Momelotinib vs. ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis patient subgroups by baseline hemoglobin levels in the SIMPLIFY-1 trial.

A key hallmark of myelofibrosis is anemia, which ranges from mild to severe based on hemoglobin levels. To more clearly define outcomes with the Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2/activin A receptor type 1 inhibitor momelotinib by anemia severity, we performed a descriptive post hoc exploratory analysis of the double-blind, randomized, phase 3 SIMPLIFY-1 study (NCT01969838; N = 432, JAK inhibitor naive, momelotinib vs. ruxolitinib); subgroups were defined by baseline hemoglobin: <10 (moderate/severe), ≥10 to <12 (mild), or ≥12 g/dL (nonanemic). Spleen and symptom results were generally consistent with those previously reported for the intent-to-treat population. In anemic subgroups, momelotinib was associated with higher rates of transfusion independence and reduced/stable transfusion intensity vs. ruxolitinib. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified. Overall, momelotinib provides spleen, symptom, and anemia benefits to JAK inhibitor-naive patients with myelofibrosis regardless of baseline hemoglobin level, and greater anemia-related benefits vs. ruxolitinib in patients with hemoglobin <12 g/dL.

Overall survival in the SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2 phase 3 trials of momelotinib in patients with myelofibrosis.

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not address anemia, a negative prognostic factor. Momelotinib, an inhibitor of ACVR1/ALK2, JAK1 and JAK2, demonstrated activity against anemia, symptoms, and splenomegaly in the phase 3 SIMPLIFY trials. Here, we report mature overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) from both studies, and retrospective analyses of baseline characteristics and efficacy endpoints for OS associations. Survival distributions were similar between JAKi-naïve patients randomized to momelotinib, or ruxolitinib then momelotinib, in SIMPLIFY-1 (OS HR = 1.02 [0.73, 1.43]; LFS HR = 1.08 [0.78, 1.50]). Two-year OS and LFS were 81.6% and 80.7% with momelotinib and 80.6% and 79.3% with ruxolitinib then momelotinib. In ruxolitinib-exposed patients in SIMPLIFY-2, two-year OS and LFS were 65.8% and 64.2% with momelotinib and 61.2% and 59.7% with best available therapy then momelotinib (OS HR = 0.98 [0.59, 1.62]; LFS HR = 0.97 [0.59, 1.60]). Baseline transfusion independence (TI) was associated with improved survival in both studies (SIMPLIFY-1 HR = 0.474, p = 0.0001; SIMPLIFY-2 HR = 0.226, p = 0.0005). Week 24 TI response in JAKi-naïve, momelotinib-randomized patients was associated with improved OS in univariate (HR = 0.323; p < 0.0001) and multivariate (HR = 0.311; p < 0.0001) analyses. These findings underscore the importance of achieving or maintaining TI in myelofibrosis, supporting the clinical relevance of momelotinib's pro-erythropoietic mechanism of action, and potentially informing treatment decision-making.

Lenalidomide maintenance for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients responding to R-CHOP: quality of life, dosing, and safety results from the randomised controlled REMARC study.

Lenalidomide maintenance therapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) responding to induction chemotherapy in the phase 3 REMARC study. This subpopulation analysis assessed the impact of lenalidomide maintenance and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Global health status (GHS), and physical functioning and fatigue subscales were evaluated in patients who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-C30 v3.0. The impact of TEAEs classified post hoc as subjective (patients can feel) or observable (only measurable by physicians) on dose reductions and discontinuations was assessed. Among 457 patients (lenalidomide, n = 229; placebo, n = 228), mean (standard deviation) GHS was similar between treatment arms [68·2 (20·7) Versus 72·0 (17·8)] at randomisation and remained similar during maintenance. Patients receiving lenalidomide experienced no meaningful changes in GHS, physical functioning, or fatigue. Observable TEAEs were more common (81·1% Versus 66·3%) and more likely to lead to dose reductions, than subjective TEAEs in both arms. PFS was superior in the lenalidomide arm regardless of dose reduction. Lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and did not negatively impact HRQOL in patients with DLBCL despite TEAEs being more common, when compared with placebo.

Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma: Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study.

