate obtained with supplemental MRI scans? Is the expense of MRI scanning, with the resultant subsequent tests and procedures, justified by the reduction in detecting relatively favorable breast cancers that may not materially impact overall survival?

The DENSE study promises to be a “gift that keeps on giving” as the investigators continue to assess a number of factors including: the value of ongoing supplemental MRI scans (compared with the one-time-only screening reported here); whether there will be a reduction in the advanced cancers and subsequent mortality benefit; the extent of over diagnosis, costs, and impact on quality-of-life; and the applicability of artificial intelligence techniques to reduce false positive MRI results.

While the study may not be practice changing in the United States at the present time, it may be just that as subsequent analyses emerge.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent studies that reinforce prior diagnostic and treatment preferences among many oncologists and will certainly influence the discussions we all will have with our patients in the coming weeks and months.

Rituximab maintenance in follicular lymphoma

The largest trial addressing the role of maintenance CD20-targeted antibody therapy was the Primary Rituximab and Maintenance (PRIMA) phase 3, intergroup study in 1,018 advanced follicular lymphoma patients with an initial response to induction chemoimmunotherapy. The induction regimen could be either of three commonly used regimens plus rituximab. Importantly, none of the induction regimens included bendamustine.

Patients were randomized to 2 years of rituximab maintenance or observation. Prior interim analyses at 3 and 6 years showed improvements for the rituximab maintenance patients in progression-free survival and other secondary endpoints, but no improvement in overall survival. Emmanuel Bachy, MD, PhD, and colleagues published the final survival data after 9 years of follow-up, including a final safety analysis (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;37[31]:2815-24).

Among the 607 patients consenting to extended follow-up, median progression-free survival was 10.5 years with rituximab maintenance, compared with 4.1 years for observation (hazard ratio, 0.61; P less than .001). There were more patients with progression-free survival at 3 years, complete response or unconfirmed complete response at 2 years, longer time to next antilymphoma treatment, and later time to next chemotherapy. But the 10-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, as were the quality of life ratings.

In all, 503 patients experienced disease progression. Overall survival after progression was shorter in the rituximab maintenance arm versus the observation arm. Among the approximately 4% of patients experiencing transformation from follicular lymphoma to a more aggressive histology, there was no difference observed in time to transformation. Results were independent of the induction regimen received, response to induction, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, and other clinical factors.

In the safety analysis, there were more grade 3-4 adverse events among the rituximab maintenance patients – primarily cytopenia and infections – more serious adverse events, and more adverse events overall. Fatal adverse events were low in both groups (1.6 vs. 0.6%).
 

How these results influence practice

Many years ago, a senior mentor of mine taught that “progression-free survival is an important endpoint since the quality of life for patients is generally superior before relapse than afterwards.”

With that mantra playing in my mind and with the reality that discussions about relapse and subsequent treatment are never easy, the results of PRIMA seem straightforward: Rituximab maintenance is beneficial, despite the absence of an overall survival benefit, in a disease with multiple options for subsequent therapy and a long natural history. In this 9-year, final analysis of PRIMA, rituximab maintenance seems to have achieved its goals of deepening responses with low (but not inconsequential) toxicity and delaying substantially those difficult conversations with patients about how to proceed after relapse.

The influence of the final analysis of PRIMA, however, may be more complicated that it would initially seem. Bendamustine-containing regimens were not employed, are commonly used now, and some studies with bendamustine have suggested higher nonrelapse mortality with rituximab maintenance.

Low-grade adverse events take on greater importance for patients on long-term therapy than they do for patients receiving abbreviated treatment, and with noncurative treatment, the higher adverse event profile with 2 years of rituximab maintenance needs to be taken seriously. Induction and maintenance regimens involving rituximab alone, lenalidomide, or obinutuzumab may be preferred for some patients. For all of those reasons, the discussion about rituximab with advanced follicular lymphoma patients remains a long one, demanding detailed descriptions of risks, benefits, limitations of the data, and multiple modern day alternatives to the treatments employed in PRIMA.
 

Supplemental MRI for dense breast tissue

In the DENSE trial, investigators assigned 40,373 women with extremely dense breast tissue and negative results on screening mammography to be offered either supplemental MRI or mammography screening every other year only. The women were 50-75 years old and were enrolled in the Dutch population-based digital mammography screening program. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of cancers that developed in the 2-year interval between mammograms (N Engl J Med 2019;381:2091-102).

The interval cancer rate was 2.5 per 1,000 screenings among 4,783 women in the “MRI-invitation” group (41% of whom did not actually agree to have an MRI), and 5 per 1,000 in the 32,312 women in the “mammography-only” group, a difference of 2.5 per 1,000 screenings (P less than .001).

Of the 20 interval cancers diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the 59% of women who had undergone MRI (0.8 per 1,000 screenings). The remaining 16 were diagnosed in those who had declined an MRI (4.9 per 1,000 screenings) – virtually identical to the rate of interval cancers in the group that was not invited to have an MRI. This speaks against nonrandom allocation of patients between the mammography-only and the supplemental MRI groups.

Although supplemental MRI was associated with a cancer-detection rate of 16.5 per 1,000 screenings, there was a false positive rate of 8.0% (79.8 per 1,000 screenings). Of the women who underwent a breast biopsy after MRI, 73.7% did not have cancer. Among the women who had MRI-detected cancers, in general, the malignancies diagnosed were smaller, more likely node negative, better differentiated, and more often hormone receptor–positive, compared with those in the mammography-only group.

At the next screening mammogram, the cancer detection rate was lower in the MRI-screened group (2 per 1,000 screenings) than in the MRI–“offered but declined” (7.1 per 1,000 screenings) or mammogram-only groups (6 per 1,000 screenings).
 

How these results influence practice

American physicians are obligated to inform women with dense breast tissue about the limitations (for them) of conventional mammography, an unquantified, but elevated, risk of breast cancer in women with dense breast tissue, and the fact that there are no universally accepted recommended subsequent steps those women should take.

One side benefit of the requirement to disclose information about breast density, however, is that disclosure can prompt discussions about breast cancer risk reduction – an important discussion with multiple possible health-maintaining interventions.

