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: Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE ®) molecule that directs cytotoxic T-cells to lyse CD19-expressing B lineage cells, has been investigated in NHL (Goebeler JCO 2016, Viardot Blood 2016, Katz ASH 2019). Here, we evaluated subcutaneous (SC) blinatumomab, which may simplify administration, improve convenience, and potentially reduce adverse events (AEs). Methods: Patients (pts;≥18 y) had indolent NHL (follicular, marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, mantle cell, or small lymphocytic) that was primary refractory (1+ prior line), relapsed (within 1 y of first response), or that had responded to initial therapy for ≥1 y and relapsed after 2+ lines, including an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. Disease must not have been irradiated and was measurable (≥1.5 cm) on PET-CT or CT. Pts had a 3-wk continuous intravenous (cIV) run-in period followed by SC dosing in 5 cohorts, a further 2 wks of cIV dosing, and the option for a second cycle of cIV dosing (Figure). The primary objective was safety and tolerability of SC blinatumomab;secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics (PK), estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), ie, the highest dose at which ≤1/6 pts had a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and efficacy (NCT 02961881). Results: Pts (n=29) had a median (range) age of 64 (42-75) y, 55% were male, 90% Caucasian, with follicular I-IIIA (76%), marginal zone (10%), mantle cell (10%) and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (3%) subtypes;no pts had prior allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), 38% had prior auto-HSCT. Of the 29 pts, 5 discontinued (D/C) blinatumomab due to AEs (n=3;2 cIV, 1 SC), pt request (1), and disease progression (1);no pts D/C due to COVID-19 control measures;26 pts completed the study;pts received a median (range) of 5 (3-10) doses. AEs leading to D/C in SC treatment included neurologic events of aphasia and seizure. During SC dosing, 2 DLTs occurred (aphasia, n=1;seizure, n=1 ). MTD was not reached. Five pts had grade 3 (G3) AEs (thrombocytopenia, erosive esophagitis, asthenia, device-related infection, hyperglycemia, aphasia, seizure;pts may have had >1 G3 AE);there were no G4 AEs or fatal AEs. AEs of interest included neurologic events (all, n=15;G3, n=2), infection (2;1), and cytokine release syndrome (4;0). One pt had grade 1 injection site erythema. Anti-blinatumomab antibodies have not been detected to date. Preliminary PK results were consistent across the 5 SC cohorts and 3 different dosing regimens. Following the first dose, maximum concentrations (C max) were reached after ~5-12 hours and exposures (C max and area under concentration-time curve [AUC] from 0-12 hours) increased in a dose-related manner. At steady state, exposures (AUC over the dosing interval) increased in a dose-related manner for dosing intervals of once every 12, 24, and 48 hours across cohorts. Blinatumomab bioavailability and apparent terminal elimination half-life were favorable for extending the dosing interval to once every other day and potentially longer intervals. The steady-state concentrations during both cIV infusion periods were consistent with those previously reported in NHL pts. In all pts, the overall response rate (ORR, representative of cIV, 5 wks and SC, 1wk) per Cheson criteria was 69% (evaluable, n=23: complete response [CR], 21%;partial response [PR], 48%;cycle 1 [C1], n=22: ORR, 62%;CR, 14%;PR,48%;cycle 2 [C2], n=17: 45%;17%;28%;respectively);per Lugano criteria, the ORR was 52% (n=21: CR, 24%;PR, 28%;C1, n=18: 45%;17%;28%;C2, n=12: 31%;21%;10%);for follicular lymphoma, ORR was 77% per Cheson (n=19: CR, 23%;PR, 55%) and 55% per Lugano (n=15: CR, 23%;PR, 32%). Conclusions: In pts with R/R indolent NHL, SC blinatumomab had a favorable safety profile, with the caveat that pts who could not tolerate cIV blinatumomab did not advance to SC dosing. Efficacy was comparable with that seen for cIV dosing in prior blinatumomab NHL studies. In contrast to prior blinatumomab trials, no dose dependency in efficacy or toxicity was observed because SC dosi g was administered for only 1 wk, after 3 wks of cIV;pts not tolerating cIV did not receive SC dosing. Safety/tolerability of blinatumomab SC administration over the whole cycle is currently being evaluated in a phase 1 trial of pts with R/R acute lymphoblastic leukemia (NCT 04521231). SC blinatumomab PK, including bioavailability and half-life, showed promising features, warranting further investigation. