User login
What is the optimal duration of maintenance in myeloma?
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should patients with multiple myeloma receive maintenance therapy until progression?
Yvonne A. Efebera, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, and Nina Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco Health, faced off on this question at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Shah said maintenance therapy improves survival in myeloma patients, so it follows that treating them until progression would confer a survival advantage. While Dr. Efebera agreed that maintenance can improve survival, she said the optimal duration of that treatment is unknown.
Treat until progression
Dr. Shah cited studies suggesting that maintenance improves progression-free survival (PFS) and may prolong overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma.
A meta-analysis of data from the IFM 2005-02, CALGB 100104, and GIMEMA RV-MM-PI-209 trials showed that lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and OS. The median PFS was 52.8 months in patients who received maintenance and 23.5 months in those who received placebo or observation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48). At a median follow-up of 79.5 months, the median OS was not reached for the maintenance group and was 86.0 months for the no-maintenance group (HR, 0.75; P = .001; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35[29]:3279-89).
In the Myeloma XI trial, maintenance improved PFS, but not OS, in both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Overall, the median PFS was 39 months in the lenalidomide maintenance arm and 20 months in the observation arm (P less than .0001). Among transplant-eligible patients, the median PFS was 57 months and 30 months, respectively (P less than .0001). Among transplant-ineligible patients, the median PFS was 26 months and 11 months, respectively (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:57-73).
These data suggest maintenance can improve survival, “but the question is, how long should we have therapy,” Dr. Shah said. “No one has looked at this in a prospective manner, so we really have to look at our retrospective data.”
One study suggested a longer duration of lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS. The HR for progression or death was 0.39 for patients who received maintenance for 12-24 months, compared with those who received maintenance for less than 12 months. The HR was 0.13 for patients who received maintenance for more than 24 months, compared with less than 12 months (Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60[2]:511-4).
Dr. Shah also cited a pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials suggesting that continuous therapy is superior to fixed-duration therapy in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. The median PFS was 32 months with continuous therapy and 16 months with fixed-duration therapy (P less than .001). The 4-year OS was 69% and 60%, respectively (P = .003; J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33[30]:3459-66).
These data suggest that “continuous therapy, more therapy, has a survival advantage,” Dr. Shah said.
Don’t treat until progression
Dr. Efebera also discussed data from studies showing that lenalidomide maintenance can prolong survival in multiple myeloma. However, she said, it’s unclear how long maintenance should last.
Different durations of maintenance have proved effective in different trials. In the CALGB 100104 trial, the median duration of maintenance was 31 months (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Sep;4[9]:e431-e442). In the meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM, and GIMEMA trials, the median duration was 22 months. And in Myeloma XI, the median duration was 18 months.
As there is no randomized trial comparing different durations of maintenance, Dr. Efebera proposed that researchers conduct one. She said this “perfect study” would involve induction with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, dexamethasone, and perhaps an anti-CD38 therapy. Transplant-eligible patients would receive four cycles of induction before transplant. Transplant-ineligible patients would receive eight cycles of induction. Then, all patients would be randomized to lenalidomide maintenance for 3 years, 5 years, or 7-10 years.
Until a trial like this reveals the optimal duration of maintenance, we cannot conclude that treating patients until progression is better, Dr. Efebera said.
She added that maintenance has been shown to have detrimental effects, and these should be taken into consideration. For instance, neutropenia, other hematologic adverse events, and second primary malignancies have been shown to be more common among patients who receive lenalidomide maintenance (N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:1782-91).
The cost of maintenance is another factor to consider. Researchers analyzed data from the CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02 trials to compare the cost of lenalidomide maintenance with no maintenance. In the CALGB 100104 trial, patients who received lenalidomide maintenance had 5.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and those who received no maintenance had 4.61 QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was more than 277,000 euros per QALY.
In the IFM2005-02 trial, patients in the lenalidomide group had 5.13 QALYs, and those who didn’t receive maintenance had 4.98 QALYs. The ICUR was more than 1.5 million euros per QALY. The researchers said the high ICURs and budgetary impact add “uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment” (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 May 31. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0574-5).
Dr. Efebera reported relationships with Akcea Therapeutics, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Shah reported having no relevant financial relationships.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Targeted agents vs. chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment of CLL
SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus. 