The DENSE trial is very important news, with potential for even more value in future years. It is finite (2 years of study, with only one MRI scan mandated), narrow (Vopara or BI-RADs breast density grade 4 only), and oligo-institutional (eight participating centers in the Netherlands). Still, it provides randomized, rigorously gathered and analyzed data where there were previously none. Importantly, it answers the question, “So what can I do now, doctor?”

I have some concerns about whether we, as a medical community, have the discipline to restrict application of supplemental MRI screening beyond the population that was studied in the Netherlands. Will we be able to restrain ourselves from ordering MRI scans in women with heterogeneously dense – but not extremely dense – breasts? Will we truly manage patients whose MRI scans had BI-RADs readings of less than 4 in the rigorous, but conservative, fashion employed in the trial? Would we miss fewer significant cancers and subject fewer patients to potential expense and harm with annual mammography, instead of the biennial screening performed in the Netherlands? Does tomo-synthesis improve the interpretation of screening mammograms so much that the interval cancer rate is a lot closer to the rate obtained with supplemental MRI scans? Is the expense of MRI scanning, with the resultant subsequent tests and procedures, justified by the reduction in detecting relatively favorable breast cancers that may not materially impact overall survival?

The DENSE study promises to be a “gift that keeps on giving” as the investigators continue to assess a number of factors including: the value of ongoing supplemental MRI scans (compared with the one-time-only screening reported here); whether there will be a reduction in the advanced cancers and subsequent mortality benefit; the extent of over diagnosis, costs, and impact on quality-of-life; and the applicability of artificial intelligence techniques to reduce false positive MRI results.

While the study may not be practice changing in the United States at the present time, it may be just that as subsequent analyses emerge.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two recent studies that reinforce prior diagnostic and treatment preferences among many oncologists and will certainly influence the discussions we all will have with our patients in the coming weeks and months.

Rituximab maintenance in follicular lymphoma

The largest trial addressing the role of maintenance CD20-targeted antibody therapy was the Primary Rituximab and Maintenance (PRIMA) phase 3, intergroup study in 1,018 advanced follicular lymphoma patients with an initial response to induction chemoimmunotherapy. The induction regimen could be either of three commonly used regimens plus rituximab. Importantly, none of the induction regimens included bendamustine.

Patients were randomized to 2 years of rituximab maintenance or observation. Prior interim analyses at 3 and 6 years showed improvements for the rituximab maintenance patients in progression-free survival and other secondary endpoints, but no improvement in overall survival. Emmanuel Bachy, MD, PhD, and colleagues published the final survival data after 9 years of follow-up, including a final safety analysis (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;37[31]:2815-24).

Among the 607 patients consenting to extended follow-up, median progression-free survival was 10.5 years with rituximab maintenance, compared with 4.1 years for observation (hazard ratio, 0.61; P less than .001). There were more patients with progression-free survival at 3 years, complete response or unconfirmed complete response at 2 years, longer time to next antilymphoma treatment, and later time to next chemotherapy. But the 10-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, as were the quality of life ratings.

In all, 503 patients experienced disease progression. Overall survival after progression was shorter in the rituximab maintenance arm versus the observation arm. Among the approximately 4% of patients experiencing transformation from follicular lymphoma to a more aggressive histology, there was no difference observed in time to transformation. Results were independent of the induction regimen received, response to induction, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, and other clinical factors.

In the safety analysis, there were more grade 3-4 adverse events among the rituximab maintenance patients – primarily cytopenia and infections – more serious adverse events, and more adverse events overall. Fatal adverse events were low in both groups (1.6 vs. 0.6%).
 

How these results influence practice

Many years ago, a senior mentor of mine taught that “progression-free survival is an important endpoint since the quality of life for patients is generally superior before relapse than afterwards.”

With that mantra playing in my mind and with the reality that discussions about relapse and subsequent treatment are never easy, the results of PRIMA seem straightforward: Rituximab maintenance is beneficial, despite the absence of an overall survival benefit, in a disease with multiple options for subsequent therapy and a long natural history. In this 9-year, final analysis of PRIMA, rituximab maintenance seems to have achieved its goals of deepening responses with low (but not inconsequential) toxicity and delaying substantially those difficult conversations with patients about how to proceed after relapse.

The influence of the final analysis of PRIMA, however, may be more complicated that it would initially seem. Bendamustine-containing regimens were not employed, are commonly used now, and some studies with bendamustine have suggested higher nonrelapse mortality with rituximab maintenance.

Low-grade adverse events take on greater importance for patients on long-term therapy than they do for patients receiving abbreviated treatment, and with noncurative treatment, the higher adverse event profile with 2 years of rituximab maintenance needs to be taken seriously. Induction and maintenance regimens involving rituximab alone, lenalidomide, or obinutuzumab may be preferred for some patients. For all of those reasons, the discussion about rituximab with advanced follicular lymphoma patients remains a long one, demanding detailed descriptions of risks, benefits, limitations of the data, and multiple modern day alternatives to the treatments employed in PRIMA.
 

Supplemental MRI for dense breast tissue

In the DENSE trial, investigators assigned 40,373 women with extremely dense breast tissue and negative results on screening mammography to be offered either supplemental MRI or mammography screening every other year only. The women were 50-75 years old and were enrolled in the Dutch population-based digital mammography screening program. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of cancers that developed in the 2-year interval between mammograms (N Engl J Med 2019;381:2091-102).

The interval cancer rate was 2.5 per 1,000 screenings among 4,783 women in the “MRI-invitation” group (41% of whom did not actually agree to have an MRI), and 5 per 1,000 in the 32,312 women in the “mammography-only” group, a difference of 2.5 per 1,000 screenings (P less than .001).

Of the 20 interval cancers diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the 59% of women who had undergone MRI (0.8 per 1,000 screenings). The remaining 16 were diagnosed in those who had declined an MRI (4.9 per 1,000 screenings) – virtually identical to the rate of interval cancers in the group that was not invited to have an MRI. This speaks against nonrandom allocation of patients between the mammography-only and the supplemental MRI groups.

