2018 ASCO Annual Meeting

CHICAGO – Positron emission tomography (PET) performed after two cycles of BEACOPP could help identify a subset of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients who can receive de-escalated treatment without compromising disease control, results of a phase 3 randomized trial show.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) exceeded 85% not only for patients receiving six cycles of escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) but also for patients who were de-escalated to ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy based on negative PET results, according to the final analysis of the AHL2011 LYSA study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This approach allows us to significantly reduce the treatment-related toxicity in most patients, and provides similar patient outcomes compared to standard BEACOPP escalated treatment,” said Olivier Casasnovas, MD, of the University Hospital Le Bocage and Inserm, Dijon, France.

Previous studies have shown that BEACOPP may improve PFS, compared with ABVD, but is more toxic and associated with a higher risk of infertility and myelodysplasia or acute leukemia. Dr. Casasnovas and his colleagues sought to evaluate whether upfront BEACOPP followed by de-escalation to ABVD, when warranted by negative PET results, would improve outcomes without compromising efficacy.

The AHL2011 LYSA study included 823 patients (median age, 30 years; 63% male) with previously untreated advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients received PET at baseline, after cycle two of chemotherapy, and again after cycle four.

Patients were randomized either to six cycles of escalated BEACOPP, or to an experimental arm in which patients started with BEACOPP but were de-escalated to ABVD if PET results were negative after two or four cycles of treatment.

PET results after cycle two were negative for 87% of patients in the experimental arm, so on an intent-to-treat basis, 84% of them received two cycles of BEACOPP and four cycles of ABVD, Dr. Casasnovas reported.

PFS, with a median follow-up of 50.4 months, was not significantly different for the standard versus the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.084; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.59; P = .68). Five-year PFS was 85.7% in the experimental treatment de-escalation arm, compared with 86.2% in the standard arm.

Overall survival was likewise similar between arms, with 5-year overall survival exceeding 95% in both groups, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Although there was no significant difference overall in the incidence of adverse events, there was significantly less anemia, febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and sepsis in the PET-driven de-escalation arm. Overall, 27% of patients in the standard chemotherapy arm experienced at least one serious adverse event, compared with 17% in the PET-driven arm (P less than .002).

The incidence of second primary malignancies was numerically lower in the experimental arm (1.2% vs. 2.4%), though that finding did not reach statistical significance.

On multivariate analysis, interim PET positivity after cycle two was associated with increased risk of disease progression for patients in this study (HR, 3.316). Risk of progression was even higher for patients with PET positivity after four cycles (HR, 12.968), identifying a subset of patients with “particularly poor outcome” who could benefit from development of new treatment options, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Dr. Casasnovas reported financial ties to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Casasnovas O et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7503.

CHICAGO – Positron emission tomography (PET) performed after two cycles of BEACOPP could help identify a subset of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients who can receive de-escalated treatment without compromising disease control, results of a phase 3 randomized trial show.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) exceeded 85% not only for patients receiving six cycles of escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) but also for patients who were de-escalated to ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy based on negative PET results, according to the final analysis of the AHL2011 LYSA study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This approach allows us to significantly reduce the treatment-related toxicity in most patients, and provides similar patient outcomes compared to standard BEACOPP escalated treatment,” said Olivier Casasnovas, MD, of the University Hospital Le Bocage and Inserm, Dijon, France.

Previous studies have shown that BEACOPP may improve PFS, compared with ABVD, but is more toxic and associated with a higher risk of infertility and myelodysplasia or acute leukemia. Dr. Casasnovas and his colleagues sought to evaluate whether upfront BEACOPP followed by de-escalation to ABVD, when warranted by negative PET results, would improve outcomes without compromising efficacy.

The AHL2011 LYSA study included 823 patients (median age, 30 years; 63% male) with previously untreated advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients received PET at baseline, after cycle two of chemotherapy, and again after cycle four.

Patients were randomized either to six cycles of escalated BEACOPP, or to an experimental arm in which patients started with BEACOPP but were de-escalated to ABVD if PET results were negative after two or four cycles of treatment.

PET results after cycle two were negative for 87% of patients in the experimental arm, so on an intent-to-treat basis, 84% of them received two cycles of BEACOPP and four cycles of ABVD, Dr. Casasnovas reported.

PFS, with a median follow-up of 50.4 months, was not significantly different for the standard versus the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.084; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.59; P = .68). Five-year PFS was 85.7% in the experimental treatment de-escalation arm, compared with 86.2% in the standard arm.

Overall survival was likewise similar between arms, with 5-year overall survival exceeding 95% in both groups, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Although there was no significant difference overall in the incidence of adverse events, there was significantly less anemia, febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and sepsis in the PET-driven de-escalation arm. Overall, 27% of patients in the standard chemotherapy arm experienced at least one serious adverse event, compared with 17% in the PET-driven arm (P less than .002).

The incidence of second primary malignancies was numerically lower in the experimental arm (1.2% vs. 2.4%), though that finding did not reach statistical significance.

On multivariate analysis, interim PET positivity after cycle two was associated with increased risk of disease progression for patients in this study (HR, 3.316). Risk of progression was even higher for patients with PET positivity after four cycles (HR, 12.968), identifying a subset of patients with “particularly poor outcome” who could benefit from development of new treatment options, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Dr. Casasnovas reported financial ties to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Casasnovas O et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7503.

