User login
CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.
“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.
For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
Observation
Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).
Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.
“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.
In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.
Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).
“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
Transplant-based approaches
Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.
Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).
For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.
The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.
“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.
Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).
Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.
“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.
For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”
Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.
Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).
R-HyperCVAD
R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.
Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).
The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.
“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.
Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.
“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
Older nontransplant candidates
When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.
In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.
However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).
The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.
Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).
“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
Maintenance therapy
As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).
“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.
A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).
“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.
Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.
CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.
“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.
For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
Observation
Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).
Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.
“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.
In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.
Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).
“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
Transplant-based approaches
Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.
Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).
For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.
The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.
“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.
Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).
Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.
“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.
For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”
Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.
Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).
R-HyperCVAD
R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.
Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).
The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.
“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.
Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.
“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
Older nontransplant candidates
When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.
In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.
However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).
The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.
Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).
“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
Maintenance therapy
As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).
“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.
A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).
“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.
Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.
CHICAGO – Treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) depends at least in part on patient age, with some important differences in those aged 65 years or younger versus those over age 65, according to Kristie A. Blum, MD.
“For the [younger] early-stage patients I’ll think about radiation and maybe observation, although I think [observation] is pretty uncommon,” Dr. Blum, acting hematology and medical oncology professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said at the American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.
For advanced-stage patients, a number of options, including observation, can be considered, she said.
Observation
Observation is acceptable in highly selected advanced stage cases. In a 2009 study of 97 mantle cell patients, 31 were observed for more than 3 months before treatment was initiated (median time to treatment, 12 months), and at median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the observation group (not reached vs. 64 months in treated patients), she said (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27[8]:1209-13).
Observed patients had better performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores, compared with treated patients, and the authors concluded that a “watch-and-wait” approach is acceptable in select patients.
“In addition, if you looked at their overall survival from the time of first treatment, there was no difference in the groups, suggesting you really weren’t hurting people by delaying their therapy,” Dr. Blum said.
In a more recent series of 440 favorable-risk MCL patients, 17% were observed for at least 3 months (median time to treatment, 35 months), 80% were observed for at least 12 months, and 13% were observed for 5 years.
Again, median OS was better for observed patients than for those treated initially, at 72 months vs. 52.5 months (Ann Oncol. 2017;28[10]:2489-95).
“So I do think there is a subset of patients that can safely be observed with mantle cell [lymphoma],” she said.
Transplant-based approaches
Transplant-based approaches in younger patients with advanced disease include the Nordic regimen plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), R-CHOP/R-DHAP plus ASCT, and R-bendamustine/R-cytarabine – all with post-ASCT maintenance rituximab, Dr. Blum said.
Cytarabine-containing induction was established as the pretransplant standard of care by the 474-patient MCL Younger trial, which demonstrated significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (9.1 vs. 3.9 years), with alternating pretransplant R-CHOP/R-DHAP versus R-CHOP for six cycles, though this was associated with increased toxicity. (Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388[10044]:565-75).
For example, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% vs. 9% of patients, she noted.
The Nordic MCL2 trial showed that an intensive regimen involving alternating Maxi-CHOP and AraC followed by transplant results in median OS of about 12 years and PFS of about 8 years.
“I do want to highlight, though, that again, the high-risk patients don’t do very well,” she said, noting that median PFS even with this intensive approach was only 2.5 years in those at high risk based on MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score, compared with 12.7 years for patients with a low-risk MIPI score.
Newer induction regimens also show some promise and appear feasible in younger patients based on early data, she said, noting that the SWOG S1106 trial comparing R-bendamustine and R-HyperCVAD showed a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate of 78% in the R-bendamustine group. Another study evaluating R-bendamustine followed by AraC showed a 96% complete remission and PFS at 13 months of 96%, with MRD-negativity of 93% (Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173[1]:89-95).
Transplant also is an option in advanced stage patients aged 66-70 years who are fit and willing, Dr. Blum said.
“I spend a long time talking to these patients about whether they want a transplant or not,” she said.
For induction in those patients who choose transplant, Dr. Blum said she prefers bendamustine-based regimens, “because these have been published in patients up to the age of 70.”
Transplant timing is usually at the first complete remission.
Data show that 5-year OS after such early ASCT in patients with no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy is about 60%, compared with about 44% with late ASCT. For reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant in that study, the 5-year OS was 62% for early transplant and 31% for late transplant (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:273-81).
R-HyperCVAD
R-HyperCVAD is another option in younger patients, and is usually given for eight cycles, followed by transplant only in those who aren’t in complete remission, Dr. Blum said.
Median failure-free survival among patients aged 65 years and younger in one study of this regimen was 6.5 years and OS was 13.4 years. In those over age 65, median failure-free survival was about 3 years (Br J Haematol. 2016 Jan;172[1]:80-88).
The SWOG 0213 study looked at this in a multicenter fashion, she said, noting that 39% of patients – 48% of whom were aged 65 and older – could not complete all eight cycles.
“Again, there was a high rate of this sort of infectious toxicity,” she said.
Median PFS was about 5 years in this study as well, and OS was nearly 7 years. For those over age 65, median PFS was just 1.6 years.
“So I don’t typically recommend this for the 65- to 70-year-olds,” she said.
Older nontransplant candidates
When treating patients who are unfit for transplant, Dr. Blum pointed to the results of the StiL and BRIGHT studies, which both showed that R-bendamustine was noninferior to R-CHOP as first-line treatment.
In addition, recent data on combined bendamustine and cytarabine (R-BAC500) showed that in 57 patients with a median age of 71 years, 95% received at least four cycles, and 67% completed six cycles. CR was 91% , and 2-year OS and PFS were 86% and 81%, respectively.
However, grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 49% and 52% of patients, respectively (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jan 1;4[1]:e15-e23).
The bortezomib-containing regimen VR-CAP has also been shown to be of benefit for older MCL patients not eligible for transplant, she said.
Median PFS with VR-CAP in a study of 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients was about 25 months vs. 14 months with R-CHOP (N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372:944-53).
“R-lenalidomide has activity in the front-line setting as well,” Dr. Blum said, citing a multicenter phase 2 study of 38 patients with a mean age of 65 years. The intention-to-treat analysis showed an overall response rate of 87%, CR rate of 61%, and 2-year PFS of 85% (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1835-44).
Maintenance therapy
As for maintenance therapy in younger patients, a phase 3 study of 299 patients showed that rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly better 4-year PFS (83% vs. 64% with observation), and 4-year OS (89% vs. 80% with observation), she said (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377:1250-60).
“I do think that rituximab maintenance is the standard of care now, based on this study,” Dr. Blum said, adding that there is also a role for rituximab maintenance in older patients.
A European Mantle Cell Network study of patients aged 60 and older (median age of 70) showed an OS of 62% with R-CHOP vs. 47% with R-FC (rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide), and – among those then randomized to maintenance rituximab or interferon alpha – 4-year PFS of 58% vs. 29%, respectively (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:520-31).
“Now I will tell you that most of these patients are getting bendamustine. We don’t really know the role for rituximab maintenance after bendamustine-based induction, but at this point I think it’s reasonable to consider adding it,” she said.
Dr. Blum is a consultant for Acerta, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Templates and has received research funding from Acerta, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cephalon, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM MHM 2018