Although supplemental MRI was associated with a cancer-detection rate of 16.5 per 1,000 screenings, there was a false positive rate of 8.0% (79.8 per 1,000 screenings). Of the women who underwent a breast biopsy after MRI, 73.7% did not have cancer. Among the women who had MRI-detected cancers, in general, the malignancies diagnosed were smaller, more likely node negative, better differentiated, and more often hormone receptor–positive, compared with those in the mammography-only group.

At the next screening mammogram, the cancer detection rate was lower in the MRI-screened group (2 per 1,000 screenings) than in the MRI–“offered but declined” (7.1 per 1,000 screenings) or mammogram-only groups (6 per 1,000 screenings).
 

How these results influence practice

American physicians are obligated to inform women with dense breast tissue about the limitations (for them) of conventional mammography, an unquantified, but elevated, risk of breast cancer in women with dense breast tissue, and the fact that there are no universally accepted recommended subsequent steps those women should take.

One side benefit of the requirement to disclose information about breast density, however, is that disclosure can prompt discussions about breast cancer risk reduction – an important discussion with multiple possible health-maintaining interventions.

The DENSE trial is very important news, with potential for even more value in future years. It is finite (2 years of study, with only one MRI scan mandated), narrow (Vopara or BI-RADs breast density grade 4 only), and oligo-institutional (eight participating centers in the Netherlands). Still, it provides randomized, rigorously gathered and analyzed data where there were previously none. Importantly, it answers the question, “So what can I do now, doctor?”

I have some concerns about whether we, as a medical community, have the discipline to restrict application of supplemental MRI screening beyond the population that was studied in the Netherlands. Will we be able to restrain ourselves from ordering MRI scans in women with heterogeneously dense – but not extremely dense – breasts? Will we truly manage patients whose MRI scans had BI-RADs readings of less than 4 in the rigorous, but conservative, fashion employed in the trial? Would we miss fewer significant cancers and subject fewer patients to potential expense and harm with annual mammography, instead of the biennial screening performed in the Netherlands? Does tomo-synthesis improve the interpretation of screening mammograms so much that the interval cancer rate is a lot closer to the rate obtained with supplemental MRI scans? Is the expense of MRI scanning, with the resultant subsequent tests and procedures, justified by the reduction in detecting relatively favorable breast cancers that may not materially impact overall survival?

The DENSE study promises to be a “gift that keeps on giving” as the investigators continue to assess a number of factors including: the value of ongoing supplemental MRI scans (compared with the one-time-only screening reported here); whether there will be a reduction in the advanced cancers and subsequent mortality benefit; the extent of over diagnosis, costs, and impact on quality-of-life; and the applicability of artificial intelligence techniques to reduce false positive MRI results.

While the study may not be practice changing in the United States at the present time, it may be just that as subsequent analyses emerge.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

Gabapentin and pregabalin are associated with serious breathing problems when used with central nervous system depressants or in patients with lung problems, according to a Dec. 19 drug safety alert from the Food and Drug Administration. Elderly patients who take these drugs also are at increased risk of breathing problems, the announcement said.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Gabapentin (marketed as Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica and Lyrica CR) are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, and restless legs syndrome. Physicians increasingly are prescribing these medications, and people are misusing and abusing these drugs more frequently, the agency said. Gabapentin and pregabalin often are combined with central nervous system depressants such as opioids, antianxiety medicines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, which increases the risk of respiratory depression.

Conditions that reduce lung function, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also increase the likelihood of breathing problems when taking gabapentin and pregabalin.

“There is less evidence supporting the risk of serious breathing difficulties in healthy individuals taking gabapentinoids alone. We will continue to monitor these medicines as part of our routine monitoring of all FDA-approved drugs,” the announcement said.

The FDA is requiring new warnings about the risk of respiratory depression in the prescribing information of gabapentinoids. In addition, drug manufacturers must further assess the abuse potential of these drugs, particularly in combination with opioids.

Patients and caregivers should seek immediate medical attention for respiratory problems, which can be life threatening. Symptoms include confusion or disorientation; unusual dizziness or lightheadedness; extreme sleepiness or lethargy; slowed, shallow, or difficult breathing; unresponsiveness; and bluish-colored or tinted skin, especially on the lips, fingers, and toes.

Physicians should start gabapentinoids at the lowest dose and monitor patients for symptoms of respiratory depression and sedation when coprescribing these drugs with an opioid or other central nervous system depressant such as a benzodiazepine, according to the FDA.

The agency reviewed 49 case reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2017. Among these cases, 12 people died from respiratory depression with gabapentinoids. All of the patients who died had at least one risk factor.

Gabapentin first was approved in 1993, and pregabalin was approved in 2004. Drug adverse events and side effects can be reported online, the agency noted.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Zanubrutinib has produced a high overall response rate in one the largest cohorts of patients with treatment-naive 17p-deletion chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) studied to date.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

An overall response rate of nearly 93% was seen in this 109-patient, high-risk cohort, enrolled as part of the phase 3 SEQUOIA study (BGB-3111-304), said Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Tolerability of zanubrutinib was essentially consistent with previous reports of the agent as used in other B-cell malignancies, Dr. Tam said in an oral presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Deletion of chromosome 17p13.1, or del(17p), is a marker of poor prognosis and poor response to chemotherapy in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). For patients with del(17p) CLL, the first-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib has become a standard of care, Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, was developed to improve BTK occupancy and minimize off-target inhibition of TEC and epidermal growth factor receptor kinases. “What this effectively means is that we are able to dose this drug at levels much higher than that achievable with ibrutinib, and not get intolerable side effects,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib has been approved in the United States for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma, and generated durable responses among CLL/SLL patients with or without del(17p) in a phase 1/2 study, according to Dr. Tam.

In the present study, which exclusively enrolled patients with del(17p) CLL/SLL, patients received 160 mg twice daily of zanubrutinib, Dr. Tam said. Out of 109 patients enrolled, 10 (9.2%) had SLL. All patients were aged at least 65 years or were deemed unsuitable for treatment with the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.

Of 109 patients enrolled, 104 received on-study treatment. The median age was 70 years, Dr. Tam reported, and a number of patients had other high-risk markers beyond del(17p), including unmutated IgVH status in 61.5% of patients.