CHICAGO – Positron emission tomography (PET) performed after two cycles of BEACOPP could help identify a subset of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients who can receive de-escalated treatment without compromising disease control, results of a phase 3 randomized trial show.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) exceeded 85% not only for patients receiving six cycles of escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) but also for patients who were de-escalated to ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy based on negative PET results, according to the final analysis of the AHL2011 LYSA study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This approach allows us to significantly reduce the treatment-related toxicity in most patients, and provides similar patient outcomes compared to standard BEACOPP escalated treatment,” said Olivier Casasnovas, MD, of the University Hospital Le Bocage and Inserm, Dijon, France.

Previous studies have shown that BEACOPP may improve PFS, compared with ABVD, but is more toxic and associated with a higher risk of infertility and myelodysplasia or acute leukemia. Dr. Casasnovas and his colleagues sought to evaluate whether upfront BEACOPP followed by de-escalation to ABVD, when warranted by negative PET results, would improve outcomes without compromising efficacy.

The AHL2011 LYSA study included 823 patients (median age, 30 years; 63% male) with previously untreated advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma. All patients received PET at baseline, after cycle two of chemotherapy, and again after cycle four.

Patients were randomized either to six cycles of escalated BEACOPP, or to an experimental arm in which patients started with BEACOPP but were de-escalated to ABVD if PET results were negative after two or four cycles of treatment.

PET results after cycle two were negative for 87% of patients in the experimental arm, so on an intent-to-treat basis, 84% of them received two cycles of BEACOPP and four cycles of ABVD, Dr. Casasnovas reported.

PFS, with a median follow-up of 50.4 months, was not significantly different for the standard versus the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.084; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.59; P = .68). Five-year PFS was 85.7% in the experimental treatment de-escalation arm, compared with 86.2% in the standard arm.

Overall survival was likewise similar between arms, with 5-year overall survival exceeding 95% in both groups, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Although there was no significant difference overall in the incidence of adverse events, there was significantly less anemia, febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and sepsis in the PET-driven de-escalation arm. Overall, 27% of patients in the standard chemotherapy arm experienced at least one serious adverse event, compared with 17% in the PET-driven arm (P less than .002).

The incidence of second primary malignancies was numerically lower in the experimental arm (1.2% vs. 2.4%), though that finding did not reach statistical significance.

On multivariate analysis, interim PET positivity after cycle two was associated with increased risk of disease progression for patients in this study (HR, 3.316). Risk of progression was even higher for patients with PET positivity after four cycles (HR, 12.968), identifying a subset of patients with “particularly poor outcome” who could benefit from development of new treatment options, Dr. Casasnovas said.

Dr. Casasnovas reported financial ties to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Casasnovas O et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 7503.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.

CHICAGO – Daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (D-Kd) was a safe and effective regimen for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, even in those with disease refractory to lenalidomide, in an open label, phase 1b study.

The regimen was well tolerated, with low rates of neutropenia both overall and in the lenalidomide-refractory subset of patients, according to this subgroup analysis of MMY1001.

The D-Kd regimen produced deep and durable responses, with an “encouraging” median progression-free survival of approximately 14 months for lenalidomide-refractory patients, according to investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma have often been excluded from recent phase 3 studies in the relapsed/refractory setting, Dr. Chari noted in a presentation of the data at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “With the increasing adoption of lenalidomide maintenance, based on overall survival benefit, clearly there’s a need for more data on lenalidomide-refractory, relapsed refractory myeloma.”

The analysis by Dr. Chari and his colleagues was based on 85 previously treated, carfilzomib-naive patients, of whom 51 were lenalidomide refractory, in the MMY1001 study.

Patients received carfilzomib on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles and dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly. They received daratumumab weekly for the first 2 cycles, every 2 weeks for the next 4 cycles, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Ten patients received a standard single first dose of daratumumab, while 75 received a split first dose.

Some grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were observed, and the rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was 21% overall. The most common nonhematologic toxicities reaching grade 3/4 included asthenia and hypertension at 12% and 14%, respectively. A similar safety profile was seen in the lenalidomide-refractory subset, according to Dr. Chari.

Grade 3 cardiac treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in seven patients, and resolved in five of them. One patient had a grade 4 event that resolved. Cardiac adverse events improved in grade upon interruption of carfilzomib, Dr. Chari said.

With a median follow-up of 12 months, the response rate was 84% overall, which was comparable to the 79% rate seen in the lenalidomide-refractory patients and 90% rate seen in the patients who were exposed to lenalidomide but not refractory, according to Dr. Chari.

Median progression-free survival had not been reached for the overall patient cohort but was 14.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort, Dr. Chari said. The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 71% overall, 62% for lenalidomide-refractory patients, and 87% for lenalidomide-exposed patients.

Median overall survival was not reached overall, not reached in lenalidomide-exposed patients, and was 21.1 months in the lenalidomide-refractory group, he added.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 5 out of 10 patients who received a standard single first infusion of daratumumab. In patients who received a split first infusion, reactions were seen in 27 (36%) on day 1 and in 3 (4%) on day 2. “Importantly, I think this study highlights the ability to do split dosing, particularly in community practices, and to improve patient convenience,” Dr. Chari said.

Dr. Chari reported disclosures related to Janssen Oncology, the maker of daratumumab, and Amgen, the maker of carfilzomib, as well as Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Array Biopharma, Bayer, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Onyx, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Chari A et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8002.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

CHICAGO – For patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously exposed to lenalidomide, the combination of pomalidomide plus bortezomib and low‐dose dexamethasone (PVd) improved response and progression-free survival, results of the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial showed.

Risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 39%, compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone alone (Vd), among patients in the trial, of whom approximately 70% were lenalidomide refractory, reported investigator Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The improvements in efficacy seen with the PVd regimen were more pronounced in patients with only one prior line of therapy, and overall, the safety profile of the triplet regimen was consistent with known toxicities of each individual agent, Dr. Richardson reported.

Together, those results “would seem to support the use of this triplet [therapy] in first relapse in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and prior exposure to lenalidomide,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This study, importantly, evaluated a clinically relevant patient population and a growing patient population who receive upfront lenalidomide and maintenance in that setting and for whom lenalidomide is no longer a viable treatment option,” Dr. Richardson added.

Lenalidomide has become a mainstay of upfront myeloma treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to lenalidomide as maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it’s important to understand the benefits of triplet therapies in patients progressing on lenalidomide therapy and in whom lenalidomide is no longer a treatment option, Dr. Richardson said.

Pomalidomide, a potent oral immunomodulatory agent, is already approved for relapsed/refractory myeloma after two or more previous therapies that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor in patients who progress on or within 60 days of treatment.

In the OPTIMISMM trial, 559 patients who had received prior therapy, including at least two cycles of lenalidomide, were randomized to receive either PVd or Vd until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 11.20 months for PVd versus 7.10 months for Vd (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.77; P less than .0001).

Progression-free survival results were “even more encouraging” in the subset of patients with only one prior line of therapy, Dr. Richardson said, reporting a median of 20.73 months for PVd versus 11.63 for Vd (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .0027).

The overall response rate was 82.2% for PVd versus 50.0% for Vd (P less than .001). In patients with only one prior line of therapy, the overall response rate was 90.1% and 54.8% for PVd and Vd, respectively (P less than .001).

The progression-free survival advantage occurred regardless of whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, Dr. Richardson added. Median progression-free survival for PVd versus Vd was 9.53 and 5.59 months, respectively, in the lenalidomide-refractory patients (P less than .001) and 22.01 versus 11.63 months in non–lenalidomide refractory patients (P less than .001).

The side effect profile of PVd was “very much as expected,” with more neutropenia seen with the PVd than with Vd, though rates of febrile neutropenia were low, Dr. Richardson said. Likewise, the rate of infection was higher in the triplet arm, but it was generally manageable, he added.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism rates were low in both arms, as were the rates of secondary primary malignancies. Analysis of minimal residual disease and quality of life are ongoing.

PVd could “arguably be now an important treatment platform for future directions in combination with other strategies,” Dr. Richardson said.

The study was supported by Celgene. Dr. Richardson reported advisory board work for Celgene, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract 8001.

Pazopanib can be considered as a first line alternative treatment to doxorubicin in patients over age 60 with advanced, inoperable soft tissue sarcomas, based on the results of the phase 2 EPAZ study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pazopanib outcomes compared to those with doxorubicin in the study; but unlike doxorubicin, pazopanib was not associated with neutropenia, reported Viktor Grünwald, MD, of the Medical School Hanover, Germany. “The distinct AE (adverse event) profile may be used to council patients and tailor therapy to individual needs.”

In the randomized study with a median 12-month follow up of previously untreated patients with a median age of 71 years, the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and neutropenic fever were 56% and 10% for 39 patients given doxorubicin and 0% and 0% for 81 patients given pazopanib, respectively. Overall survival was 14.3 months and 12.3 months, a nonsignificant difference. The most frequent adverse events for doxorubicin were fatigue (64.9%), alopecia (56.8%) and nausea (48.6%), and for pazopanib they were fatigue (58%), nausea (43.2%) and diarrhea (43.2%). Similar outcomes were reported for global EORTC QLQ-C30 measures.

EPAZ included patients aged 60 years and older (median 71 years) with no prior systemic treatment for soft tissue sarcoma, progressive disease, ECOG 0-2, and adequate organ function. After 1:2 randomization, patients received either doxorubicin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for a total of 6 cycles or oral pazopanib 800 mg/day given continuously. ECOG 2 and liposarcoma histology were used for stratification.

Dr. Grunwald and several of his co-authors disclosed financial relationships with various drug companies including Novartis, the maker of pazopanib (Votrient). Clinical trial information: NCT01861951
 

SOURCE: Grunwald V et al. ASCO 2018 (annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology), Abstract 11506.

Pazopanib can be considered as a first line alternative treatment to doxorubicin in patients over age 60 with advanced, inoperable soft tissue sarcomas, based on the results of the phase 2 EPAZ study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pazopanib outcomes compared to those with doxorubicin in the study; but unlike doxorubicin, pazopanib was not associated with neutropenia, reported Viktor Grünwald, MD, of the Medical School Hanover, Germany. “The distinct AE (adverse event) profile may be used to council patients and tailor therapy to individual needs.”

In the randomized study with a median 12-month follow up of previously untreated patients with a median age of 71 years, the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and neutropenic fever were 56% and 10% for 39 patients given doxorubicin and 0% and 0% for 81 patients given pazopanib, respectively. Overall survival was 14.3 months and 12.3 months, a nonsignificant difference. The most frequent adverse events for doxorubicin were fatigue (64.9%), alopecia (56.8%) and nausea (48.6%), and for pazopanib they were fatigue (58%), nausea (43.2%) and diarrhea (43.2%). Similar outcomes were reported for global EORTC QLQ-C30 measures.

EPAZ included patients aged 60 years and older (median 71 years) with no prior systemic treatment for soft tissue sarcoma, progressive disease, ECOG 0-2, and adequate organ function. After 1:2 randomization, patients received either doxorubicin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for a total of 6 cycles or oral pazopanib 800 mg/day given continuously. ECOG 2 and liposarcoma histology were used for stratification.

