Favorable overall survival with imetelstat in relapsed/refractory myelofibrosis patients compared with real-world data.

In the MYF2001 trial, treatment of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor-relapsed/refractory intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) with imetelstat 9.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks demonstrated encouraging median overall survival of 29.9 months. To provide historical context, external real-world data (RWD) were collected from a study of 96 patients who had discontinued ruxolitinib and were subsequently treated with best available therapy (BAT) at Moffitt Cancer Center. A closely matched cohort was identified using the MYF2001 eligibility criteria, including patients with MF who had discontinued ruxolitinib due to lack or loss of response. Overall survival was measured from time of JAK inhibitor discontinuation to death or censored at last follow-up. To improve comparability, propensity score weighting approaches using average treatment effect for overlap population (ATO) and stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) were used for 10 critical baseline covariates. Fifty-seven patients treated with imetelstat 9.4 mg/kg from MYF2001 and 38 patients treated with BAT from RWD were analyzed with improved balanced baseline covariates after propensity score adjustment, showing significantly lower risk of death with imetelstat compared with BAT (hazard ratio: 0.35; p = 0.0019). With sIPTW, results were similar. Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. In conclusion, treatment with imetelstat was associated with longer overall survival compared to BAT (30 vs 12 months, respectively) in closely matched patients with MF after JAK inhibitor failure, warranting further evaluation of imetelstat in this poor-prognosis patient population.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Multicenter Phase II Study of Two Doses of Imetelstat in Relapsed or Refractory Myelofibrosis.

PURPOSE: Patients with myelofibrosis who are relapsed or refractory (R/R) to Janus-associated kinase inhibitors (JAKis) have poor clinical outcomes including dismal overall survival (OS) that ranges between 13 and 16 months. Imetelstat, a telomerase inhibitor, was evaluated in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis R/R to JAKi in a phase II multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02426086). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either imetelstat 9.4 mg/kg or 4.7 mg/kg intravenous once every 3 weeks. Spleen response (≥ 35% spleen volume reduction) and symptom response (≥ 50% reduction in total symptom score) rates at week 24 were coprimary end points. Secondary end points included OS and safety. RESULTS: Study enrollment was closed early, and patients treated with 4.7 mg/kg were permitted to continue treatment with 9.4 mg/kg. At week 24, spleen and symptom response rates were 10.2% and 32.2% in the 9.4-mg/kg arm and 0% and 6.3% in the 4.7-mg/kg arm. Treatment with imetelstat 9.4 mg/kg led to a median OS of 29.9 months and bone marrow fibrosis improvement in 40.5% and variant allele frequency reduction of driver mutations in 42.1% of evaluable patients. Fibrosis improvement and variant allele frequency reduction correlated with OS. Target inhibition was demonstrated by reduction of telomerase activity and human telomerase reverse transcriptase level and correlated with spleen response, symptom response, and OS. Most common adverse events on both arms were grade 3 or 4 reversible cytopenias. CONCLUSION: In this phase II study of two imetelstat doses, 9.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks demonstrated clinical benefits in symptom response rate, with an acceptable safety profile for this poor-risk JAKi R/R population. Biomarker and bone marrow fibrosis assessments suggested selective effects on the malignant clone. A confirmatory phase III study is currently underway.

Niraparib with androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and pharmacokinetic results from a phase 1b study (BEDIVERE).

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics and determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of niraparib with apalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: BEDIVERE was a multicenter, open-label, phase 1b study of niraparib 200 or 300 mg/day with apalutamide 240 mg or AAP (abiraterone acetate 1000 mg; prednisone 10 mg). Patients with mCRPC were previously treated with ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy, including ≥ 1 androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (niraparib-apalutamide, 6; niraparib-AAP, 27). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported when combinations included niraparib 200 mg; five patients receiving niraparib 300 mg experienced DLTs [niraparib-apalutamide, 2/3 patients (66.7%); niraparib-AAP, 3/8 patients (37.5%)]. Although data are limited, niraparib exposures were lower when given with apalutamide compared with historical niraparib monotherapy exposures in patients with solid tumors. Because of the higher incidence of DLTs, the niraparib-apalutamide combination and niraparib 300 mg combination with AAP were not further evaluated. Niraparib 200 mg was selected as the RP2D with AAP. Of 19 patients receiving niraparib 200 mg with AAP, 12 (63.2%) had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being thrombocytopenia (26.3%) and hypertension (21.1%). Five patients (26.3%) had adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the choice of niraparib 200 mg as the RP2D with AAP. The niraparib-AAP combination was tolerable in patients with mCRPC, with no new safety signals. An ongoing phase 3 study is further assessing this combination in patients with mCRPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT02924766 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Study of Epoetin Alfa Versus Best Standard of Care in Anemic Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An open-label, noninferiority study to evaluate the impact of epoetin alfa (EPO) on tumor outcomes when used to treat anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Women with hemoglobin ≤ 11.0 g/dL, receiving first- or second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer, were randomly assigned to EPO 40,000 IU subcutaneously once a week or best standard of care. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, time to tumor progression, overall response rate, RBC transfusions, and thrombotic vascular events. RESULTS: In 2,098 patients randomly assigned, median PFS (based on investigator-determined disease progression [PD]) was 7.4 months in both groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.089; 95% CI, 0.988 to 1.200); upper bound exceeded prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.15. Median PFS per independent review committee-determined PD was 7.6 months in both groups (HR, 1.028; 95% CI, 0.922 to 1.146); upper bound did not exceed prespecified noninferiority margin. Median overall survival at clinical cutoff (1,337 deaths) was 17.2 months in the EPO and 17.4 months in the best standard of care group (HR, 1.057; 95% CI, 0.949 to 1.177), median time to tumor progression was 7.5 months in both groups (HR, 1.094; 95% CI, 0.991 to 1.209), and overall response rate was 50% versus 51% (odds ratio, 0.950; 95% CI, 0.799 to 1.130). RBC transfusions were 5.8% versus 11.4% (P < .001), and thrombotic vascular events were 2.8% versus 1.4% (P = .038), respectively. CONCLUSION: The primary end point, PFS based on investigator-determined PD, did not meet noninferiority criteria. As a consistency assessment with the primary finding, PFS based on independent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criteria. Overall, this study did not achieve noninferiority objective in ruling out a 15% increased risk in PD/death. RBC transfusion should be the preferred approach for the management of anemia in this population.

