ABSTRACT
Background: Optimal consolidation for young R/R FL in the rituximab age remains uncertain and the benefit of ASCT is not clearly established. Aims: The FIL FLAZ12 trial (NCT01827605) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial, comparing RIT versus ASCT, as consolidation after chemoimmunotherapy, both followed by R maintenance in R/R FL. Methods: Pts aged 18-65 yrs, with R/R FL after 1 or 2 lines of chemoimmunotherapy, without significant comorbidities were enrolled. Patients received 3 courses of therapy chosen by the investigator among RCHOP, R-DHAP, R-FM, R-ICE, R-IEV or R-B. Pts achieving at least PR (according to Cheson et al. 2007) were randomized 1:1 to either RIT or ASCT before CD34+ collection. Conditioning for ASCT was BEAM or TEAM. RIT was given as previously described (Morschhauser et al., 2008). After consolidation, pts received R maintenance every 3 months for eight courses. Primary endpoint was PFS. Considering ASCT toxicity, it was hypothesized to be a superior choice, if capable of increasing 3-years PFS from 40% to 60% (two-side log-rank test with alpha of 5% and a power of 85%). Clinical secondary endpoints were ORR, CRR, OS, EFS and TTF. Results: Between Aug 2012, and Sep 2019, 164 pts were screened and 159 enrolled by 38 FIL Centers (enrolled population). Unfortunately, the study was prematurely closed due to low accrual. The data were analyzed on an ITT basis on May 2, 2021 with a median follow-up (mFU) from enrollment of 43 months and 75 PFS events. The two arms were clinically well balanced, with median age of 57 yrs (IQR 49-62), 55% male, 57% stage IV, 20% bulky disease. Tumor re-biopsy was performed in 79% pts. POD-24, retrospectively assessed was observed in 32% of pts. Two pts (1%) did not start treatment (non-confirmed histology and withdrawal). Sixteen (10%) pts discontinued before randomization (7 SD, 3 PD, 3 AE, 1 withdrawal, 2 poor compliance) and 141 (89%) were randomized to either RIT (71) or ASCT (70) (randomized population). Of these 19 (13%) (RIT 8, ASCT 11) did not receive the planned consolidation due to 7 PD, 4 AE, 1 medical decision, 2 poor mobilization, 2 withdrawals, 1 poor compliance, 2 protocol breaches, while 63 (89%) received RIT and 59 (84%) ASCT. After RIT, 61% of pts achieved CR and 23% PR, while after ASCT these were 70% and 9%. Estimated PFS at 3 yrs was 60% (95% CI: 46%-71%) in the RIT arm vs. 59% (95% CI:45%-70%) in the ASCT arm, p = 0.8613 (HR 0.96, 95%CI: 0.57,1.59). (Figure 1) 3yrs-OS was again superimposable in the two arms: 83% (95%CI: 69%-91%) in the RIT vs 85% (95% CI: 72%-91%) in the ASCT, p = 0.8310 (HR 1.10, 95%CI: 0.45,2.72). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicity was 46% in the RIT vs 94% in the ASCT arm (p < 0.001). For ASCT vs RIT grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred in 94% vs 41% of pts (p < 0.001). During follow-up, 4 pts died in remission: 1 AML (RIT), 2 SARS-COV2 infections (RIT) and 1 pneumonia (ASCT). Second cancers occurred in 3 pts after RIT and 7 after ASCT (p = 0.480). Multivariable analysis for PFS indicated POD-24, male sex, LDH and refractory disease as adverse parameters. Subgroup analysis for PFS including gender, age, LDH, POD-24 and extranodal disease show no subgroup favoring RIT nor ASCT. Image: Summary/Conclusion: Even if prematurely interrupted, our study demonstrated no meaningful difference in efficacy between ASCT and RIT, but ASCT was more toxic and more demanding for pts and health service. Both strategies induced a similar and favorable long-term outcome suggesting that consolidation programs milder than ASCT require further investigation in R/R FL.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. METHODS: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , COVID-19 Testing , Consensus , Hematologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , PandemicsABSTRACT