Dr. Grunwald and several of his co-authors disclosed financial relationships with various drug companies including Novartis, the maker of pazopanib (Votrient). Clinical trial information: NCT01861951
 

SOURCE: Grunwald V et al. ASCO 2018 (annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology), Abstract 11506.

Pazopanib can be considered as a first line alternative treatment to doxorubicin in patients over age 60 with advanced, inoperable soft tissue sarcomas, based on the results of the phase 2 EPAZ study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Pazopanib outcomes compared to those with doxorubicin in the study; but unlike doxorubicin, pazopanib was not associated with neutropenia, reported Viktor Grünwald, MD, of the Medical School Hanover, Germany. “The distinct AE (adverse event) profile may be used to council patients and tailor therapy to individual needs.”

In the randomized study with a median 12-month follow up of previously untreated patients with a median age of 71 years, the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and neutropenic fever were 56% and 10% for 39 patients given doxorubicin and 0% and 0% for 81 patients given pazopanib, respectively. Overall survival was 14.3 months and 12.3 months, a nonsignificant difference. The most frequent adverse events for doxorubicin were fatigue (64.9%), alopecia (56.8%) and nausea (48.6%), and for pazopanib they were fatigue (58%), nausea (43.2%) and diarrhea (43.2%). Similar outcomes were reported for global EORTC QLQ-C30 measures.

EPAZ included patients aged 60 years and older (median 71 years) with no prior systemic treatment for soft tissue sarcoma, progressive disease, ECOG 0-2, and adequate organ function. After 1:2 randomization, patients received either doxorubicin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for a total of 6 cycles or oral pazopanib 800 mg/day given continuously. ECOG 2 and liposarcoma histology were used for stratification.

Dr. Grunwald and several of his co-authors disclosed financial relationships with various drug companies including Novartis, the maker of pazopanib (Votrient). Clinical trial information: NCT01861951
 

SOURCE: Grunwald V et al. ASCO 2018 (annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology), Abstract 11506.

CHICAGO – The CD19–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017) produced durable responses in poor-prognosis patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follow-up results of a phase 1 trial show.

Nearly 90% of DLBCL patients who achieved complete response as their best response on liso-cel were alive at 1 year in the study, according to investigator Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

That result is “far superior to what we would have anticipated with conventional therapies in a largely chemorefractory DLBCL population,” Dr. Abramson said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The new data on liso-cel come on the heels of a second approval of a CAR T-cell therapy for DLBCL, noted Caron Jacobson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) was approved in October 2017 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL. In May 2018, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) received its second FDA approval to treat relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL.

CAR T-cell therapy “really has transformed outcomes for a group of patients who previously had no other standard of care and who… have a relatively short overall survival,” Dr. Jacobson said.

At the meeting, Dr. Abramson presented findings on DLBCL patients in TRANSCEND NHL 001, a phase 1, multicenter, open-label study of the CD-19 targeted CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed and refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

About 90% of treated DLBCL patients had one or more poor-risk disease features, such as ECOG performance status 2 and primary refractory disease, which predict poor overall survival, according to Dr. Abramson.

Dr. Abramson’s presentation focused on 102 evaluable DLBCL patients in the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts of the TRANSCEND study, including a subset analysis of a core group of 73 patients who met the criteria for pivotal dose cohort of the study (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose).

For the full set of 102 DLBCL patients, the best overall response rate was 75%, including a best complete remission rate of 55%, according to presented data. In the core group of 73 DLBCL patients, best overall response and complete remission rates were 80% and 59%, respectively.

Investigators saw “encouraging” durable response rates at 6 months and beyond in the core DLBCL population, according to Dr. Abramson. Of patients with a complete remission at 3 months, 88% remained in complete remission at the 6-month follow-up, and 93% of those in remission at the 6-month time point were in ongoing response at a median follow-up of 8 months.

Median overall survival had not been reached in either the full or core DLBCL cohorts with a median of 12 months follow-up, he added, noting that 90% of patients who achieved complete remission as their best response remained alive at 1 year.

In terms of adverse effects, liso-cel is showing a low and manageable toxicity profile, with very low rates of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity at 1% and 13%, respectively, Dr. Abramson reported.

“This anti-CD19 CAR T cell has remarkable efficacy in a group of highly refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients,” said Dr. Jacobson, commenting on results of the DLBCL subset.

Based on the data presented, liso-cel is “clearly competitive” with the approved CAR T-cell therapies, though she advised caution in comparing across studies. “I don’t think that there will be a randomized study of all three agents, but I do think that we’ll start to get comparative data from single institution experiences that are using all three products,” she said.

The pivotal DLBCL cohort of TRANSCEND NHL 001 has completed accrual and results will be presented at a future meeting, Dr. Abramson said.

Dr. Abramson reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, and Millennium.

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract 7505.

CHICAGO – The CD19–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017) produced durable responses in poor-prognosis patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follow-up results of a phase 1 trial show.

Nearly 90% of DLBCL patients who achieved complete response as their best response on liso-cel were alive at 1 year in the study, according to investigator Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

That result is “far superior to what we would have anticipated with conventional therapies in a largely chemorefractory DLBCL population,” Dr. Abramson said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The new data on liso-cel come on the heels of a second approval of a CAR T-cell therapy for DLBCL, noted Caron Jacobson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) was approved in October 2017 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL. In May 2018, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) received its second FDA approval to treat relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL.