With a median follow-up of 10 months, the overall response rate was 92.7%, including 1.9% complete responses and 78.9% partial responses. “Only one patient had primary progressive disease after starting this drug,” Dr. Tam said.

Time to response was rapid, according to the investigator, at about 2.8 months; after 6 months, 95% of responders remained in response.

Further analysis showed that the response rate was consistent across subgroups. “There was not a single group that did not respond with a high response rate, including poor prognostic groups,” Dr. Tam said.

Most adverse events were grade 1-2 in severity, and the most common events included confusion and upper respiratory tract infection. The only common grade 3 event, according to Dr. Tam, was neutropenia. Rates of grade 3 major bleeding were low, he said, and the rate of grade 3 atrial fibrillation was 0.9%. One patient died due to pneumonia.

The ongoing SEQUOIA study, designed to compare zanubrutinib to the combination of bendamustine and rituximab in patients with previously untreated CLL or SLL, is sponsored by BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Novartis, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, Janssen, and Roche.

SOURCE: Tam C et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 499.

ORLANDO – Zanubrutinib has produced a high overall response rate in one the largest cohorts of patients with treatment-naive 17p-deletion chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) studied to date.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

An overall response rate of nearly 93% was seen in this 109-patient, high-risk cohort, enrolled as part of the phase 3 SEQUOIA study (BGB-3111-304), said Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Tolerability of zanubrutinib was essentially consistent with previous reports of the agent as used in other B-cell malignancies, Dr. Tam said in an oral presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Deletion of chromosome 17p13.1, or del(17p), is a marker of poor prognosis and poor response to chemotherapy in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). For patients with del(17p) CLL, the first-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib has become a standard of care, Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, was developed to improve BTK occupancy and minimize off-target inhibition of TEC and epidermal growth factor receptor kinases. “What this effectively means is that we are able to dose this drug at levels much higher than that achievable with ibrutinib, and not get intolerable side effects,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib has been approved in the United States for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma, and generated durable responses among CLL/SLL patients with or without del(17p) in a phase 1/2 study, according to Dr. Tam.

In the present study, which exclusively enrolled patients with del(17p) CLL/SLL, patients received 160 mg twice daily of zanubrutinib, Dr. Tam said. Out of 109 patients enrolled, 10 (9.2%) had SLL. All patients were aged at least 65 years or were deemed unsuitable for treatment with the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.

Of 109 patients enrolled, 104 received on-study treatment. The median age was 70 years, Dr. Tam reported, and a number of patients had other high-risk markers beyond del(17p), including unmutated IgVH status in 61.5% of patients.

With a median follow-up of 10 months, the overall response rate was 92.7%, including 1.9% complete responses and 78.9% partial responses. “Only one patient had primary progressive disease after starting this drug,” Dr. Tam said.

Time to response was rapid, according to the investigator, at about 2.8 months; after 6 months, 95% of responders remained in response.

Further analysis showed that the response rate was consistent across subgroups. “There was not a single group that did not respond with a high response rate, including poor prognostic groups,” Dr. Tam said.

Most adverse events were grade 1-2 in severity, and the most common events included confusion and upper respiratory tract infection. The only common grade 3 event, according to Dr. Tam, was neutropenia. Rates of grade 3 major bleeding were low, he said, and the rate of grade 3 atrial fibrillation was 0.9%. One patient died due to pneumonia.

The ongoing SEQUOIA study, designed to compare zanubrutinib to the combination of bendamustine and rituximab in patients with previously untreated CLL or SLL, is sponsored by BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Novartis, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, Janssen, and Roche.

SOURCE: Tam C et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 499.

ORLANDO – Zanubrutinib has produced a high overall response rate in one the largest cohorts of patients with treatment-naive 17p-deletion chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) studied to date.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

An overall response rate of nearly 93% was seen in this 109-patient, high-risk cohort, enrolled as part of the phase 3 SEQUOIA study (BGB-3111-304), said Constantine S. Tam, MBBS, MD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Tolerability of zanubrutinib was essentially consistent with previous reports of the agent as used in other B-cell malignancies, Dr. Tam said in an oral presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Deletion of chromosome 17p13.1, or del(17p), is a marker of poor prognosis and poor response to chemotherapy in patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). For patients with del(17p) CLL, the first-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib has become a standard of care, Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, was developed to improve BTK occupancy and minimize off-target inhibition of TEC and epidermal growth factor receptor kinases. “What this effectively means is that we are able to dose this drug at levels much higher than that achievable with ibrutinib, and not get intolerable side effects,” Dr. Tam said.

Zanubrutinib has been approved in the United States for previously treated mantle cell lymphoma, and generated durable responses among CLL/SLL patients with or without del(17p) in a phase 1/2 study, according to Dr. Tam.

In the present study, which exclusively enrolled patients with del(17p) CLL/SLL, patients received 160 mg twice daily of zanubrutinib, Dr. Tam said. Out of 109 patients enrolled, 10 (9.2%) had SLL. All patients were aged at least 65 years or were deemed unsuitable for treatment with the combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.

Of 109 patients enrolled, 104 received on-study treatment. The median age was 70 years, Dr. Tam reported, and a number of patients had other high-risk markers beyond del(17p), including unmutated IgVH status in 61.5% of patients.

With a median follow-up of 10 months, the overall response rate was 92.7%, including 1.9% complete responses and 78.9% partial responses. “Only one patient had primary progressive disease after starting this drug,” Dr. Tam said.

Time to response was rapid, according to the investigator, at about 2.8 months; after 6 months, 95% of responders remained in response.

Further analysis showed that the response rate was consistent across subgroups. “There was not a single group that did not respond with a high response rate, including poor prognostic groups,” Dr. Tam said.

Most adverse events were grade 1-2 in severity, and the most common events included confusion and upper respiratory tract infection. The only common grade 3 event, according to Dr. Tam, was neutropenia. Rates of grade 3 major bleeding were low, he said, and the rate of grade 3 atrial fibrillation was 0.9%. One patient died due to pneumonia.