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Rossi: Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Sanofi: Honoraria;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Prince: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding;Novartis: Honoraria. Tam: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria;AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Loxo: Consultancy;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria;Novartis: Honoraria;Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Ku: Roche: Consultancy;Genor Biopharma: Consultancy;Antegene: Consultancy. Thieblemont: Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding;Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Hospira: Research Funding;Bayer: Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Popplewell: Pfizer: Other: Travel;Hoffman La Roche: Other: Food;Novartis: Other: Travel. Wermke: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun: Roche: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company);Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company);Novartis: Honoraria;Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company);Servier/Pfizer: Honoraria;Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy;Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy. Viardot: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;University Hospital of Ulm: Current Employment. Ferreri: Pfizer: Research Funding;x Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen: Research Funding;Genmab: Research Funding;BMS: Research Funding;Hutchison Medipharma: Research Funding;PletixaPharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Adienne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding;Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Ospedale San Raffaele srl: Patents & Royalties;Beigene: Research Funding. Wong: Amgen: Current Employment;Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kadu: IQVIA: Current Employment. Zugmaier: Amgen: Current Employment;Micromet/Amgen: Patents & Royalties: Patents 20190300609 and 20130323247 licensed;receives royalties of family members of international applications published as WO2010/052014;WO2010/052013;WO2011/051307;WO2012/055961;WO 2012/062596;WO2014/122251;and WO2015/181683;Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zeng: Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rambaldi: Celgene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses;Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy;Astellas Pharma: Consultancy;Novartis: Consultancy;Omeros: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabelDisclosure: Blinatumomab is approved in the United States for administration as a continuous intravenous infusion. It has not been approved for subcutaneous administration.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and MYC rearrangement exhibits poor outcome after R-CHOP treatment. In the last decade, these pts were treated with a new dose-dense, short-term therapy termed “CARMEN”, at several Italian Centers. Excellent efficacy and safety profile have been reported in HIV/AIDS pts with high-risk Burkitt lymphoma (BL) [Ferreri et al. BJH 2021], but its efficacy in pts with high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC rearrangement (HGBCL) remains to be defined. Herein, we report a retrospective series of consecutive pts with BL or HGBCL treated with CARMEN regimen. Methods: Either HIV-negative and HIV-positive pts aged 18-80 years with BL or HGBCL and MYC rearrangement positive by FISH were treated with CARMEN regimen, which includes a single 36-day induction course of sequential doses of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, rituximab, methotrexate, VP16, and doxorubicin plus intrathecal chemotherapy, followed by consolidation with HD-cytarabine ± cisplatin. Pts who did not achieve complete remission (CR) after induction received BEAM/ASCT after consolidation. Results: 63 pts (22 HGBCL;41 BL) received the CARMEN regimen (Table). Treatment was well tolerated: 56 (89%) pts completed the induction, and 55 (87%) completed the consolidation. G4 hematological toxicity during induction was neutropenia in 48 (76%) pts, thrombocytopenia in 24 (38%) and anemia in 7 (11%), which were recorded after consolidation in 34 (62%), 38 (69%) and 1 (2%) pt, respectively. G4 non hematological toxicity was uncommon: mucositis in 4 (6%) pts and tumor lysis syndrome in 1 (2%) during induction, and heart failure and bleeding in 1 (2%) pt each after consolidation. G4 infections were recorded in 4 (6%) pts during induction and in 2 (3%) after consolidation. Induction and consolidation doses were reduced in 6 (9%) and 4 (7%) pts, respectively. Seven HGBCL and 9 BL pts received ASCT, with expected tolerability. 4 HGBCL and 2 BL pts died of toxicity (sepsis in 4;respiratory failure;COVID-19), with a TRM of 9%. After induction, 18 (82%) HGBCL and 37 (90%) BL pts achieved a response, which was CR in 10 (45%) and 26 (63%) pts, respectively. After the whole treatment, 15 (68%) HGBCL pts and 32 (78%) BL pts achieved a CR, and, at a median follow-up of 54 (2-131) months, 15 (100%) HGBCL and 29 (91%) BL pts remain relapse-free, with a 5-yr PFS of 67% and 70%, respectively. 15 HGBCL and 32 BL pts are alive, with a 5-yr OS of 66% and 77%, respectively. HIV seropositivity did not modify outcome. Age and LDH level were independently associated with OS. Conclusions: With the limitations of a retrospective series, this study shows that CARMEN is a safe and active treatment both in HIVnegative and-positive pts with HGBCL and MYC rearrangement and BL. Survival figures in HGBCL pts compare favorably with results reported with R-CHOP or analogous, and are similar to those achieved in BL pts.