Frontline rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib (VR-CAP) or vincristine (R-CHOP) for non-GCB DLBCL.

This phase 2 study evaluated whether substituting bortezomib for vincristine in frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy could improve efficacy in non-germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (non-GCB DLBCL), centrally confirmed by immunohistochemistry (Hans method). In total, 164 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive six 21-day cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), and doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), all IV day 1, prednisone 100 mg/m(2) orally days 1-5, plus either bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib [VR-CAP]; n = 84) or vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) (maximum 2 mg) IV day 1 (R-CHOP; n = 80). There were no significant differences between VR-CAP and R-CHOP in complete response rate (64.5%, 66.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.91; P = .80), overall response rate (93.4%, 98.6%; OR, 0.21; P = .11), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P = .76), or overall survival (HR, 0.89; P = .75). Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 88%, 89%), serious AEs (38%, 34%), discontinuations due to AEs (7%, 3%), and deaths due to AEs (2%, 5%) were similar with VR-CAP and R-CHOP. Grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy rates were 6% and 3%, respectively. VR-CAP did not improve efficacy vs R-CHOP in non-GCB DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01040871.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab in patients with high-risk, relapsed, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive follicular lymphoma: subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2-5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. RESULTS: 103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The phase 3 LYM3001 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT00312845.

Bortezomib plus rituximab versus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, follicular lymphoma: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib and rituximab have shown additive activity in preclinical models of lymphoma, and have been shown to be active and generally well tolerated in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of rituximab alone or combined with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 trial, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive five 35-day cycles consisting of intravenous infusions of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of cycles 2-5, either alone or with bortezomib 1·6 mg/m(2), administered by intravenous injection on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of all cycles. Randomisation was stratified by FLIPI score, previous use of rituximab, time since last therapy, and region. Treatment assignment was based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed by intention to treat. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312845. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2006, and Aug 12, 2008, 676 patients were randomised to receive rituximab (n=340) or bortezomib plus rituximab (n=336). After a median follow-up of 33·9 months (IQR 26·4-39·7), median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·1-12·0) in the rituximab group and 12·8 months (11·5-15·0) in the bortezomib plus rituximab group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·68-0·99; p=0·039). The magnitude of clinical benefit was not as large as the anticipated prespecified improvement of 33% in progression-free survival. Patients in both groups received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-5); 245 of 339 (72%) and 237 of 334 (71%) patients in the rituximab and bortezomib plus rituximab groups, respectively, completed five cycles. Of patients who did not complete five cycles, most discontinued early because of disease progression (77 [23%] patients in the rituximab group, and 56 [17%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group). Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (70 [21%] of 339 rituximab-treated patients vs 152 [46%] of 334 bortezomib plus rituximab treated patients), and serious adverse events (37 [11%] patients vs 59 [18%] patients) were lower in the rituximab group than in the combination group. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (15 [4%] patients in the rituximab group and 37 [11%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group), infection (15 [4%] patients and 36 [11%] patients, respectively), diarrhoea (no patients and 25 [7%] patients, respectively), herpes zoster (one [<1%] patient and 12 [4%] patients, respectively), nausea or vomiting (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (two [<1%] patients and 10 [3%] patients, respectively). No individual serious adverse event was reported by more than three patients in the rituximab group; in the bortezomib plus rituximab group, only pneumonia (seven patients [2%]) and pyrexia (six patients [2%]) were reported in more than five patients. In the bortezomib plus rituximab group 57 (17%) of 334 patients had peripheral neuropathy (including sensory, motor, and sensorimotor neuropathy), including nine (3%) with grade 3 or higher, compared with three (1%) of 339 patients in the rituximab group (no events of grade ≥3). No patients in the rituximab group but three (1%) patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group died of adverse events considered at least possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Although a regimen of bortezomib plus rituximab is feasible, the improvement in progression-free survival provided by this regimen versus rituximab alone was not as great as expected. The regimen might represent a useful addition to the armamentarium, particularly for some subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.