PURPOSE: The PRIMA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00140582) established that 2 years of rituximab maintenance after first-line immunochemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with follicular lymphoma compared with observation. Here, we report the final PFS and overall survival (OS) results from the PRIMA study after 9 years of follow-up and provide a final overview of safety. METHODS: Patients (> 18 years of age) with previously untreated high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma were nonrandomly assigned to receive one of three immunochemotherapy induction regimens. Responding patients were randomly assigned (stratified by induction regimen, response to induction treatment, treatment center, and geographic region) 1:1 to receive 2 years of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m2, once every 8 weeks), starting 8 weeks after the last induction treatment, or observation (no additional treatment). All patients in the extended follow-up provided their written informed consent (data cutoff: December 31, 2016). RESULTS: In total, 1,018 patients completed induction treatment and were randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance (n = 505) or observation (n = 513). Consent for the extended follow-up was provided by 607 patients (59.6%) of 1,018 (rituximab maintenance, n = 309; observation, n = 298). After data cutoff, median PFS was 10.5 years in the rituximab maintenance arm compared with 4.1 years in the observation arm (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73; P < .001). No OS difference was seen in patients randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance or observation (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.40; P = .7948); 10-year OS estimates were approximately 80% in both study arms. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Rituximab maintenance after induction immunochemotherapy provides a significant long-term PFS, but not OS, benefit over observation.

Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma.

This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified ≥60 months' follow-up). Patients were randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and was similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an ≈30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vs MPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00689936 and EudraCT as 2007-004823-39.

SIMPLIFY-1: A Phase III Randomized Trial of Momelotinib Versus Ruxolitinib in Janus Kinase Inhibitor-Naïve Patients With Myelofibrosis.

Purpose We evaluated the efficacy and safety of momelotinib, a potent and selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor (JAKi), compared with ruxolitinib, in JAKi-naïve patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 432) with high risk or intermediate-2 risk or symptomatic intermediate-1 risk myelofibrosis were randomly assigned to receive 24 weeks of treatment with momelotinib 200 mg once daily or ruxolitinib 20 mg twice a day (or per label), after which all patients could receive open-label momelotinib. The primary end point was a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume at 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points were rates of symptom response and effects on RBC transfusion requirements. Results A ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume at week 24 was achieved by a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms: 26.5% of the momelotinib group and 29% of the ruxolitinib group (noninferior; P = .011). A ≥ 50% reduction in the total symptom score was observed in 28.4% and 42.2% of patients who received momelotinib and ruxolitinib, respectively, indicating that noninferiority was not met ( P = .98). Transfusion rate, transfusion independence, and transfusion dependence were improved with momelotinib (all with nominal P ≤ .019). The most common grade ≥ 3 hematologic abnormalities in either group were thrombocytopenia and anemia. Grade ≥ 3 infections occurred in 7% of patients who received momelotinib and 3% of patients who received ruxolitinib. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy occurred in 10% of patients who received momelotinib (all grade ≤ 2) and 5% of patients who received ruxolitinib (all grade ≤ 3). Conclusion In JAKi-naïve patients with myelofibrosis, 24 weeks of momelotinib treatment was noninferior to ruxolitinib for spleen response but not for symptom response. Momelotinib treatment was associated with a reduced transfusion requirement.

The mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with azacitidine in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a phase Ib/II study.

Therapeutic options are limited in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and preliminary efficacy of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, everolimus (days 5-21) in combination with azacitidine 75 mg/m2 subcutaneously (days 1-5 and 8-9 every 28 days) in 40 patients with relapsed (n = 27), primary refractory (n = 11) or elderly patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy (n = 2). MTD was not reached following everolimus dose escalation (2.5, 5 or 10 mg; n = 19) to the 10 mg dose level which was expanded (n = 21). Major adverse events (grade > 2) were mostly disease-related: neutropenia (73%), thrombocytopenia (67%), mucositis (24%) and febrile neutropenia (19%). Overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 8.5 months, and overall response rate (ORR; including CR/CRi/PR/MLFS) was 22.5%. Furthermore, a landmark analysis beyond cycle 1 revealed superior OS and ORR in patients receiving 2.5 mg everolimus with azoles, compared to those without azoles (median OS 12.8 vs. 6.0 months, P = 0.049, and ORR 50% vs. 16%, P = 0.056), potentially due to achievement of higher everolimus blood levels. This study demonstrates that everolimus in combination with azacitidine is tolerable, with promising clinical activity in advanced AML.