The ongoing SEQUOIA study, designed to compare zanubrutinib to the combination of bendamustine and rituximab in patients with previously untreated CLL or SLL, is sponsored by BeiGene. Dr. Tam reported disclosures related to Novartis, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, BeiGene, Janssen, and Roche.

SOURCE: Tam C et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 499.

ORLANDO – Updated trial results have revealed durable responses with venetoclax and ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing some patients to stop treatment.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Five of 24 patients were able to stop treatment after achieving minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete responses (CRs). Four of these patients remain in CR at up to 18 months off treatment, although one patient ultimately progressed and died.

“Treatment cessation was feasible for patients in MRD-negative complete responses, raising the prospect of limited-duration, targeted-agent therapy in the management of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” said Sasanka M. Handunnetti, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. Dr. Handunnetti presented these results, from the AIM trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The phase 2 trial enrolled 24 patients. At baseline, patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 47-81 years), and 88% were men. One patient was treatment-naive, but the rest had relapsed/refractory MCL. These patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1-6).

The patients received venetoclax at 400 mg daily and ibrutinib at 560 mg daily.

In the primary analysis, the CR rate was 62% at week 16 and 71% overall, according to positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. MRD negativity was achieved by 67% of patients according to flow cytometry and 38% according to allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378[13]:1211-23).
 

Response and survival

For the current analysis, the median follow up was 37.5 months (range, 1.4-45.3 months). The median duration of response has not been reached, the median progression-free survival is 29 months, and the median overall survival is 32 months.

Thirteen patients have died, 8 of them due to progressive disease. The remaining 11 patients are still alive, and 9 of them are still in CR. One patient is still in partial response, and one has not responded but remains on ibrutinib and venetoclax.

Dr. Handunnetti pointed out that 12 patients had TP53 aberrations, and 8 of them died, but 4 remain alive and in CR. All four patients with SMARCA4 aberrations died.

Treatment status

Five patients are still receiving treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax, and one patient is receiving only venetoclax. One patient went off study treatment due to a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, but that patient’s MCL is still in CR.

Five patients were able to stop treatment after achieving MRD-negative CR and were placed under “stringent surveillance,” Dr. Handunnetti said.

One of the five patients who stopped treatment progressed at 7 months and died. The remaining four patients are still alive and in CR at 6 months, 13 months, 17 months, and 18 months off treatment.
 

Safety update

Within the first 56 weeks of treatment, 15 patients required dose adjustments. Twelve patients required an adjustment to ibrutinib, seven to venetoclax, and four to both drugs. After 56 weeks, there were no dose adjustments.

Two patients developed therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. One patient had previously received FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab) and BR (bendamustine and rituximab). The other patient had received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

This investigator-initiated trial was funded by Janssen and Abbvie. Dr. Handunnetti reported relationships with Abbvie and Gilead.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Handunnetti S et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 756.

ORLANDO – Updated trial results have revealed durable responses with venetoclax and ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing some patients to stop treatment.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Five of 24 patients were able to stop treatment after achieving minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete responses (CRs). Four of these patients remain in CR at up to 18 months off treatment, although one patient ultimately progressed and died.

“Treatment cessation was feasible for patients in MRD-negative complete responses, raising the prospect of limited-duration, targeted-agent therapy in the management of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” said Sasanka M. Handunnetti, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. Dr. Handunnetti presented these results, from the AIM trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The phase 2 trial enrolled 24 patients. At baseline, patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 47-81 years), and 88% were men. One patient was treatment-naive, but the rest had relapsed/refractory MCL. These patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1-6).

The patients received venetoclax at 400 mg daily and ibrutinib at 560 mg daily.

In the primary analysis, the CR rate was 62% at week 16 and 71% overall, according to positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. MRD negativity was achieved by 67% of patients according to flow cytometry and 38% according to allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378[13]:1211-23).
 

Response and survival

For the current analysis, the median follow up was 37.5 months (range, 1.4-45.3 months). The median duration of response has not been reached, the median progression-free survival is 29 months, and the median overall survival is 32 months.

Thirteen patients have died, 8 of them due to progressive disease. The remaining 11 patients are still alive, and 9 of them are still in CR. One patient is still in partial response, and one has not responded but remains on ibrutinib and venetoclax.

Dr. Handunnetti pointed out that 12 patients had TP53 aberrations, and 8 of them died, but 4 remain alive and in CR. All four patients with SMARCA4 aberrations died.

Treatment status

Five patients are still receiving treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax, and one patient is receiving only venetoclax. One patient went off study treatment due to a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, but that patient’s MCL is still in CR.

Five patients were able to stop treatment after achieving MRD-negative CR and were placed under “stringent surveillance,” Dr. Handunnetti said.

One of the five patients who stopped treatment progressed at 7 months and died. The remaining four patients are still alive and in CR at 6 months, 13 months, 17 months, and 18 months off treatment.
 

Safety update

Within the first 56 weeks of treatment, 15 patients required dose adjustments. Twelve patients required an adjustment to ibrutinib, seven to venetoclax, and four to both drugs. After 56 weeks, there were no dose adjustments.

Two patients developed therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. One patient had previously received FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab) and BR (bendamustine and rituximab). The other patient had received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

This investigator-initiated trial was funded by Janssen and Abbvie. Dr. Handunnetti reported relationships with Abbvie and Gilead.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Handunnetti S et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 756.

ORLANDO – Updated trial results have revealed durable responses with venetoclax and ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), allowing some patients to stop treatment.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Five of 24 patients were able to stop treatment after achieving minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete responses (CRs). Four of these patients remain in CR at up to 18 months off treatment, although one patient ultimately progressed and died.

“Treatment cessation was feasible for patients in MRD-negative complete responses, raising the prospect of limited-duration, targeted-agent therapy in the management of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma,” said Sasanka M. Handunnetti, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne. Dr. Handunnetti presented these results, from the AIM trial, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The phase 2 trial enrolled 24 patients. At baseline, patients had a median age of 68 years (range, 47-81 years), and 88% were men. One patient was treatment-naive, but the rest had relapsed/refractory MCL. These patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1-6).

The patients received venetoclax at 400 mg daily and ibrutinib at 560 mg daily.

