Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Palumbo A et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 536.
Advertisements

Brown JR et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 523.
Phase 1/2 Study of Weekly MLN9708, an Investigational Oral Proteasome Inhibitor, in Combination with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Patients with Previously.
Goede V et al. Proc ASCO 2013;Abstract 7004.
Palumbo A et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract 446.
LaCasce A et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 293.
Kovacs G et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 23.
1 Baz R et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract Lacy MQ et al.
Bosch F et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 3345.
The Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) Inhibitor Ibrutinib (PCI-32765) Promotes High Response Rate, Durable Remissions, and is Tolerable in Treatment- Naïve.
ENESTnd Update: Nilotinib (NIL) vs Imatinib (IM) in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and the Impact.
A Phase 2 Study of Elotuzumab in Combination with Lenalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated.
NHL13: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Study of Rituximab as Maintenance Treatment versus Observation Alone in Patients with Aggressive B ‐ Cell Lymphoma.
Alternating Courses of CHOP and DHAP Plus Rituximab (R) Followed by a High-Dose Cytarabine Regimen and ASCT is Superior to Six Courses of CHOP Plus R Followed.
Ibrutinib in Combination with Bendamustine and Rituximab Is Active and Tolerable in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory CLL/SLL: Final Results of a Phase.
A Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Consolidation with a Single Dose of 90 Y Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin ® ) (Z) vs Maintenance with Rituximab (R)
Final Analysis of Overall Survival for the Phase III CONFIRM Trial: Fulvestrant 500 mg versus 250 mg Di Leo A et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-4.
Dose-Adjusted EPOCH plus Rituximab in Untreated Patients with Poor Prognosis Large B-Cell Lymphoma, with Analysis of Germinal Center and Activated B-Cell.
Ruan J et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 247.
Improved Survival in Patients with First Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated with Vosaroxin plus Cytarabine versus Placebo plus.
Head-to-Head Comparison of Obinutuzumab (GA101) plus Chlorambucil (Clb) versus Rituximab plus Clb in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and.
Rituximab plus Lenalidomide Improves the Complete Remission Rate in Comparison with Rituximab Monotherapy in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in.
Increased Incidence of Therapy- Related Myeloid Neoplasia (t-MN) After Initial Therapy for CLL with Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide (FC) vs Fludarabine (F):
Maintenance Therapy with Bortezomib plus Thalidomide (VT) or Bortezomib plus Prednisone (VP) in Elderly Myeloma Patients Included in the GEM2005MAS65 Spanish.
Frontline Chemoimmunotherapy with Fludarabine (F), Cyclophosphamide (C), and Rituximab (R) (FCR) Shows Superior Efficacy in Comparison to Bendamustine.
A Phase 3 Prospective, Randomized, International Study (MMY-3021) Comparing Subcutaneous and Intravenous Administration of Bortezomib in Patients with.
Safety and Efficacy of Abbreviated Induction with Oral Fludarabine (F) and Cyclophosphamide (C) Combined with Dose-Dense IV Rituximab (R) in Previously.
A Phase 1 Study of the Selective Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase-Delta (PI3Kδ) Inhibitor, Idelalisib (GS- 1101) in Combination with Rituximab and/or Bendamustine.
A Phase II Study of Lenalidomide for Previously Untreated Deletion (del) 5q Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Patients Age 60 or Older Who Are Not Candidates.
Second Interim Analysis of a Phase 3 Study of Idelalisib Plus Rituximab (R) for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Efficacy Analysis in Patient.
Ibrutinib in Combination with Rituximab (iR) Is Well Tolerated and Induces a High Rate of Durable Remissions in Patients with High- Risk Chronic Lymphocytic.
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 673.
Chemoimmunotherapy with Fludarabine (F), Cyclophosphamide (C), and Rituximab (R) (FCR) versus Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) in Previously Untreated and.
Phase II Trial of R-CHOP plus Bortezomib Induction Therapy Followed by Bortezomib Maintenance for Previously Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma: SWOG 0601.
Rituximab Maintenance After Chemoimmunotherapy Induction in 1 st and 2 nd Line Improves Progression Free Survival: Planned Interim Analysis of the International.
Brentuximab Vedotin in Combination with RCHOP as Front-Line Therapy in Patients with DLBCL: Interim Results from a Phase 2 Study Yasenchak CA et al. Proc.
Romidepsin in Association with CHOP in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results of the Phase Ib/II Ro-CHOP Study Dupuis J et al. Proc ASH.
Results from the International, Randomized Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib versus Chlorambucil in Patients 65 Years and Older with Treatment-Naïve CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2TM)1.
Summary Author: Dr. C. Tom Kouroukis, MD MSc FRCPC
A Phase III Randomized Intergroup Trial (SWOG S0016) of CHOP Chemotherapy plus Rituximab vs CHOP Chemotherapy plus Iodine-131-Tositumomab for the Treatment.
Palumbo A et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract 200.
Idelalisib plus Bendamustine and Rituximab (BR) Is Superior to BR Alone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Results of a.
Maury S et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 1.
Attal M et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 310.
DiNardo C et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 327.
Randomized, Open-Label Phase 1/2 Study of Pomalidomide Alone or in Combination with Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple.
Oki Y et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 252.
Mateos MV et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 403.
Jabbour E et al. Proc ASH 2015;Abstract 83.
San Miguel JF et al. 1 Proc EHA 2013;Abstract S1151.
Goede V et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 3327.
Kahl BS et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract LBA-6.
Dimopoulos MA et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract LBA-6.
WHAT IS THE BEST Front-Line REGIMEN for Patients With CLL
Fowler NH et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 8036.
Ferrajoli A et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 1395.
Niesvizky R et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 619.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 857.
Badoux X et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 6508.
Vitolo U et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 777.
Salles GA et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 8004.
Faderl S et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract 6503.
What is the best frontline regimen for CLL patients
Forero-Torres A et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 3711.
LBA-4 A Randomized Phase III Study of Ibrutinib (PCI-32765)-Based Therapy Vs. Standard Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide, and Rituximab (FCR) Chemoimmunotherapy.
Ahmadi T et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 266.
Pomalidomide plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Myeloma Refractory to Both Bortezomib and Lenalidomide: Comparison of Two Dosing Strategies in Dual-Refractory.
Advani RH et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 443.
Leber B et al. Proc ASH 2013;Abstract 94.
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 265.
Presentation transcript:

Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290. Immunochemotherapy with Low-Dose Subcutaneous Alemtuzumab (A) plus Oral Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide (FC) Is Safe and Induces More and Deeper Complete Remissions in Untreated Patients with High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Than Chemotherapy with FC Alone. An Early Analysis of the Randomized Phase-III HOVON68 CLL Trial Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Background Genomic aberrations and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain genes are associated with an unfavorable outcome in CLL (Leukemia 2002;16:993). Although previous studies showed promising results with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) in combination with rituximab, the optimal regimen for patients with high-risk CLL is unknown (Blood 2008;112:975). Alemtuzumab (A), an anti-CD52 antibody, has shown promising results as first-line therapy for CLL and for fludarabine-refractory CLL (J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5616; Blood 2002;99:3554). Objective: Improve the outcome of high-risk CLL by adding low-dose A to FC. Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Phase III HOVON68 Trial Design FC (n = 133*) F 40 mg/m2 PO C 250 mg/m2 PO Eligibility (n = 281) ≤75 years Fit patients with previously untreated high-risk CLL Patients in need of treatment according to NCI/IWCLL guidelines R AFC (n = 129*) A 30 mg SC F 40 mg/m2 PO C 250 mg/m2 PO * The number of patients with evaluable disease at time of analysis Primary endpoint: Progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population Secondary endpoints: Rate of complete remission (CR), rate of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR, overall survival (OS) and toxicity Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Response Rates (Abstract) AFC (n = 129) FC (n = 133) p-value Overall response 88% 80% — CR 57% 45% 0.049 MRD-negative CR 29% 17% <0.02 Median follow-up was 30 months There was no difference in response between treatments when patients were classified according to Binet stage or beta-2-microglobulin level. Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Survival Rates (Abstract) Response AFC (n = 129) FC (n = 133) p-value Median PFS 37 months 31 months 0.08 Though statistically insignificant, there was a trend toward improved PFS with AFC treatment in the patient subgroups with 17p deletions, 11q deletions, trisomy 12 or unmutated IGH genes. There was no difference in PFS between treatments when patients were classified according to Binet stage or beta-2-microglobulin level. The median OS has not yet been reached. Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Adverse Events (AEs) (Abstract) AFC FC p-value Severe AEs (mostly Grade 3) Flulike symptoms Opportunistic infections Organ toxicity 145 27 25 34 90 2 11 14 <0.0001 — Treatment-related death 6 There were no differences between treatment arms in the number of neutropenic events and the occurrence of other infections. Vigilance and prophylaxis against infection were maintained throughout the study. Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Author Conclusions The addition of low-dose alemtuzumab, administered subcutaneously, to FC induced a higher rate and quality of CR versus FC therapy alone. However, neither PFS nor OS results differed significantly between treatment arms in this early analysis. Because combination therapy with AFC is more immunosuppressive than FC only, there was a greater number of opportunistic infections with AFC. With proper vigilance and prophylactic measures, these infections were manageable and did not lead to excessive mortality. Geisler C et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 290.

Investigator Commentary: Immunochemotherapy with Alemtuzumab in Combination with Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide Is Safe and Induces More and Deeper Complete Remissions in Untreated High-Risk CLL than FC Alone This study is important because it was a randomized trial comparing FC to alemtuzumab and FC (AFC). The efficacy of the AFC and FC arms was comparable, with similar overall and complete remission rates. However, the complete remission rates statistically favored the AFC arm. More toxicity was seen in the AFC arm, particularly flulike symptoms and infections, which are known to occur with alemtuzumab. The big question that arises is how a standard regimen like rituximab in combination with FC (FCR) would compare to AFC and FC with regard to efficacy and tolerability. Data from certain groups, such as the MD Anderson group, showed that when you add alemtuzumab to an FCR regimen, this 4-drug regimen results in more infectious complications. Overall, although this is an interesting approach to treatment, I don’t believe it is practice changing. Interview with John P Leonard, MD, April 6, 2012