CAR T-cell therapy “really has transformed outcomes for a group of patients who previously had no other standard of care and who… have a relatively short overall survival,” Dr. Jacobson said.

At the meeting, Dr. Abramson presented findings on DLBCL patients in TRANSCEND NHL 001, a phase 1, multicenter, open-label study of the CD-19 targeted CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed and refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

About 90% of treated DLBCL patients had one or more poor-risk disease features, such as ECOG performance status 2 and primary refractory disease, which predict poor overall survival, according to Dr. Abramson.

Dr. Abramson’s presentation focused on 102 evaluable DLBCL patients in the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts of the TRANSCEND study, including a subset analysis of a core group of 73 patients who met the criteria for pivotal dose cohort of the study (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose).

For the full set of 102 DLBCL patients, the best overall response rate was 75%, including a best complete remission rate of 55%, according to presented data. In the core group of 73 DLBCL patients, best overall response and complete remission rates were 80% and 59%, respectively.

Investigators saw “encouraging” durable response rates at 6 months and beyond in the core DLBCL population, according to Dr. Abramson. Of patients with a complete remission at 3 months, 88% remained in complete remission at the 6-month follow-up, and 93% of those in remission at the 6-month time point were in ongoing response at a median follow-up of 8 months.

Median overall survival had not been reached in either the full or core DLBCL cohorts with a median of 12 months follow-up, he added, noting that 90% of patients who achieved complete remission as their best response remained alive at 1 year.

In terms of adverse effects, liso-cel is showing a low and manageable toxicity profile, with very low rates of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity at 1% and 13%, respectively, Dr. Abramson reported.

“This anti-CD19 CAR T cell has remarkable efficacy in a group of highly refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients,” said Dr. Jacobson, commenting on results of the DLBCL subset.

Based on the data presented, liso-cel is “clearly competitive” with the approved CAR T-cell therapies, though she advised caution in comparing across studies. “I don’t think that there will be a randomized study of all three agents, but I do think that we’ll start to get comparative data from single institution experiences that are using all three products,” she said.

The pivotal DLBCL cohort of TRANSCEND NHL 001 has completed accrual and results will be presented at a future meeting, Dr. Abramson said.

Dr. Abramson reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, and Millennium.

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract 7505.

CHICAGO – The CD19–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, JCAR017) produced durable responses in poor-prognosis patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follow-up results of a phase 1 trial show.

Nearly 90% of DLBCL patients who achieved complete response as their best response on liso-cel were alive at 1 year in the study, according to investigator Jeremy S. Abramson, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

That result is “far superior to what we would have anticipated with conventional therapies in a largely chemorefractory DLBCL population,” Dr. Abramson said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The new data on liso-cel come on the heels of a second approval of a CAR T-cell therapy for DLBCL, noted Caron Jacobson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) was approved in October 2017 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL. In May 2018, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) received its second FDA approval to treat relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL.

CAR T-cell therapy “really has transformed outcomes for a group of patients who previously had no other standard of care and who… have a relatively short overall survival,” Dr. Jacobson said.

At the meeting, Dr. Abramson presented findings on DLBCL patients in TRANSCEND NHL 001, a phase 1, multicenter, open-label study of the CD-19 targeted CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed and refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

About 90% of treated DLBCL patients had one or more poor-risk disease features, such as ECOG performance status 2 and primary refractory disease, which predict poor overall survival, according to Dr. Abramson.

Dr. Abramson’s presentation focused on 102 evaluable DLBCL patients in the dose-finding and dose-expansion cohorts of the TRANSCEND study, including a subset analysis of a core group of 73 patients who met the criteria for pivotal dose cohort of the study (1 x 10⁸ cells given as a single dose).

For the full set of 102 DLBCL patients, the best overall response rate was 75%, including a best complete remission rate of 55%, according to presented data. In the core group of 73 DLBCL patients, best overall response and complete remission rates were 80% and 59%, respectively.

Investigators saw “encouraging” durable response rates at 6 months and beyond in the core DLBCL population, according to Dr. Abramson. Of patients with a complete remission at 3 months, 88% remained in complete remission at the 6-month follow-up, and 93% of those in remission at the 6-month time point were in ongoing response at a median follow-up of 8 months.

Median overall survival had not been reached in either the full or core DLBCL cohorts with a median of 12 months follow-up, he added, noting that 90% of patients who achieved complete remission as their best response remained alive at 1 year.

In terms of adverse effects, liso-cel is showing a low and manageable toxicity profile, with very low rates of severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity at 1% and 13%, respectively, Dr. Abramson reported.

“This anti-CD19 CAR T cell has remarkable efficacy in a group of highly refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients,” said Dr. Jacobson, commenting on results of the DLBCL subset.

Based on the data presented, liso-cel is “clearly competitive” with the approved CAR T-cell therapies, though she advised caution in comparing across studies. “I don’t think that there will be a randomized study of all three agents, but I do think that we’ll start to get comparative data from single institution experiences that are using all three products,” she said.

The pivotal DLBCL cohort of TRANSCEND NHL 001 has completed accrual and results will be presented at a future meeting, Dr. Abramson said.

Dr. Abramson reported disclosures related to Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, and Millennium.

SOURCE: Abramson JS et al. ASCO 2018. Abstract 7505.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows promising efficacy and tolerability in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC), according to findings from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-427 study.