In the primary analysis, the CR rate was 62% at week 16 and 71% overall, according to positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. MRD negativity was achieved by 67% of patients according to flow cytometry and 38% according to allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 29;378[13]:1211-23).
 

Response and survival

For the current analysis, the median follow up was 37.5 months (range, 1.4-45.3 months). The median duration of response has not been reached, the median progression-free survival is 29 months, and the median overall survival is 32 months.

Thirteen patients have died, 8 of them due to progressive disease. The remaining 11 patients are still alive, and 9 of them are still in CR. One patient is still in partial response, and one has not responded but remains on ibrutinib and venetoclax.

Dr. Handunnetti pointed out that 12 patients had TP53 aberrations, and 8 of them died, but 4 remain alive and in CR. All four patients with SMARCA4 aberrations died.

Treatment status

Five patients are still receiving treatment with ibrutinib and venetoclax, and one patient is receiving only venetoclax. One patient went off study treatment due to a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, but that patient’s MCL is still in CR.

Five patients were able to stop treatment after achieving MRD-negative CR and were placed under “stringent surveillance,” Dr. Handunnetti said.

One of the five patients who stopped treatment progressed at 7 months and died. The remaining four patients are still alive and in CR at 6 months, 13 months, 17 months, and 18 months off treatment.
 

Safety update

Within the first 56 weeks of treatment, 15 patients required dose adjustments. Twelve patients required an adjustment to ibrutinib, seven to venetoclax, and four to both drugs. After 56 weeks, there were no dose adjustments.

Two patients developed therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. One patient had previously received FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab) and BR (bendamustine and rituximab). The other patient had received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

This investigator-initiated trial was funded by Janssen and Abbvie. Dr. Handunnetti reported relationships with Abbvie and Gilead.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Handunnetti S et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 756.

ORLANDO – KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated unprecedented efficacy in the ZUMA-2 trial, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

KTE-X19 produced a 93% overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This is the highest reported response rate in patients who have failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, said Michael L. Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. Wang presented results from ZUMA-2 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL have very poor outcomes,” Dr. Wang noted. “In patients who progress after BTK inhibition therapy, the overall response rate is only between 25% and 42%, and the overall survival is only between 6 and 10 months. Few patients proceed to allogeneic transplantation.”

The phase 2 ZUMA-2 trial was designed to test KTE-X19 in these patients. KTE-X19 is an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy containing a CD3-zeta T-cell activation domain and a CD28 signaling domain. KTE-X19 is distinct from axicabtagene ciloleucel (KTE-C19) because the manufacturing process for KTE-X19 removes circulating tumor cells.

The trial enrolled 74 patients, and 68 of them received KTE-X19. Manufacturing failed for three patients, two patients died of progressive disease before they could receive KTE-X19, and one patient was found to be ineligible for treatment.

The 68 patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 38-79 years), and 84% were men. A majority of patients (85%) had stage IV disease and classical (59%) or blastoid (25%) morphology. Most patients (69%) had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater, and most (56%) were intermediate- or high-risk according to the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

Patients had received a median of three prior therapies (range, one to five). All had been treated with a BTK inhibitor, with 85% receiving ibrutinib, 24% receiving acalabrutinib, and 9% receiving both. Most patients (68%) were refractory to BTK inhibition, and 32% relapsed on or after BTK inhibitor therapy.

Efficacy

Sixty patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the median follow-up was 12.3 months (range, 7.0-32.3 months).

The overall response rate was 93%, with 67% of patients achieving a complete response and 27% achieving a partial response. Three percent of patients had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease.

“The overall response rate was consistent across key subgroups, without any statistical difference,” Dr. Wang said. “This includes Ki-67, MIPI, and prior use of either steroids or bridging therapy.”

The median time to response was 1.0 month, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. Responses deepened over time, with 35% of patients converting from a partial response to a complete response, and 5% converting from stable disease to complete response.

The median duration of response has not been reached. At last follow-up, 57% of all patients and 78% of complete responders were still in response.

The median progression-free and overall survival have not been reached. At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 61%, and the overall survival rate was 83%.
 

Safety

All 68 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events were pyrexia (94%), neutropenia (87%), thrombocytopenia (74%), anemia (68%), and hypotension (51%).

Grade 3/4 adverse events included pyrexia (13%), neutropenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (51%), anemia (50%), hypotension (22%), hypoxia (21%), hypophosphatemia (22%), fatigue (1%), and headache (1%).

There were two grade 5 treatment-related adverse events – organizing pneumonia on day 37 and staphylococcal bacteremia on day 134.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 91% of patients, with 15% experiencing grade 3 or higher CRS. Patients were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and all CRS events resolved.

Neurologic adverse events occurred in 63% of patients, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 31%. Neurologic events were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and 86% of neurologic events resolved.

This trial was sponsored by Kite, a Gilead company. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Kite and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 754.

ORLANDO – KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated unprecedented efficacy in the ZUMA-2 trial, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

KTE-X19 produced a 93% overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This is the highest reported response rate in patients who have failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, said Michael L. Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. Wang presented results from ZUMA-2 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL have very poor outcomes,” Dr. Wang noted. “In patients who progress after BTK inhibition therapy, the overall response rate is only between 25% and 42%, and the overall survival is only between 6 and 10 months. Few patients proceed to allogeneic transplantation.”

The phase 2 ZUMA-2 trial was designed to test KTE-X19 in these patients. KTE-X19 is an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy containing a CD3-zeta T-cell activation domain and a CD28 signaling domain. KTE-X19 is distinct from axicabtagene ciloleucel (KTE-C19) because the manufacturing process for KTE-X19 removes circulating tumor cells.

The trial enrolled 74 patients, and 68 of them received KTE-X19. Manufacturing failed for three patients, two patients died of progressive disease before they could receive KTE-X19, and one patient was found to be ineligible for treatment.

The 68 patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 38-79 years), and 84% were men. A majority of patients (85%) had stage IV disease and classical (59%) or blastoid (25%) morphology. Most patients (69%) had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater, and most (56%) were intermediate- or high-risk according to the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

Patients had received a median of three prior therapies (range, one to five). All had been treated with a BTK inhibitor, with 85% receiving ibrutinib, 24% receiving acalabrutinib, and 9% receiving both. Most patients (68%) were refractory to BTK inhibition, and 32% relapsed on or after BTK inhibitor therapy.

