ABSTRACT
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of approximately 70 years. The natural course of the disease varies greatly, and patients with non-progressive and asymptomatic leukemia do not require treatment. The results of CLL treatment have improved significantly in recent years, mainly due to the introduction of new, more effective drugs, including BCR inhibitors and BCL2 inhibitors. The new drugs are used continuously, while venetoclax in combination with anti-CD20 antibodies is used for 24 (rituximab) or 12 (obinutuzumab) months, depending on the type of antibody and line of therapy. The choice of treatment protocol should largely depend on the assessment of 17p deletion/TP53 mutation and immunoglobulin variable heavy chain (IGVH) mutation status, which correlate with a worse response to immunochemotherapy. The role of immunochemotherapy, which until recently was the mainstay of CLL treatment, has now significantly decreased. In the first-line, it is recommended only in patients without 17p deletion/TP53 mutation, with mutated IGVH. Other patients should receive novel targeted therapies. However, at the time of the preparation of these recommendations, these therapies are not available in the firs-line of treatment in Poland. Novel targeted therapies play a major role in the treatment of refractory/relapsed CLL, and immunochemotherapy is recommended primarily in patients with a long-term response to first-line therapy. In this article, we present an update of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of CLL, including the treatment of autoimmune complications, as well as the prophylaxis and treatment of infections, developed by the Polish Society of Haematologists and Transfusiologists and PALG-CLL Working Group.
ABSTRACT
Background: First-line conventional chemoimmunotherapy in MCL can be improved. Promising results have been seen with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) in combination with venetoclax (V) and an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory or TN MCL. Acalabrutinib (A) is a next-generation, highly selective, covalent BTKi currently approved for relapsed/refractory MCL. We report initial safety and efficacy results of the ongoing, multicenter, open-label phase 1b study of A, V, and rituximab (R) (AVR) in TN MCL. Methods: TN MCL pts aged ≥18 y with ECOG PS ≤2 were eligible. Starting on cycle 1 day 1, A was administered at 100 mg BID until disease progression or discontinuation for other reasons. R was administered at 375 mg/m 2 on day 1 of each 28-day cycle for 6 cycles, followed by maintenance every other cycle for pts achieving complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), through cycle 24. Starting on cycle 2 day 1, V was administered via an initial 5-wk ramp-up schedule (20, 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg/d) to 400 mg/d, through cycle 25. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed from cycle 2 day 1 to cycle 3 day 28. Primary endpoint was AVR safety. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS) per Lugano criteria. Positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans were performed after 3 and 6 cycles and to confirm CR at any time. CT scans were performed after 3, 6, 9, and 12 cycles, and then every 6 cycles. Longitudinal minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed using the clonoSEQ assay in peripheral blood at PR, CR, every 6 cycles post-CR, and treatment end. Results: 21 pts were enrolled (median age 66 y [range 51-85];ECOG PS ≤1 20 [95%];Ann Arbor stage IV disease 19 [90%];bulky disease >5 cm 7 [33%];intermediate- and high-risk simplified MCL International Prognostic Index scores 11 [52%] and 4 [19%], respectively;blastoid variant 1 [5%];and Ki-67 proliferation index ≥50% 3 [14%]). Fifteen (71%) pts had bone marrow (BM) involvement at baseline. As of March 19, 2021, median time on study was 16 mo (range 8-26.2). Median (range) number of cycles administered was 15 (7-27) for A, 13.5 (5-23) for 400 mg daily V, and 12 (6-15) for R. Seventeen (81%) pts remain on study treatment and 4 (19%) have discontinued (progressive disease: n=1;COVID-19 infection: n=3). No DLTs were observed;V 400 mg daily after ramp-up was the dose chosen for triple therapy. Most common any-grade AEs in ≥20% of pts were diarrhea (13 [62%]), headache (11 [52%]), fatigue (10 [48%]), neutropenia (6 [29%]), paresthesia (6 [29%]), cough (6 [29%]), dyspnea (6 [29%]), myalgia (5 [24%]), dizziness (5 [24%]), and hypoesthesia (5 [24%]). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥2 pts were neutropenia (5 [24%]) and pneumonia (2 [10%]). Serious any-grade AEs in ≥2 pts were COVID-19 infection (4 [19%]) and pneumonia (2 [10%]). In the 4 pts with COVID-19 infection, the events led to triple-drug discontinuation and death in 3 pts and to dose holds of A and V and event resolution in 1 pt (all considered unrelated to study treatment). Diarrhea led to V dose reduction in 1 pt. AEs led to dose holds in 12 (57%) pts and were associated with A, V, and R in 52%, 48%, and 14%, respectively. Events of clinical interest are shown in Table 1. At the end of cycle 6, ORR was 100%, with CR/PR in 90%/10% by PET/CT alone (11 of the 13 CRs by PET/CT lacked BM confirmation);the CR/PR rate by Lugano criteria with BM confirmation was 38%/62% (Table 2). Median DOR was 19 mo (95% CI 17-not estimable [NE]) overall, and not reached when the 3 pts with COVID-19 deaths were censored. Median PFS and OS were not reached. The 1-y PFS and OS rates were 89% (95% CI 62-97) and 95% (95% CI 71-99), respectively. Treating the 3 COVID-19 deaths as censored, the 1-y PFS rate was 93.8% (95% CI 63.2-99.1). Median time to initial response and best response was 2.8 mo. Twelve of 16 (75%) pts with available MRD results at cycle 6 achieved MRD negativity (10 -6), including 6 pts with
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
Introduction: Patients with relapsed or refractory malignant lymphoma (rrNHL) after chemoimmunotherapy often do not experience longterm disease control. Therefore, novel therapeutic options are urgently needed. CD19, a type I transmembrane glycoprotein widely expressed in B-cell-lymphomas, has raised interest as a therapeutic target. Tafasitamab (formerly MOR208) is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 antibody which exerts its efficacy via enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, as well as direct cytotoxic effects on tumor cells. In a phase IIa study of tafasitamab in rrNHL patients and no curative option available, the antitumor activity and safety of tafasitamab was investigated. Patients received tafasitamab at a dose of 12mg/kg intravenously, weekly for 8 weeks. Treatment could be continued for additional 4 weeks when at least stable disease was reached. Patients who reached PR or CR after 12 weeks of treatment could extend their treatment until progression. Clinical outcome was promising, however the median follow-up was only 26 months and therefore, little is known about the long-term tolerability and safety of tafasitamab. Methods: We identified 5 patients from the database with rrNHL, namely FL, MZL and DLBCL, who are treated with single-agent tafasitamab for more than 5 years and performed a long-term analysis of its tolerability and safety. Only patients, for whom complete information was available concerning efficacy and toxicity and who consented for long-term evaluation of data, were selected. Results: Besides the ongoing long-term response, a very favorable safety profile was found. There were only a couple of non-severe adverse events (AEs) mostly within the first 2 years of treatment. Most common AEs were infections (45%) and neurological symptoms (14%). There were no grade 4 AEs or grade 4 late toxicities, only one episode of treatment-emergent hematological grade 3 AE and grade 3 dizziness, no late toxicities, or infusion related reactions. ECOG performance status was unimpaired. Discussion: Our data support the safety of the long-term use. Given the long-term tolerability of tafasitamab, it can be considered as a safe agent in combination with chemotherapy, kinase inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, EZH2-inhibitors, or other options. In a future project, we will analyse the response to Covid-19 vaccination in these patients.