At a median follow-up of 12 months, the overall response rate in 110 study participants with at least one post-baseline assessment was 38%. Three patients (2.7%) achieved a complete response and 39 (35.5%) achieved a partial response, David F. McDermott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The disease control rate was 59%,” he said.

Overall, 67% of the patients experienced a reduction in tumor burden, 14% experienced at least an 80% reduction, and 7% experienced a 100% reduction of their target lesion, said Dr. McDermott of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Most tumor responses occurred early in the course of therapy,” he noted.

The median time to response was 2.8 months, and the median duration of response was not reached at data cutoff, but 74.8% of responders had a response lasting at least 6 months.

An analysis by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Criteria (IMDC) category showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 32% among 41 patients with favorable risk, and 42% in 69 patients with intermediate or poor risk.

“Nine of 17 patients in the poor risk group achieved a major response,” Dr. McDermott noted. “Complete and durable responders were seen in all IMDC subgroups.”

In 46 patients with increased PD-L1 expression or a combined positive score of at least 1 the confirmed ORR was 50.0%, and in 53 patients with low PD-L1 expression and a combined positive score less than 1 it was 26%. The ORR was 45% in the remaining patients in whom PD-L1testing could not be performed.

“Of note, all of the complete responses were seen in the PD-L1-high or CPS-greater-than-1 group,” he said.

Median progression-free survival was 8.7 months, and median overall survival has not been reached.

Tolerability of pembrolizumab in this study was acceptable and consistent with that seen with pembrolizumab monotherapy in other tumor types. Although 80% of patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, the events mainly included fatigue, pruritus, diarrhea, rash, and arthralgia, occurring in 12.7% to 27.3% of patients, he said.

Grade 3/4 events occurred in 21.8% of patients and one patient experienced a fatal grade 5 case of pneumonitis, he added, noting that 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

Overall, 61 patients discontinued therapy, and 33 of those discontinued because of disease progression.

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor-based combination therapies have been shown to have clinical benefit when used first-line in accRCC, but data with respect to the clinical impact of first-line PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy are lacking, Dr. McDermott explained.

KEYNOTE-427 was a single-arm, open-label, two-cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy in accRCC and advanced non–clear cell RCC (anccRCC). Patients had accRCC or anccRCC, measurable disease, no prior systemic therapy and Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70% or greater. They were treated with intravenous pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and response was assessed at week 12, then every 6 weeks thereafter until week 54, then every 12 weeks.

The current analysis focused on the accRCC cohort and showed that in treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed accRCC and measurable disease, pembrolizumab shows promising antitumor activity across IMDC risk groups, he said.

“Encouraging activity was also observed in key subgroups, such as the IMDC intermediate/poor risk group ... and patients with [programmed death-ligand 1]-positive tumors,” he said. “The findings ... provide support for the exploration of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting and will allow investigators to put the benefit of anti-PD-1-based combination therapies in better context,” he concluded, noting that KEYNOTE-564, a study of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting is currently enrolling, and the current study (KEYNOTE-427) cohort B exploring pembrolizumab monotherapy in anccRCC patients is ongoing.

Merck sponsored the study. Dr. McDermott reported consulting or advisory roles with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and X4 Pharma. His institution has received research funding from Prometheus Laboratories.

SOURCE: McDermott DF et al., ASCO 2018 Abstract 4500.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows promising efficacy and tolerability in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC), according to findings from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-427 study.

At a median follow-up of 12 months, the overall response rate in 110 study participants with at least one post-baseline assessment was 38%. Three patients (2.7%) achieved a complete response and 39 (35.5%) achieved a partial response, David F. McDermott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The disease control rate was 59%,” he said.

Overall, 67% of the patients experienced a reduction in tumor burden, 14% experienced at least an 80% reduction, and 7% experienced a 100% reduction of their target lesion, said Dr. McDermott of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Most tumor responses occurred early in the course of therapy,” he noted.

The median time to response was 2.8 months, and the median duration of response was not reached at data cutoff, but 74.8% of responders had a response lasting at least 6 months.

An analysis by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Criteria (IMDC) category showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 32% among 41 patients with favorable risk, and 42% in 69 patients with intermediate or poor risk.

“Nine of 17 patients in the poor risk group achieved a major response,” Dr. McDermott noted. “Complete and durable responders were seen in all IMDC subgroups.”

In 46 patients with increased PD-L1 expression or a combined positive score of at least 1 the confirmed ORR was 50.0%, and in 53 patients with low PD-L1 expression and a combined positive score less than 1 it was 26%. The ORR was 45% in the remaining patients in whom PD-L1testing could not be performed.

“Of note, all of the complete responses were seen in the PD-L1-high or CPS-greater-than-1 group,” he said.

Median progression-free survival was 8.7 months, and median overall survival has not been reached.

Tolerability of pembrolizumab in this study was acceptable and consistent with that seen with pembrolizumab monotherapy in other tumor types. Although 80% of patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, the events mainly included fatigue, pruritus, diarrhea, rash, and arthralgia, occurring in 12.7% to 27.3% of patients, he said.

Grade 3/4 events occurred in 21.8% of patients and one patient experienced a fatal grade 5 case of pneumonitis, he added, noting that 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

Overall, 61 patients discontinued therapy, and 33 of those discontinued because of disease progression.

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor-based combination therapies have been shown to have clinical benefit when used first-line in accRCC, but data with respect to the clinical impact of first-line PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy are lacking, Dr. McDermott explained.

KEYNOTE-427 was a single-arm, open-label, two-cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy in accRCC and advanced non–clear cell RCC (anccRCC). Patients had accRCC or anccRCC, measurable disease, no prior systemic therapy and Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70% or greater. They were treated with intravenous pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and response was assessed at week 12, then every 6 weeks thereafter until week 54, then every 12 weeks.