Lenalidomide Maintenance Compared With Placebo in Responding Elderly Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With First-Line Rituximab Plus Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone.

Purpose The standard treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent, has shown activity in DLBCL. This randomized phase III trial compared lenalidomide as maintenance therapy with placebo in elderly patients with DLBCL who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to R-CHOP induction. Methods Patients with previously untreated DLBCL or other aggressive B-cell lymphoma were 60 to 80 years old, had CR or PR after six or eight cycles of R-CHOP, and were randomly assigned to lenalidomide maintenance 25 mg/d or placebo for 21 days of every 28-day cycle for 24 months. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 650 patients were randomly assigned. At the time of the primary analysis (December 2015), with a median follow-up of 39 months from random assignment, median PFS was not reached for lenalidomide maintenance versus 58.9 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.708; 95% CI, 0.537 to 0.933; P = .01). The result was consistent among analyzed subgroups (eg, male v female, age-adjusted International Prognostic Index 0 or 1 v 2 or 3, age younger than 70 v ≥ 70 years), response (PR v CR) after R-CHOP, and positron emission tomography status at assignment (negative v positive). With longer median follow-up of 52 months (October 2016), overall survival was similar between arms (hazard ratio, 1.218; 95% CI, 0.861 to 1.721; P = .26). Most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with lenalidomide versus placebo maintenance were neutropenia (56% v 22%) and cutaneous reactions (5% v 1%), respectively. Conclusion Lenalidomide maintenance for 24 months after obtaining a CR or PR to R-CHOP significantly prolonged PFS in elderly patients with DLBCL.

Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis: 5-year update from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial evaluated the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2/high-risk myelofibrosis. The primary and planned 3-year analyses of COMFORT-I data demonstrated that ruxolitinib-the first myelofibrosis-approved therapy-reduced splenomegaly and prolonged overall survival versus placebo. Here, we present the final 5-year results. METHODS: Patients managed in Australia, Canada, and the USA were randomized centrally (interactive voice response system) 1:1 to oral ruxolitinib twice daily (15 or 20 mg per baseline platelet counts) or placebo. Investigators and patients were blinded to treatment. The secondary endpoints evaluated in this analysis were durability of a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume (spleen response) and overall survival, evaluated in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in patients who received study treatment. RESULTS: Patients were randomized (September 2009-April 2010) to ruxolitinib (n = 155) or placebo (n = 154). At termination, 27.7% of ruxolitinib-randomized patients and 25.2% (28/111) who crossed over from placebo were on treatment; no patients remained on placebo. Patients randomized to ruxolitinib had a median spleen response duration of 168.3 weeks and prolonged median overall survival versus placebo (ruxolitinib group, not reached; placebo group, 200 weeks; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96; P = 0.025) despite the crossover to ruxolitinib. The ruxolitinib safety profile remained consistent with previous analyses. The most common new-onset all-grade nonhematologic adverse events starting <12 versus ≥48 months after ruxolitinib initiation were fatigue (29.0 vs 33.3%) and diarrhea (27.8 vs 14.6%). New-onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia both primarily occurred within the first 6 months, with no cases after 42 months. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event-related deaths in the ruxolitinib-randomized group were sepsis (2.6%), disease progression (1.9%), and pneumonia (1.9%). CONCLUSION: The final COMFORT-I results continue to support ruxolitinib as an effective treatment for patients with intermediate-2/high-risk MF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00952289.

Bortezomib-based antibody depletion for refractory autoimmune hematological diseases.

Certain patients with antibody-mediated autoimmune disease exhibit poor responses to conventional immunosuppression, including B-cell depletion with rituximab. Proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib demonstrate pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects, including direct toxicity to antibody-producing cells. Here, we report preliminary evidence for the efficacy of bortezomib as salvage therapy for refractory autoimmune hematological disease. Thirteen treatment episodes in 10 patients with autoimmune hematological phenomena (autoimmune hemolytic anemia [AIHA; n = 8], acquired hemophilia (n = 1), immune thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura [TTP; n = 3]) and a median of 5 (range, 3-12) prior lines of therapy demonstrated an overall response rate of 77% (10 of 13) including 38% (5 of 13) complete remissions. The majority of clinical improvements were rapid, correlated with biomarkers of autoantibody reduction, and were associated with an acceptable safety profile. Responses appeared durable following treatment of TTP and acquired hemophilia; AIHA responses were more limited with a pattern of relapse following bortezomib cessation. These data provide proof of concept for the utility of proteasome inhibition as antibody depletion therapy in autoimmune disease.