Background. The classic Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are a group of clonal haematopoietic disorders, including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and myelofibrosis (MF), whose shared and diverse phenotypic signatures are caused by a dysregulated JAK/STAT signal transduction because of acquired somatic mutations. It has been demonstrated that autoimmune diseases and MPN can be associated (Kristinsson et al., Haematologica. 2010 Jul;95(7):1216-20.), suggesting a common background of immune dysregulation (Barosi, Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2014 Dec;9(4):331-9). SARS-CoV-2 infection displays extreme inter-individual clinical variability, ranging from silent infection to lethal disease. It has been described that at least 10% of patients with life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia have neutralizing autoantibodies (AAbs) against type I IFNs, that precede SARS-CoV-2 infection (Bastard et al., Science. 2020 Oct 23;370(6515):eabd4585). In this study we searched for AAbs against type I IFNs in a cohort of MPN patients to evaluate the prevalence of these AAbs in the MPN population and to check for clinical correlations, including severity of COVID-19. Methods. Plasma samples from consecutively referred MPN patients were prospectively collected between November 2020 and June 2021 and frozen at -30°C immediately after collection. Levels of AAbs against type I IFN subtypes including IFNs alpha, beta and omega were measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a neutralization assay, as previously reported (Bastard et al., Science. 2020 Oct 23;370(6515):eabd4585;Moreews et al., Sci Immunol. 2021 May 25;6(59):eabh1516). Results. We included a total of 219 MPN patients (101 ET, 76 PV, 36 MF and 6 MPN unclassificable). Neutralizing AAbs to type I IFNs were detected in 29 patients (13.2%, 95%CI: 9.1% - 18.5%). Comparing patients with and without AAbs we observed a significant difference in terms of distribution of MPN diagnosis (P = 0.029) and driver mutations (P = 0.019), while we did not observe a difference in terms of age, sex, and treatment (Table 1). Overall, 29 patients (13%) got SARS-CoV-2 infection and 8 of them (28%) required hospitalization due to severe COVID-19. AAbs against type I IFNs were detected in 4 of the 29 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. A higher rate of hospitalization for severe COVID-19 was observed in patients with AAbs to type I IFNs (2 of 4 patients, 50%) compared to those without these AAbs (6 of 25 patients, 24%), although the difference did not reach a statistical significance (P = 0.300). Conclusions. In this study, we detected a prevalence of AAbs against type I IFNs which is much higher in our MPN cohort (13%) than in the general population (2-3%). We also found a correlation between the presence of AAbs to type I IFNs and both the hematological diagnosis and the driver mutation. Despite a comparable prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection between MPN patients with or without AAbs to type I IFNs, we observed a different rate of hospitalization due to severe COVID-19 which is almost twice in those with AAbs against type I IFNs compared to those without these AAbs. However, this difference did not reach a statistical significance, probably because of the low number of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the subgroup of patients with AAbs against type I IFNs. Thus, further studies to analyse the prevalence of AAbs against type I IFNs in patients with MPN, their association with other forms of auto-immunity and severe COVID-19 are warranted. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Arcaini: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding;Bayer, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, VERASTEM: Consultancy;Celgene, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead: Other: Travel expenses;Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Rumi: Novartis, Abbvie: Consultancy.