Efficacy

Sixty patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the median follow-up was 12.3 months (range, 7.0-32.3 months).

The overall response rate was 93%, with 67% of patients achieving a complete response and 27% achieving a partial response. Three percent of patients had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease.

“The overall response rate was consistent across key subgroups, without any statistical difference,” Dr. Wang said. “This includes Ki-67, MIPI, and prior use of either steroids or bridging therapy.”

The median time to response was 1.0 month, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. Responses deepened over time, with 35% of patients converting from a partial response to a complete response, and 5% converting from stable disease to complete response.

The median duration of response has not been reached. At last follow-up, 57% of all patients and 78% of complete responders were still in response.

The median progression-free and overall survival have not been reached. At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 61%, and the overall survival rate was 83%.
 

Safety

All 68 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events were pyrexia (94%), neutropenia (87%), thrombocytopenia (74%), anemia (68%), and hypotension (51%).

Grade 3/4 adverse events included pyrexia (13%), neutropenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (51%), anemia (50%), hypotension (22%), hypoxia (21%), hypophosphatemia (22%), fatigue (1%), and headache (1%).

There were two grade 5 treatment-related adverse events – organizing pneumonia on day 37 and staphylococcal bacteremia on day 134.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 91% of patients, with 15% experiencing grade 3 or higher CRS. Patients were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and all CRS events resolved.

Neurologic adverse events occurred in 63% of patients, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 31%. Neurologic events were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and 86% of neurologic events resolved.

This trial was sponsored by Kite, a Gilead company. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Kite and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 754.

ORLANDO – KTE-X19, an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated unprecedented efficacy in the ZUMA-2 trial, according to an investigator involved in the study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

KTE-X19 produced a 93% overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This is the highest reported response rate in patients who have failed treatment with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, said Michael L. Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. Wang presented results from ZUMA-2 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL have very poor outcomes,” Dr. Wang noted. “In patients who progress after BTK inhibition therapy, the overall response rate is only between 25% and 42%, and the overall survival is only between 6 and 10 months. Few patients proceed to allogeneic transplantation.”

The phase 2 ZUMA-2 trial was designed to test KTE-X19 in these patients. KTE-X19 is an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy containing a CD3-zeta T-cell activation domain and a CD28 signaling domain. KTE-X19 is distinct from axicabtagene ciloleucel (KTE-C19) because the manufacturing process for KTE-X19 removes circulating tumor cells.

The trial enrolled 74 patients, and 68 of them received KTE-X19. Manufacturing failed for three patients, two patients died of progressive disease before they could receive KTE-X19, and one patient was found to be ineligible for treatment.

The 68 patients had a median age of 65 years (range, 38-79 years), and 84% were men. A majority of patients (85%) had stage IV disease and classical (59%) or blastoid (25%) morphology. Most patients (69%) had a Ki-67 proliferation index of 50% or greater, and most (56%) were intermediate- or high-risk according to the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI).

Patients had received a median of three prior therapies (range, one to five). All had been treated with a BTK inhibitor, with 85% receiving ibrutinib, 24% receiving acalabrutinib, and 9% receiving both. Most patients (68%) were refractory to BTK inhibition, and 32% relapsed on or after BTK inhibitor therapy.

Efficacy

Sixty patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the median follow-up was 12.3 months (range, 7.0-32.3 months).

The overall response rate was 93%, with 67% of patients achieving a complete response and 27% achieving a partial response. Three percent of patients had stable disease, and 3% had progressive disease.

“The overall response rate was consistent across key subgroups, without any statistical difference,” Dr. Wang said. “This includes Ki-67, MIPI, and prior use of either steroids or bridging therapy.”

The median time to response was 1.0 month, and the median time to complete response was 3.0 months. Responses deepened over time, with 35% of patients converting from a partial response to a complete response, and 5% converting from stable disease to complete response.

The median duration of response has not been reached. At last follow-up, 57% of all patients and 78% of complete responders were still in response.

The median progression-free and overall survival have not been reached. At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 61%, and the overall survival rate was 83%.
 

Safety

All 68 patients were evaluable for safety. The most common adverse events were pyrexia (94%), neutropenia (87%), thrombocytopenia (74%), anemia (68%), and hypotension (51%).

Grade 3/4 adverse events included pyrexia (13%), neutropenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (51%), anemia (50%), hypotension (22%), hypoxia (21%), hypophosphatemia (22%), fatigue (1%), and headache (1%).

There were two grade 5 treatment-related adverse events – organizing pneumonia on day 37 and staphylococcal bacteremia on day 134.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 91% of patients, with 15% experiencing grade 3 or higher CRS. Patients were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and all CRS events resolved.

Neurologic adverse events occurred in 63% of patients, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 31%. Neurologic events were treated with tocilizumab or corticosteroids, and 86% of neurologic events resolved.

This trial was sponsored by Kite, a Gilead company. Dr. Wang reported financial relationships with Kite and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang M et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 754.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO – An investigational drug that can achieve the same results as complex cell therapy is creating a buzz at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting.

For the last few years, attention at this meeting has focused on the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, mainly “because of their incredible efficacy,” commented ASH Secretary Robert A. Brodsky, MD, professor of medicine and director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

But new results with an off-the-shelf product are “very exciting,” he said, because the drug can be given immediately and appears to achieve similar results.

The new product is mosunetuzumab (Genentech/Roche), a bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). It works by redirecting T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells.

“The concept here is that this monoclonal antibody engages T cells and directs their cytotoxicity against B cells – it’s basically an antibody using the patient’s own T cells to do what a CAR T cell would do,” Dr. Brodsky explained.

However, unlike CAR T cells, which are prepared for each individual patient in a complex process that involves genetic engineering that can take several weeks, mosunetuzumab is an off-the-shelf product that can be given to patients immediately (by intravenous infusion).

This is important, commented Dr. Brodsky, because very-poor-prognosis patients can deteriorate rapidly, and some may not survive while the CAR T cells are being made.
 