A phase 2 study of the BH3 mimetic BCL2 inhibitor navitoclax (ABT-263) with or without rituximab, in previously untreated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

We evaluated the safety and biologic activity of the BH3 mimetic protein, navitoclax, combined with rituximab, in comparison to rituximab alone. One hundred and eighteen patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were randomized to receive eight weekly doses of rituximab (arm A), eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax for 12 weeks (arm B) or eight weekly doses of rituximab plus daily navitoclax until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm C). Investigator-assessed overall response rates (complete [CR] and partial [PR]) were 35% (arm A), 55% (arm B, p = 0.19 vs. A) and 70% (arm C, p = 0.0034 vs. A). Patients with del(17p) or high levels of BCL2 had significantly better clinical responses when treated with navitoclax. Navitoclax in combination with rituximab was well tolerated as initial therapy for patients with CLL, yielded higher response rates than rituximab alone and resulted in prolonged progression-free survival with treatment beyond 12 weeks.

The addition of dexamethasone to bortezomib for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma improves outcome but ongoing maintenance therapy has minimal benefit.

Despite the common practice of combining dexamethasone (Dex) with bortezomib (Bz) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), until now there has been few prospective trials undertaken. We undertook a trial that recapitulated the original APEX study except that dexamethasone was incorporated from cycle 1. We also incorporated an exploratory maintenance component to the study. Twenty sites enrolled 100 relapsed/or refractory MM patients utilizing eight 21 day cycles of IV Bz [1.3 mg/m(2) ; Day (D) 1, 4, 8, 11] and three 35 day cycles; Bz (1.3 mg/m(2) ; Day (D) 1, 8, 15, 22). Our study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00335348). Patients with stable disease or better received maintenance Bz (1.3 mg/m(2) ) every 14 days until progression. Dexamethasone (20 mg) was given for 2 days with each Bz dose. A prospectively defined matched-analysis of primary (overall response rate; ORR) and secondary endpoints [Complete Response (CR) and time to progression (TTP)] compared our cohort to those on the Bz arm of the APEX trial. The addition of Dex improved ORR by 20% (56% vs. 36%) [odds ratio 0.44 (0.24-0.80)]. The median TTP was also significantly longer (10.1 vs. 5.1 months) (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72, P = 0.0002) and our landmark analysis demonstrated that this was largely due to the early use of dexamethasone, as we were unable to demonstrate any benefit of bortezomib/dexamethasone maintenance therapy.

Efficacy, safety, and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 3-year follow-up of COMFORT-I.

In the phase III COMFORT-I study, the Janus kinase 1 (JAK1)/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib provided significant improvements in splenomegaly, key symptoms, and quality-of-life measures and was associated with an overall survival benefit relative to placebo in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. This planned analysis assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib at a median follow-up of 149 weeks. At data cutoff, approximately 50% of patients originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment whereas all patients originally assigned to placebo had discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib. At week 144, mean spleen volume reduction was 34% with ruxolitinib. Previously observed improvements in quality-of-life measures were sustained with longer-term ruxolitinib therapy. Overall survival continued to favor ruxolitinib despite the majority of placebo patients crossing over to ruxolitinib [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.46-1.03); P = 0.067]. Exploratory analyses suggest that crossover may have contributed to an underestimation of the true survival difference between the treatment groups. Ruxolitinib continued to be generally well tolerated; there was no pattern of worsening grade ≥ 3 anemia or thrombocytopenia with longer-term ruxolitinib exposure. These longer-term data continue to support the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00952289.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The combination melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) is considered a standard therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. However, emerging data on the use of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone warrant a prospective comparison of the two approaches. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1623 patients to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in 28-day cycles until disease progression (535 patients), to the same combination for 72 weeks (18 cycles; 541 patients), or to MPT for 72 weeks (547 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus MPT. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 20.7 months with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 21.2 months with MPT (hazard ratio for the risk of progression or death, 0.72 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. MPT and 0.70 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was superior to MPT for all secondary efficacy end points, including overall survival (at the interim analysis). Overall survival at 4 years was 59% with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 56% with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 51% with MPT. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were somewhat less frequent with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone than with MPT (70% vs. 78%). As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with fewer hematologic and neurologic toxic events, a moderate increase in infections, and fewer second primary hematologic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone given until disease progression was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with an overall survival benefit at the interim analysis, among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by Intergroupe, Francophone du Myélome and Celgene; FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00689936; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number, 2007-004823-39.).

