Analysis of Japanese patients from the AUGMENT phase III study of lenalidomide + rituximab (R2) vs. rituximab + placebo in relapsed/refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) typically respond to first-line immunochemotherapy, but relapse is common. Treatment options for relapsed iNHL include chemotherapy ± rituximab and rituximab monotherapy. Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) is an immunomodulatory regimen that enhances rituximab-mediated cytotoxicity and improves clinical activity in iNHL. AUGMENT was a double-blind phase III randomized trial of R2 vs. rituximab + placebo (R-placebo) in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma who were not refractory to rituximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Data reported here focus on Japanese patients from AUGMENT and reflect 36 patients (n = 18, each group). PFS was superior in the R2 group, HR = 0.32 (95% CI 0.11-0.96). Median PFS was not reached (95% CI 19.7-NE) in the R2 group vs. 16.5 months (95% CI 11.3-30.6) in the R-placebo group. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in patients treated with R2 (67%) than with R-placebo (22%), primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 17%). R2 resulted in significantly longer median PFS than R-placebo in Japanese patients with R/R iNHL, and the efficacy and the safety profile of R2 were similar to those reported in the global population.

AUGMENT: A Phase III Study of Lenalidomide Plus Rituximab Versus Placebo Plus Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Indolent Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically respond well to first-line immunochemotherapy. At relapse, single-agent rituximab is commonly administered. Data suggest the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide could increase the activity of rituximab. METHODS: A phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab was conducted in patients with relapsed and/or refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphoma. Patients received lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5. The primary end point was progression-free survival per independent radiology review. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients were randomly assigned to lenalidomide plus rituximab (n = 178) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 180). Infections (63% v 49%), neutropenia (58% v 23%), and cutaneous reactions (32% v 12%) were more common with lenalidomide plus rituximab. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (50% v 13%) and leukopenia (7% v 2%) were higher with lenalidomide plus rituximab; no other grade 3 or 4 adverse event differed by 5% or more between groups. Progression-free survival was significantly improved for lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .001) and median duration of 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months), respectively. CONCLUSION: Lenalidomide improved efficacy of rituximab in patients with recurrent indolent lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile.

Eltrombopag for thrombocytopenia in patients with advanced solid tumors receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study.

In this phase 2 study, patients with solid tumors receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine plus cisplatin/carboplatin were randomized 2:1 to eltrombopag 100 mg (n = 52) or placebo (n = 23) for 5 days before and after chemotherapy was started. The primary endpoint was prechemotherapy (Day 1) platelet count across ≤6 cycles. Prechemotherapy platelet counts were numerically higher with eltrombopag than placebo. Frequencies of grades 3/4 thrombocytopenia were lower with eltrombopag in both the combination therapy (77 vs. 100%) and monotherapy (36 vs. 42%) groups. Proportionately fewer eltrombopag-treated patients had platelet counts <100 × 109/L at nadir. Among patients receiving combination chemotherapy, mean time to recovery from platelet nadir was 8 days with eltrombopag vs. 15 days with placebo. Eltrombopag-treated patients had fewer dose delays/reductions or missed doses due to thrombocytopenia in both the combination therapy (77 vs. 91%) and monotherapy (62 vs. 83%) groups. Adverse events and serious adverse events were less frequent with eltrombopag in both chemotherapy groups, with reduced rates of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia in patients receiving combination chemotherapy. In conclusion, eltrombopag treatment shortened the time to recovery from platelet nadir in patients treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and reduced dose delays/reductions due to thrombocytopenia.

Phase I study of oral sonidegib (LDE225) in pediatric brain and solid tumors and a phase II study in children and adults with relapsed medulloblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Sonidegib (LDE225) is a potent, selective hedgehog (Hh) inhibitor of Smoothened. This study explored the safety and pharmacokinetics of sonidegib in children with relapsed/recurrent tumors followed by a phase II trial in pediatric and adult patients with relapsed medulloblastoma (MB) to assess tumor response. METHODS: Pediatric patients aged ≥1 to <18 years were included according to a Bayesian design starting at 372 mg/m2 of continuous once daily oral sonidegib. Tumor samples were analyzed for Hh pathway activation using a validated 5-gene Hh signature assay. In phase II, pediatric patients were treated at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) while adults received 800 mg daily. RESULTS: Sixteen adult (16 MB) and 60 pediatric (39 MB, 21 other) patients with an age range of 2-17 years were enrolled. The RP2D of sonidegib in pediatric patients was established at 680 mg/m2 once daily. The phase II study was closed prematurely. The 5-gene Hh signature assay showed that the 4 complete responders (2 pediatric and 2 adult) and 1 partial responder (adult) all had Hh-activated tumors, while 5 patients with activated Hh had either stable disease (n = 3) or progressive disease (n = 2). No patient with an Hh-negative signature (n = 50) responded. The safety profile for pediatric patients was generally consistent with the one established for adult patients; however, growth plate changes were observed in prepubertal pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sonidegib was well tolerated and the RP2D in pediatric patients was 680 mg/m2 once daily. Five of the 10 MB patients with activated Hh pathway demonstrated complete or partial responses.

Megatherapy and stem cell transplantation for Ewing's family of tumors: a critical review of current literature.

Although a multimodal approach consisting of chemotherapy and local control with surgery and/or radiation has improved survival in children with Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors, the prognosis for patients with high-risk disease remains poor. More aggressive treatments with high-dose myeloablative chemotherapy followed by stem cell rescue have been utilized in an attempt to improve survival in these patients. Although many studies have been published, it is difficult to interpret the data since patient populations were heterogeneous with respect to disease stage, prior therapy, conditioning and stem cell source. Furthermore, there was no uniform definition of high risk, the sample sizes were small and most studies lacked appropriate control groups. Assessment of the utility of megatherapy will require prospective controlled studies.