Clinical trial results

Clinical results come from a phase 1/1b trial (known as GO29781) conducted in 270 patients with poor-prognosis refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These patients had previously been treated with a median of three therapies; in addition, 30 patients (11%) were resistant to or had relapsed after an initial response to CAR T-cell therapy, and 77 patients (29%) had progressed after a stem cell transplant.

“These patients had no available therapy that would be expected to improve survival,” noted lead author Stephen J. Schuster, MD, of Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

All patients received mosunetuzumab with an initial treatment of eight cycles. Patients who achieved complete remission (CR) stopped therapy, while patients who had a partial response or had stable disease, continued treatment for 17 cycles.

Two-thirds of patients (n = 180; 67%) had aggressive lymphomas, mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 117), while 85 patients (31%) had indolent disease, mainly follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 82). Objective responses were seen in 46 of 124 patients (37%) with aggressive lymphomas, and 24 (19%) of these patients achieved a CR.

Among patients with indolent lymphoma, objective responses were seen in 42 of 67 patients (63%), and 29 of 67 (43%) had CR.

The complete remissions appear to be long lasting, Dr. Schuster commented. With a median follow-up of 6 months since achieving CR, 17 of 24 patients (71%) with aggressive lymphoma and 24 of 29 patients (83%) with indolent lymphomas remained free of disease.

“Some patients have remained in remission without additional therapy for more than a year,” he commented.

In the subgroup of 30 patients who had previously received CAR T-cell therapy, the objective response rate was 38.9%, and CR was achieved in 4 patients (22%). These rates are similar to what was seen in patients with aggressive lymphoma who had not previously received CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Schuster commented.

He also noted that in some of these patients, molecular testing showed that the previously administered CAR T cells increased in number. This suggests that, in addition to its ability to kill cancerous B cells, mosunetuzumab may also help augment the effect of the prior CAR T-cell treatment.

Dr. Schuster also highlighted the results of repeat treatment with mosunetuzumab. Patients who achieved CR stopped treatment – but if they relapsed, they were treated again, and the responses seen on this repeat treatment were similar to those seen with initial treatment. “This is not seen with the CAR T cells,” he noted.

Adverse events with mosunetuzumab were similar to those seen with CAR T cells, he noted, namely cytokine release syndrome, which was mostly mild and seen in 29% of patients, and neurologic toxicity, which was moderately severe in 4% patients.

Overall, the results show that “mosunetuzumab generates long-lasting responses with a very tolerable safety profile in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas for whom multiple prior treatments have failed and whose prognosis is poor. Of particular interest, we are seeing durable complete remissions in patients whose lymphomas progressed after CAR T,” Dr. Schuster commented in a statement.

Approached for comment, Peter Martin MD, chief of the Lymphoma Program at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and New York-Presbyterian, said he was excited to see these new data. “It’s good news any time we find something with the potential to save lives.”

“The more options that we have to offer to people with lymphoma the better,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There will always be scenarios where one approach might be better than another. I think there is a good chance that bispecific antibodies will have fairly broad approval in previously treated DLBCL. In many centers, it may be that bispecific antibodies are used most frequently post–CAR T cells, while in other areas people who aren’t candidates for CAR T cells or can’t receive them for whatever reason [could benefit from this new approach].”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, medical oncologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and chair of the Lymphoma Tumour Group, as well as an associate editor of ASH journal Blood, also commented for Medscape Medical News.

She agreed that the new data are exciting and noted that this abstract was chosen for the plenary session. She thought the data in the 30 patients who had already been treated with CAR T cells was interesting. “This is a patient population with no other options that offer durable benefit, and mosunetuzumab clearly has clinical activity, with encouraging responses.”

Dr. Sehn also noted that toxicity seen with the drug was “far less” than has been seen with CAR T cells, and the risk of high-grade cytokine release syndrome and neurological toxicity is “very low.”

There are several other new products that are using this bispecific technology, she noted. One example is Regeneron’s REGN1979, a bispecific antibody targeting CD20 and CD3, which is also being investigated in a clinical trial in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including in patients who were previously treated with CAR T cells (abstract 762).
 

How would it be used clinically?

In response to a question from Medscape Medical News, Dr. Schuster suggested that initial use of mosunetuzumab would be in patients who have already tried CAR T-cell therapy and had either not responded or relapsed – in lymphoma, this is about two-thirds of patients who are treated with this approach. This group of patients represents an unmet medical need, and this indication may be the quickest route to approval, he suggested.

Gary Schiller, MD, from UCLA Health, who moderated the press briefing agreed, and said this would be the quickest route to market because it would need only a phase 2 clinical trial in this specific patient population. But this would likely be only the first use for this product, and then it could be expanded to a broader patient population, he added.

Another use would for mosunetuzumab would be to enhance CAR T-cell responses by redirecting the CAR T cells to other antigens without doing any additional gene editing, Dr. Schuster commented. The idea here is to “revive” previously administered CAR T cells that have stopped working, Dr. Schiller added.

This is a chemotherapy-free approach, Dr. Schuster emphasized. “In patients who have not had a lot of chemotherapy, you can see an increase in T cells,” he commented.

Mosunetuzumab “stimulates and invigorates T cells,” and it could be useful as a pretreatment or a bridge to CAR T-cell therapy, he said.

So the product could be used before CAR T-cell therapy, and equally it could be used after CAR T-cell therapy because it could boost responses in both cases.

“Larger, randomized trials are needed to further confirm these promising data and determine whether the treatment benefit of mosunetuzumab is enhanced when it is used earlier in the course of lymphoma therapy or in combination with other agents,” he added.

Genentech says that mosunetuzumab and another bispecific antibody, CD20-TCB, are being evaluated in a robust clinical development program, both as a monotherapies and in combination with other therapies, in both aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Dr. Schuster reported relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, AbbVie, Gilead, Nordic Nanovector, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. Coauthors also have multiple disclosures, and several are employees of Genentech and Roche. Dr. Sehn consults with several pharmaceutics companies, including Verastem, Roche/Genentech, Morphosys, Takeda, Janssen, Lundbeck, Amgen, Teva, and AbbVie.
 

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.