William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.
Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
No role for CIT as first-line treatment
“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”
Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.
In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).
In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).
Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.
“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”
Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.
In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”
Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:
- Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
- All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.
Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
CIT still has a role as first-line treatment
Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.
In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.
In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”
As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”
Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).
Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).
“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”
Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus.
William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.
Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
No role for CIT as first-line treatment
“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”
Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.
In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).
In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).
Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.
“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”
Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.
In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”
Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:
- Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
- All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.
Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
CIT still has a role as first-line treatment
Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.
In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.
In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”
As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”
Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).
Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).
“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”
Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.
SAN FRANCISCO – Should targeted agents replace chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)? A recent debate suggests there’s no consensus.
William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the topic at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Dr. Wierda argued that CLL patients should receive a BTK inhibitor or BCL2 inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab, as first-line therapy because these targeted agents have been shown to provide better progression-free survival (PFS) than CIT, and the targeted therapies may prolong overall survival (OS) as well.
Dr. Brown countered that targeted agents don’t improve PFS for all CLL patients, improved PFS doesn’t always translate to improved OS, and targeted agents cost more than CIT.
No role for CIT as first-line treatment
“We have two approaches right now, with nonchemoimmunotherapy-based treatment,” Dr. Wierda said. “One approach, with small-molecule inhibitors, is to have a sustained and durable period of disease control, particularly with BTK inhibitors. The other strategy that has emerged is deep remissions with fixed-duration treatment with BCL2 small-molecule inhibitor-based therapy, which, I would argue, is better than being exposed to genotoxic chemoimmunotherapy.”
Dr. Wierda went on to explain that the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has been shown to improve PFS, compared with CIT, in phase 3 trials.
In the iLLUMINATE trial, researchers compared ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab as first-line treatment in CLL. At a median follow-up of 31.3 months, the median PFS was not reached in the ibrutinib arm and was 19 months in the chlorambucil arm (P less than .0001; Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56).
In the A041202 study, researchers compared ibrutinib alone (Ib) or in combination with rituximab (Ib-R) to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in untreated, older patients with CLL. The 2-year PFS estimates were 74% in the BR arm, 87% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (P less than .001 for BR vs. Ib or Ib-R; N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the E1912 trial, researchers compared Ib-R to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in younger, untreated CLL patients. The 3-year PFS was 89.4% with Ib-R and 72.9% with FCR (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43).
Dr. Wierda noted that the E1912 trial also showed superior OS with Ib-R. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% with Ib-R and 91.5% with FCR (P less than .001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the treatment arms in the A041202 trial or the iLLUMINATE trial.
“But I would argue that is, in part, because of short follow-up,” Dr. Wierda said. “The trials were all designed to look at progression-free survival, not overall survival. With longer follow-up, we may see differences in overall survival emerging.”
Dr. Wierda went on to say that fixed‐duration treatment with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax can improve PFS over CIT.
In the phase 3 CLL14 trial, researchers compared fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax plus obinutuzumab to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL patients with comorbidities. The estimated PFS at 2 years was 88.2% in the venetoclax group and 64.1% in the chlorambucil group (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
“[There was] no difference in overall survival,” Dr. Wierda noted. “But, again, I would argue ... that follow-up is relatively limited. We may ultimately see a difference in overall survival.”
Based on these findings, Dr. Wierda made the following treatment recommendations:
- Any CLL patient with del(17p) or TP53 mutation, and older, unfit patients with unmutated IGHV should receive a BTK inhibitor, with or without obinutuzumab.
- All young, fit patients, and older, unfit patients with mutated IGHV should receive a BCL2 inhibitor plus obinutuzumab.
Dr. Wierda also noted that ibrutinib and venetoclax in combination have shown early promise for patients with previously untreated CLL (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2095-2103).
CIT still has a role as first-line treatment
Dr. Brown suggested that a PFS benefit may not be enough to recommend targeted agents over CIT. For one thing, the PFS benefit doesn’t apply to all patients, as the IGHV-mutated subgroup does equally well with CIT and targeted agents.
In the IGHV-mutated group from the E1912 trial, the 3-year PFS was 88% for patients who received Ib-R and those who received FCR (N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). In the A041202 study, the 2-year PFS among IGHV-mutated patients was 87% in the BR arm, 86% in the Ib arm, and 88% in the Ib-R arm (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28).
