Prospective subgroup analyses of the randomized MCL-002 (SPRINT) study: lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

In the mantle cell lymphoma (MCL)-002 study, lenalidomide demonstrated significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with investigator's choice (IC) in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. Here we present the long-term follow-up data and results of preplanned subgroup exploratory analyses from MCL-002 to evaluate the potential impact of demographic factors, baseline clinical characteristics and prior therapies on PFS. In MCL-002, patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were randomized 2:1 to receive lenalidomide (25 mg/day orally on days 1-21; 28-day cycles) or single-agent IC therapy (rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil or cytarabine). The intent-to-treat population comprised 254 patients (lenalidomide, n = 170; IC, n = 84). Subgroup analyses of PFS favoured lenalidomide over IC across most characteristics, including risk factors, such as high MCL International Prognostic Index score, age ≥65 years, high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), stage III/IV disease, high tumour burden, and refractoriness to last prior therapy. By multivariate Cox regression analysis, factors associated with significantly longer PFS (other than lenalidomide treatment) included normal LDH levels (P < 0·001), nonbulky disease (P = 0·045), <3 prior antilymphoma treatments (P = 0·005), and ≥6 months since last prior treatment (P = 0·032). Overall, lenalidomide improved PFS versus single-agent IC therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, irrespective of many demographic factors, disease characteristics and prior treatment history.

Observational study of lenalidomide in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who relapsed/progressed after or were refractory/intolerant to ibrutinib (MCL-004).

BACKGROUND: The observational MCL-004 study evaluated outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who received lenalidomide-based therapy after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. METHODS: The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate based on the 2007 International Working Group criteria. RESULTS: Of 58 enrolled patients (median age, 71 years; range, 50-89), 13 received lenalidomide monotherapy, 11 lenalidomide plus rituximab, and 34 lenalidomide plus other treatment. Most patients (88%) had received ≥ 3 prior therapies (median 4; range, 1-13). Median time from last dose of ibrutinib to the start of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1-21.7); 45% of patients had partial responses or better to prior ibrutinib. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were lack of efficacy (88%) and ibrutinib toxicity (9%). After a median of two cycles (range, 0-11) of lenalidomide-based treatment, 17 patients responded (8 complete responses, 9 partial responses), for a 29% overall response rate (95% confidence interval, 18-43%) and a median duration of response of 20 weeks (95% confidence interval, 2.9 to not available). Overall response rate to lenalidomide-based therapy was similar for patients with relapsed/progressive disease after previous response to ibrutinib (i.e., ≥PR) versus ibrutinib-refractory (i.e., ≤SD) patients (30 versus 32%, respectively). The most common all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events after lenalidomide-containing therapy (n = 58) were fatigue (38%) and cough, dizziness, dyspnea, nausea, and peripheral edema (19% each). At data cutoff, 28 patients have died, primarily due to mantle cell lymphoma. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity, with no unexpected toxicities, in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who previously failed ibrutinib therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02341781 . Date of registration: January 14, 2015.

Long-term analysis of phase II studies of single-agent lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with aggressive disease characteristics resulting in multiple relapses after initial treatment. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent approved in the US for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL following bortezomib based on results from 3 multicenter phase II studies (2 including relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL and 1 focusing on MCL post-bortezomib). The purpose of this report is to provide longer follow-up on the MCL-001 study (follow-ups were 6.8 [NHL-002], 7.6 [NHL-003], and 52.2 [MCL-001] months). The 206 relapsed MCL patients treated with single-agent lenalidomide (25 mg/day PO, days 1 to 21 every 28-days) had a median age of 67 years (63% ≥65 years), 91% with stage III/IV disease, and 50% with ≥4 previous treatment regimens. With a median follow-up of X, the combined best overall response rate (ORR) was 33% (including 11% with complete remission [CR]/CR unconfirmed CRu). Lenalidomide produced rapid and durable responses with a median time to response of 2.2 months and median duration of response (DOR) of 16.6 months (95% CI: 11.1%-29.8%). The safety profile was consistent and manageable; myelosuppression was the most common adverse event (AE). Overall, single-agent lenalidomide showed consistent efficacy and safety in multiple phase II studies of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, including those previously treated with bortezomib.

Lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL-002; SPRINT): a phase 2, randomised, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, showed activity in many single-group studies in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. The aim of this randomised study was to examine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide versus best investigator's choice of single-agent therapy in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. METHODS: The MCL-002 (SPRINT) study was a randomised, phase 2 study of patients with mantle cell lymphoma aged 18 years or older at 67 clinics and academic centres in 12 countries who relapsed one to three times, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, at least one measurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transplantation. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (2:1) patients in a permuted block size of six to receive lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 every 28 days) until progressive disease or intolerability, or single-agent investigator's choice of either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by time from diagnosis, time from last anti-lymphoma therapy, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Individual treatment assignment between lenalidomide and investigator's choice was open label, but investigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient. Patients who progressed on investigator's choice could cross over to lenalidomide treatment. We present the prespecified primary analysis results in the intention-to-treat population for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to progressive disease or death, whichever occurred first. Patient enrolment is complete, although treatment and collection of additional time-to-event data are ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00875667. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2009, and March 7, 2013, we enrolled 254 patients in the intention-to-treat population (170 [67%] were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide, 84 [33%] to receive investigator's choice monotherapy). Patients had a median age of 68·5 years and received a median of two previous regimens. With a median follow-up of 15·9 months (IQR 7·6-31·7), lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival compared with investigator's choice (median 8·7 months [95% CI 5·5-12·1] vs 5·2 months [95% CI 3·7-6·9]) with a hazard ratio of 0·61 (95% CI 0·44-0·84; p=0·004). In the 167 patients in the lenalidomide group and 83 patients in the investigator's choice group who received at least one dose of treatment the most common grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (73 [44%] of 167 vs 28 [34%] of 83) without increased risk of infection, thrombocytopenia (30 [18%] vs 23 [28%]), leucopenia (13 [8%] vs nine [11%]), and anaemia (14 [8%] vs six [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation have longer progression-free survival, with a manageable safety profile when treated with lenalidomide compared with monotherapy investigator's choice options. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

Effects of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment duration on survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

BACKGROUND: In two randomized phase III trials (MM-009 and MM-010), lenalidomide plus dexamethasone significantly prolonged time to progression and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with dexamethasone alone. In both trials the treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We conducted a subanalysis to determine if continuing therapy after achieving≥partial response (PR) improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected on 212 patients who were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and achieved≥PR. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared between patients on continued treatment versus patients discontinuing therapy because of adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or other reasons. Time-dependent multivariate regression analyses were used to determine the benefit of continuing treatment with lenalidomide. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients received continued treatment until disease progression or death, and 38 patients discontinued therapy without progression. There was a trend toward longer median OS in patients who continued therapy (50.9 months vs. 35.0 months; P=.0594). When controlling for the number of previous antimyeloma therapies, ß2-microglobulin levels, and Durie-Salmon stage (which adversely affected survival in these patients), continued lenalidomide treatment (HR, 0.137; 95% CI, 0.045-0.417; P=.0005) or each additional cycle of lenalidomide (HR, 0.921; 95% CI, 0.886-0.957; P<.0001) were both associated with longer survival. CONCLUSION: Continued lenalidomide treatment until disease progression after achievement of ≥PR is associated with a significant survival advantage when controlling for patient characteristics. These findings should be confirmed in a prospectively designed trial.