ABSTRACT
Background: Early-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) is usually managed with involved field radiotherapy (IFRT), allowing a complete and long lasting eradication of the disease only in 40-50% of patients (pts). The aim of this multicenter phase II prospective study was to evaluate the role of MRD in identifying pts unlikely to be cured by IFRT, for whom an immunotherapy consolidation could improve outcome. Methods: 110 pts with stage I/II FL were enrolled and treated with 24 Gy IFRT. Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) samples were centralized to the FIL (Fondazione Italiani Linfomi) MRD Network of EuroMRD-certified laboratories. In BCL2/IGH+ pts at baseline by both nested PCR (NEST) and RQ-PCR (RQ) in BM a/o PB, MRD was analyzed after IFRT and every 6 months over a 3-year period. Pts with MRD+ by both NEST and RQ in BM a/o PB after IFRT or who became MRD+ during the follow-up were treated with 8 weekly doses of the anti-CD20 MoAb ofatumumab (OFA). The primary objective of the study was to define the efficacy of immunotherapy in obtaining a negative MRD. Results: Of the 106 evaluable pts, 50 were males. Median age was 55 y (29-83). The FLIPI score was 0 in 59% of pts, 1 in 35%, 2 in 6%. 68% of pts had inguinal site involvement. At baseline, 30% of pts had a BCL2/IGH rearrangement (30 MBR, 1 MBR and mcr, 1 mcr) in BM a/ o PB;the concordance between compartments was 90%. All but one pt achieved a clinical response after IFRT;one additional pt died soon after IFRT of unrelated causes. MRD evaluation after IFRT revealed the persistence of BCL2/IGH+ cells in PB a/o BM in 60% of pts. MRD + pts, either after IFRT (n = 18) or in case of conversion to MRD+ during the follow-up (n = 6), received OFA, obtaining a conversion to MRD-in 22/24 pts (91.7%-CI 73.0-99.0), significantly superior to the expected 50% (Fig). After a median F-U of 38 m, 17 pts who achieved a MRD-with OFA are still negative;5 converted to MRD+ (2 received OFA retreatment, achieving a second MRD-;2 pts were not re-treated due to Sars-Cov2 pandemic;1 relapsed). A clinical relapse or progression was observed in 23 pts: 18 (24.6%) among the 73 “no marker” pts and 5 (15.6%) among the 32 BCL2/IGH+ at baseline (p = 0.3), with no significant difference in PFS (p = 0.25). Two early relapses were observed among the 12 pts who became MRD-after IFRT and 3 among the 24 treated at least once with OFA (1 MRD+, 1 MRD-, 1 converted from MRD-to MRD+). Only 1 Pt relapsed while MRD-after OFA. Conclusions: MRD data indicate that RT alone is often insufficient to eradicate the disease, inducing a MRD-only in 40% of pts, notably long-lasting only in half of them. The primary objective of this study-MRD conversion after immunotherapy-was largely achieved. The strategy of an immunotherapy consolidation after IFRT in MRD+ pts allowed increasing molecular responses. However, this strategy is applicable only to 30% of enrolled pts. A clinical advantage of the MRD driven treatment strategy is suggested although not significan.
ABSTRACT
Background: The Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, the largest academic Hospital in the south-west part of Lombardy has been involved in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak since its inception. The emergency required a deep reorganization of our Oncology/ Hematology Clinical trial office (CTO-OH) in order to avoid significant disruption to usual practice, while facilitating clinical trials of the Infectous Disease Unit. Materials and Methods: The activity of the CTO-OH included 141 profit and no profit clinical studies before the COVID outbreak. In addition to conducting already active clinical studies, several clinical trials with active drugs and procedure towards Covid-19 have been activated through the fast track procedure. For all these studies, Sponsor companies and regulatory agencies requested the insertion of data, as the progress of the patients, was monitored in real time to assess their effectiveness, but also any potential damage through the communication of SAE. Results: Since February 21st, 2 studies have not been activated at our Institution while 4 were activated through a remote SIV. The screening of new patients was reduced and in 2 studies it was temporarily suspended. Remote monitoring visits were carried out. At the same time the CTO-OH supported the Infectious disease dept. and the whole hospital in conducting clinical studies for COVID-19 pts. Within a month and half about 100 pts were enrolled, monitored;data were collected and entered. A major problem was the management of COVID patients enrolled in the various operative units used for infected patients in which patients were hospitalized or moved following the worsening/ improvement of their conditions. We were able to ensure that the staff involved was correctly towed and updated. Conclusions: The preparation and experience of the CTO-OH team and the motivation of all the hospital staff involved (physicians, nurses and lab personnel) allowed the success of the COVID-19 studies while almost fully preserving the ordinary Oncology-Hematology activity.