In the CLL14 trial, PFS rates were similar among IGHV-mutated patients who received chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab and IGHV-mutated or unmutated patients who received venetoclax and obinutuzumab (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
Dr. Brown also noted that the overall improvement in PFS observed with ibrutinib and venetoclax doesn’t always translate to improved OS.
In the A041202 study, there was no significant difference in OS between the Ib, Ib-R, and BR arms (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2517-28). There was no significant difference in OS between the ibrutinib and chlorambucil arms in the iLLUMINATE trial (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20[1]:43-56). And there was no significant difference in OS between the venetoclax and chlorambucil arms in the CLL14 trial (N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2225-36).
However, in the RESONATE-2 trial, ibrutinib provided an OS benefit over chlorambucil. The 2-year OS was 95% and 84%, respectively (P = .0145; Haematologica. Sept 2018;103:1502-10). Dr. Brown said the OS advantage in this study was due to the “very poor comparator of chlorambucil and very limited crossover.”
As Dr. Wierda mentioned, the OS rate was higher with Ib-R than with FCR in the E1912 trial. The 3-year OS rate was 98.8% and 91.5%, respectively (P less than .001; N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 1;381:432-43). Dr. Brown noted, however, that there were few deaths in this study, and many of them “were not clearly related to the disease or its treatment.”
Dr. Brown also pointed out that FCR has been shown to have curative potential in IGHV-mutated CLL in both the FCR300 trial (Blood. 2016 127:303-9) and the CLL8 trial (Blood. 2016 127:208-15).
Another factor to consider is the greater cost of targeted agents. One analysis suggested the per-patient lifetime cost of CLL treatment in the United States will increase from $147,000 to $604,000 as targeted therapies overtake CIT as first-line treatment (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35[2]:166-174).
“Given all of the above, chemoimmunotherapy is going to remain part of the treatment repertoire for CLL,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s our only known potential cure for the fit, mutated patients ... and can also result in prolonged treatment-free intervals for patients who are older. As we manage CLL as a chronic disease over a lifetime, we need to continue to have this in our armamentarium.”
Specifically, Dr. Brown said CIT is appropriate for patients who don’t have del(17p) or mutated TP53. FCR should be given to young, fit patients with IGHV-mutated CLL, and FCR or BR should be given to older patients and young, fit patients with IGHV-unmutated CLL.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Wierda reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including makers of CLL treatments.
REPORTING FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Decoding biosimilar approvals
SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.
To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.
To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.
The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).
The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.
In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.
Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.
Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.
The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.
This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).
Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.
“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”
Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.
SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.
To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.
To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.
The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).
The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.
In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.
Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.
Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.
The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.
This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).
Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.
“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”
Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.
SAN FRANCISCO – Several factors must be considered when extrapolating biosimilar results, according to a speaker at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
In this context, “extrapolation” means expanding the use of an approved biosimilar from one indication to another, based on efficacy and safety data from the first indication, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, explained at the meeting.
To determine if extrapolation is appropriate, regulatory agencies consider the biosimilar’s mechanism of action in each indication; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in the different patient populations; differences in expected toxicities for each condition and population; and any other factor that may affect safety or efficacy.
To illustrate the process, Dr. Zelenetz explained how results with a rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cannot be extrapolated to B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but results with that same biosimilar in follicular lymphoma can be extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL.
The biosimilar is rituximab-abbs (CT‐P10, Truxima). In a phase 1 trial of patients with RA, rituximab-abbs demonstrated biosimilarity to the reference product (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[3]:566‐70).
The RA results cannot be extrapolated to B-cell NHL for a few reasons, according to Dr. Zelenetz. He noted that rituximab’s mechanism of action is antibody-dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity in both RA and NHL. However, the target in RA is the normal B cell, and the target in NHL is the malignant B cell.
In addition, the pharmacokinetics of rituximab are “drastically different” in RA and NHL, Dr. Zelenetz said. Differences in pharmacokinetics support different dosing approaches in the two diseases.
Another big difference is immunogenicity. Anti‐CD20 antibodies develop in 15%-17% of RA patients, Dr. Zelenetz said, but the risk of antibody development is less than 1% in lymphoma.