A multi-centre, single-arm, open-label study evaluating the safety and efficacy of fixed dose rituximab in patients with refractory, relapsed or chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (R-ITP1000 study).

The efficacy of a fixed-dose rituximab schedule was prospectively explored in primary/acute refractory, relapsed or chronic (platelet count >10 × 10(9) /l and ≤50 × 10(9) /l) idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Patients received two doses of rituximab (1000 mg) on days 1 and 15 and were followed-up on weeks 1-8, 12, 26, 39 and 52. A total of 122 patients were included in the safety population; efficacy was analysed in 108 patients. Overall response rate (ORR) at week 8, defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR; platelet count >150 × 10(9) /l) or partial response (PR; platelet count >50 × 10(9) /l) was 44%. Therapeutic response, defined as achieving a response at week 8, with at least a minor response (MR; platelet count >30 × 10(9) /l), sustained up to weeks 26 and 52 and accompanied by a reduction in ITP medications, was achieved in 44% (week 26) and 35% (week 52) of patients, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated with no safety concerns. While this study failed to meet its primary endpoint of an ORR of 50%, the efficacy of two fixed doses of rituximab appear to provide similar efficacy to the standard 375 mg/m(2) four-dose schedule in relapsed/chronic ITP.

PTK2 expression and immunochemotherapy outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Addition of rituximab (R) to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) has significantly improved patient outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Whether baseline gene expression can identify patients who will benefit from immunochemotherapy over chemotherapy alone has not been determined. We assessed genome-wide expression of 300 pretreatment specimens from a subset of 552 patients in REACH, a study of FC or R-FC in relapsed CLL. An independent test set was derived from 282 pretreatment specimens from CLL8, a study of FC or R-FC in treatment-naïve patients. Genes specific for benefit from R-FC were determined by assessing treatment-gene interactions in Cox proportional hazards models. REACH patients with higher pretreatment protein tyrosine kinase 2 (PTK2) messenger RNA levels derived greater benefit from R-FC, with significant improvements in progression-free survival, independent of known prognostic factors in a multivariate model. Examination of PTK2 gene expression in CLL8 patients yielded similar results. Furthermore, PTK2 inhibition blunted R-dependent cell death in vitro. This retrospective analysis from 2 independent trials revealed that increased PTK2 expression is associated with improved outcomes for CLL patients treated with R-FC vs FC. PTK2 expression may be a useful biomarker for patient selection in future trials. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00090051 (REACH) and #NCT00281918 (CLL8).

R-CHOP with or without bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final MAIN study outcomes.

Vascular endothelial growth factor is involved in lymphoma growth, suggesting a potential role for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies in hematologic malignancies. In this phase III study, patients with CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were randomized to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus either placebo (R-CHOP) or bevacizumab (RA-CHOP). Treatment was administered every 21 (8 cycles) or 14 days (6 cycles plus 2 rituximab cycles) as per institutional practice. An early analysis of risk/benefit by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board showed that RA-CHOP increased cardiotoxicity without prolonging progression-free survival compared with R-CHOP, and the trial was stopped early. The study protocol was amended to allow for 12 additional months of follow up to evaluate safety. With 787 patients enrolled, median follow up was 23.7 and 23.6 months for R-CHOP and RA-CHOP, respectively. Median progression-free survival for R-CHOP and RA CHOP was 42.9 and 40.2 months, respectively (hazard ratio=1.09; P=0.49). The proportion of deaths was identical for R-CHOP (83 of 387, 21%) and RA-CHOP (82 of 390, 21%). Relative to R-CHOP, RA-CHOP had a higher rate of left ventricular ejection fraction perturbation (18% vs. 8%; odds ratio=2.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.60-3.93) and congestive heart failure (16% vs. 7%; odds ratio=2.79; 95%CI: 1.72-4.54). Bevacizumab added to R-CHOP increased cardiac events, without increasing efficacy, arguing against further evaluation of RA-CHOP in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The MAIN study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier:00486759.