The current analysis focused on the accRCC cohort and showed that in treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed accRCC and measurable disease, pembrolizumab shows promising antitumor activity across IMDC risk groups, he said.

“Encouraging activity was also observed in key subgroups, such as the IMDC intermediate/poor risk group ... and patients with [programmed death-ligand 1]-positive tumors,” he said. “The findings ... provide support for the exploration of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting and will allow investigators to put the benefit of anti-PD-1-based combination therapies in better context,” he concluded, noting that KEYNOTE-564, a study of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting is currently enrolling, and the current study (KEYNOTE-427) cohort B exploring pembrolizumab monotherapy in anccRCC patients is ongoing.

Merck sponsored the study. Dr. McDermott reported consulting or advisory roles with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and X4 Pharma. His institution has received research funding from Prometheus Laboratories.

SOURCE: McDermott DF et al., ASCO 2018 Abstract 4500.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows promising efficacy and tolerability in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC), according to findings from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-427 study.

At a median follow-up of 12 months, the overall response rate in 110 study participants with at least one post-baseline assessment was 38%. Three patients (2.7%) achieved a complete response and 39 (35.5%) achieved a partial response, David F. McDermott, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The disease control rate was 59%,” he said.

Overall, 67% of the patients experienced a reduction in tumor burden, 14% experienced at least an 80% reduction, and 7% experienced a 100% reduction of their target lesion, said Dr. McDermott of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Most tumor responses occurred early in the course of therapy,” he noted.

The median time to response was 2.8 months, and the median duration of response was not reached at data cutoff, but 74.8% of responders had a response lasting at least 6 months.

An analysis by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Criteria (IMDC) category showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 32% among 41 patients with favorable risk, and 42% in 69 patients with intermediate or poor risk.

“Nine of 17 patients in the poor risk group achieved a major response,” Dr. McDermott noted. “Complete and durable responders were seen in all IMDC subgroups.”

In 46 patients with increased PD-L1 expression or a combined positive score of at least 1 the confirmed ORR was 50.0%, and in 53 patients with low PD-L1 expression and a combined positive score less than 1 it was 26%. The ORR was 45% in the remaining patients in whom PD-L1testing could not be performed.

“Of note, all of the complete responses were seen in the PD-L1-high or CPS-greater-than-1 group,” he said.

Median progression-free survival was 8.7 months, and median overall survival has not been reached.

Tolerability of pembrolizumab in this study was acceptable and consistent with that seen with pembrolizumab monotherapy in other tumor types. Although 80% of patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event, the events mainly included fatigue, pruritus, diarrhea, rash, and arthralgia, occurring in 12.7% to 27.3% of patients, he said.

Grade 3/4 events occurred in 21.8% of patients and one patient experienced a fatal grade 5 case of pneumonitis, he added, noting that 11% of patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event.

Overall, 61 patients discontinued therapy, and 33 of those discontinued because of disease progression.

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor-based combination therapies have been shown to have clinical benefit when used first-line in accRCC, but data with respect to the clinical impact of first-line PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy are lacking, Dr. McDermott explained.

KEYNOTE-427 was a single-arm, open-label, two-cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy in accRCC and advanced non–clear cell RCC (anccRCC). Patients had accRCC or anccRCC, measurable disease, no prior systemic therapy and Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70% or greater. They were treated with intravenous pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks, and response was assessed at week 12, then every 6 weeks thereafter until week 54, then every 12 weeks.

The current analysis focused on the accRCC cohort and showed that in treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed accRCC and measurable disease, pembrolizumab shows promising antitumor activity across IMDC risk groups, he said.

“Encouraging activity was also observed in key subgroups, such as the IMDC intermediate/poor risk group ... and patients with [programmed death-ligand 1]-positive tumors,” he said. “The findings ... provide support for the exploration of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting and will allow investigators to put the benefit of anti-PD-1-based combination therapies in better context,” he concluded, noting that KEYNOTE-564, a study of pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting is currently enrolling, and the current study (KEYNOTE-427) cohort B exploring pembrolizumab monotherapy in anccRCC patients is ongoing.

Merck sponsored the study. Dr. McDermott reported consulting or advisory roles with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and X4 Pharma. His institution has received research funding from Prometheus Laboratories.

SOURCE: McDermott DF et al., ASCO 2018 Abstract 4500.

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—A novel CD19-targeted T-cell therapy induced complete metabolic responses (CMRs) and no cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in patients with B-cell lymphomas in a first-in-human clinical study.

All subjects achieving CMR at the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment continued to show CMR at 3 months, investigators reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 3049*).

The therapy is built on a novel platform, ARTEMIS, designed to match the potency of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy but trigger less cytokine release when the target is engaged, investigators explained.

That platform is “potentially a major improvement” over existing CAR-T cell therapy, said Zhi Tao Ying, MD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute in Beijing, China, and coauthors in a poster presented at ASCO.

The treatment, called ET190L1-ARTEMIS, utilizes the T-cell receptor platform and a proprietary human anti-CD19 antibody to target CD19-positive malignancies.

The investigators reported on 21 adults with CD-19 positive relapsed and refractory B-cell lymphomas who had received a median of 4 lines of previous therapy.

Patients received autologous ET190L1-ARTEMIS T cells in 1 of 3 dosing cohorts: 3 patients at 1 x 10⁶/kg, 13 at 3 x 10⁶/kg, and 5 at 6 x 10⁶/kg.

Of 17 patients completing a first-month efficacy assessment, 11 (65%) responded, including 7 CMRs and 3 partial responses. One patient had stable disease.

Seven of the 11 responders completed a third-month efficacy assessment, as of this analysis. Of 5 patients with CMR at month 1, all 5 maintained CMR at month 3. Likewise, 1 patient in partial response and 1 with stable disease at month 1 had the same response status at month 3.

There were no cases of CRS or neurotoxicity in 17 patients who completed the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment reported at ASCO. Grade 3 or greater adverse events in those subjects included lymphopenia in 17 (100%) and neutropenia in 5 (29%).

Eureka Therapeutics Inc., of Emeryville, California, is developing ET190L1-ARTEMIS. Co-investigators in this trial were from Eureka, Xi-An Jiaotong University in China, and Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

A phase 1 trial of ET190L1-ARTEMIS in patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma has been initiated at Duke University, and  investigators say another US phase 1 trial including relapsed and refractory pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients will begin later this year. 

Data in the abstract differ from that presented in the poster.

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—A novel CD19-targeted T-cell therapy induced complete metabolic responses (CMRs) and no cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in patients with B-cell lymphomas in a first-in-human clinical study.

All subjects achieving CMR at the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment continued to show CMR at 3 months, investigators reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 3049*).

The therapy is built on a novel platform, ARTEMIS, designed to match the potency of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy but trigger less cytokine release when the target is engaged, investigators explained.

That platform is “potentially a major improvement” over existing CAR-T cell therapy, said Zhi Tao Ying, MD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute in Beijing, China, and coauthors in a poster presented at ASCO.

The treatment, called ET190L1-ARTEMIS, utilizes the T-cell receptor platform and a proprietary human anti-CD19 antibody to target CD19-positive malignancies.

The investigators reported on 21 adults with CD-19 positive relapsed and refractory B-cell lymphomas who had received a median of 4 lines of previous therapy.

Patients received autologous ET190L1-ARTEMIS T cells in 1 of 3 dosing cohorts: 3 patients at 1 x 10⁶/kg, 13 at 3 x 10⁶/kg, and 5 at 6 x 10⁶/kg.

Of 17 patients completing a first-month efficacy assessment, 11 (65%) responded, including 7 CMRs and 3 partial responses. One patient had stable disease.

Seven of the 11 responders completed a third-month efficacy assessment, as of this analysis. Of 5 patients with CMR at month 1, all 5 maintained CMR at month 3. Likewise, 1 patient in partial response and 1 with stable disease at month 1 had the same response status at month 3.

There were no cases of CRS or neurotoxicity in 17 patients who completed the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment reported at ASCO. Grade 3 or greater adverse events in those subjects included lymphopenia in 17 (100%) and neutropenia in 5 (29%).

Eureka Therapeutics Inc., of Emeryville, California, is developing ET190L1-ARTEMIS. Co-investigators in this trial were from Eureka, Xi-An Jiaotong University in China, and Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

A phase 1 trial of ET190L1-ARTEMIS in patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma has been initiated at Duke University, and  investigators say another US phase 1 trial including relapsed and refractory pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients will begin later this year. 

Data in the abstract differ from that presented in the poster.

©ASCO/Scott Morgan 2018

CHICAGO—A novel CD19-targeted T-cell therapy induced complete metabolic responses (CMRs) and no cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in patients with B-cell lymphomas in a first-in-human clinical study.

All subjects achieving CMR at the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment continued to show CMR at 3 months, investigators reported at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting (abstract 3049*).

The therapy is built on a novel platform, ARTEMIS, designed to match the potency of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy but trigger less cytokine release when the target is engaged, investigators explained.

That platform is “potentially a major improvement” over existing CAR-T cell therapy, said Zhi Tao Ying, MD, of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute in Beijing, China, and coauthors in a poster presented at ASCO.

The treatment, called ET190L1-ARTEMIS, utilizes the T-cell receptor platform and a proprietary human anti-CD19 antibody to target CD19-positive malignancies.

The investigators reported on 21 adults with CD-19 positive relapsed and refractory B-cell lymphomas who had received a median of 4 lines of previous therapy.

Patients received autologous ET190L1-ARTEMIS T cells in 1 of 3 dosing cohorts: 3 patients at 1 x 10⁶/kg, 13 at 3 x 10⁶/kg, and 5 at 6 x 10⁶/kg.

Of 17 patients completing a first-month efficacy assessment, 11 (65%) responded, including 7 CMRs and 3 partial responses. One patient had stable disease.

Seven of the 11 responders completed a third-month efficacy assessment, as of this analysis. Of 5 patients with CMR at month 1, all 5 maintained CMR at month 3. Likewise, 1 patient in partial response and 1 with stable disease at month 1 had the same response status at month 3.

There were no cases of CRS or neurotoxicity in 17 patients who completed the 1-month safety and efficacy assessment reported at ASCO. Grade 3 or greater adverse events in those subjects included lymphopenia in 17 (100%) and neutropenia in 5 (29%).

Eureka Therapeutics Inc., of Emeryville, California, is developing ET190L1-ARTEMIS. Co-investigators in this trial were from Eureka, Xi-An Jiaotong University in China, and Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

A phase 1 trial of ET190L1-ARTEMIS in patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma has been initiated at Duke University, and  investigators say another US phase 1 trial including relapsed and refractory pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients will begin later this year. 

Data in the abstract differ from that presented in the poster.