Though extrapolation from RA to B‐cell NHL was not possible, it was possible to extrapolate results with rituximab-abbs in follicular lymphoma to other B-cell NHLs.
The study used was a phase 3 trial comparing rituximab-abbs to rituximab – both in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone – in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage follicular lymphoma.
This study showed no difference in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics between rituximab-abbs and rituximab. The two agents also had comparable safety profiles and produced similar response rates (Lancet Haematol. 2017 Jul 13;4:e362‐73).
Rituximab‐abbs was approved in the United States based on these data, and results from this trial were extrapolated to other types of B-cell NHL. The results were extrapolated because the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of rituximab are the same across B-cell NHLs, Dr. Zelenetz noted.
“Extrapolation is a critical part of biosimilarity development,” he said. “As long as scientific justification for extrapolation exists, I believe that extrapolation makes good sense.”
Dr. Zelenetz reported relationships with AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MEI Pharma, MorphoSys AG, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Roche.
REPORTING FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
Immunotherapies under investigation in newly diagnosed B-ALL
SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”
Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Blinatumomab
Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).
The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).
Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).
The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.
In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).
Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
Inotuzumab ozogamicin
Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.
The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).
Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.
Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.
SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”
Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Blinatumomab
Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).
The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).
Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).
The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.
In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).
Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
Inotuzumab ozogamicin
Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.
The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).
Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.
Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.
SAN FRANCISCO – Positive results with blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in the relapsed/refractory setting have prompted trials of these immunotherapies in newly diagnosed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Blinatumomab and inotuzumab have been shown to improve overall survival, compared with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL. However, most adults with relapsed/refractory B-ALL still die, so the initial therapy patients receive is “critical,” according to Jae Park, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“Ideally, we do not want to deal with the relapse,” Dr. Park said. “It’s better to cure the disease the first time ... which is the reason clinical trials are incorporating these agents earlier.”
Dr. Park discussed these points at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Hematologic Malignancies Annual Congress.
Blinatumomab
Dr. Park cited the phase 3 TOWER trial, which showed that blinatumomab produced better response rates and overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled 405 patients with Ph-negative relapsed/refractory B-ALL who were randomized to blinatumomab (n = 271) or chemotherapy (n = 134).
The rate of complete response (CR) with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery was 44% with blinatumomab and 25% with chemotherapy (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 4.0 months, respectively (P = .01; N Engl J Med 2017; 376:836-47).
Based on these data, researchers decided to test blinatumomab in newly diagnosed, elderly patients (65 years and older) with Ph-negative B-ALL in the phase 2 SWOG 1318 study. The study enrolled 31 patients, and 29 were eligible. Their median age at baseline was 75 years (range 66‐84 years).
The patients received blinatumomab for two to five cycles, followed by 18 months of maintenance with prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate. One patient went on to transplant.
In all, 66% of patients achieved a CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The estimated overall survival was 79% at 6 months and 65% at 1 year. These results were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (Blood. 2018;132:33).
Another study of blinatumomab as frontline treatment is the ECOG-E1910 trial. In this phase 3 study, researchers are testing chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, in adults (aged 30-70 years) with newly diagnosed, BCR-ABL-negative B-ALL. Results from this study are not yet available.
Inotuzumab ozogamicin
Dr. Park also discussed the INOVATE trial, in which inotuzumab ozogamicin bested standard chemotherapy. The trial enrolled patients with Ph-positive or negative, relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
The patients were randomized to inotuzumab (n = 141) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 138). Some patients, 41% in the inotuzumab arm and 11% in the chemotherapy arm, went on to transplant.
The CR rate was 80.7% in the inotuzumab arm and 29.4% in the chemotherapy arm (P less than .001). The median progression-free survival was 5 months and 1.8 months, respectively (P less than .001). The median overall survival was 7.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .04; N Engl J Med 2016; 375:740-53).
Based on these results, researchers are testing inotuzumab as frontline therapy in young adults (aged 18-39 years) with CD22-positive, Ph-negative B-ALL. In the phase 3 A041501 trial, patients are receiving inotuzumab after the first and second courses of treatment with the CALGB 10403 chemotherapy regimen. Results from this trial are not yet available.
Dr. Park reported relationships with Allogene Therapeutics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kite Pharma, Novartis, and Takeda.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM NCCN HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES