Ublituximab plus ibrutinib versus ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (GENUINE): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and high-risk features have poorer outcomes on ibrutinib than those without high-risk features. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of adding ublituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, to ibrutinib therapy in this population. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 3, multicentre study (GENUINE) of patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with at least one of 17p deletion, 11q deletion, or TP53 mutation, at 119 clinics in the USA and Israel. Eligible patients had received at least one previous chronic lymphocytic leukaemia therapy and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower. We randomised patients (1:1) using permuted block randomisation with a block size of four and stratified by previous lines of therapy (one vs two or more) to receive ibrutinib alone or ibrutinib in combination with ublituximab. Treatment allocation was not masked to patients or investigators. Ibrutinib was given orally daily at 420 mg for all cycles. Ublituximab was given intravenously in 28-day cycles, with increasing doses during cycle 1 (≤150 mg on day 1, 750 mg on day 2, and 900 mg on days 8 and 15) and continuing at 900 mg on day 1 of cycles 2-6. After cycle 6, ublituximab was given at 900 mg every three cycles. The study was initially designed with co-primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall response rate but due to protracted patient accrual, the protocol was amended to have a single primary endpoint of independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (defined as the proportion of patients who had a partial response, complete response, or complete response with incomplete marrow recovery according to the 2008 International Workshop on CLL criteria) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in the population of patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02301156, and the final analysis is presented. FINDINGS: 224 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 126 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ublituximab plus ibrutinib (n=64) or ibrutinib alone (n=62) between Feb 6, 2015, and Dec 19, 2016. After a median follow-up of 41·6 months (IQR 36·7-47·3), the overall response rate was 53 (83%) of 64 patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 40 (65%) of 62 patients in the ibrutinib group (p=0·020). 117 patients, including 59 in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 58 in the ibrutinib group, received at least one dose of treatment and were included in safety analyses. Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and seven [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anaemia (five [8%] and five [9%]), and diarrhoea (six [10%] and three [5%]). The most common serious adverse events were pneumonia (six [10%] in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and four [7%] in the ibrutinib group), atrial fibrillation (four [7%] and one [2%]), sepsis (four [7%] and one [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [5%] and one [2%]). Two patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group died due to adverse events (one cardiac arrest and one failure to thrive), neither of which were treatment-related. Five patients in the ibrutinib group died due to adverse events, including one cardiac arrest, one cerebral infarction, one intracranial haemorrhage, one Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia infection, and one unexplained death; the death due to cardiac arrest was considered to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The addition of ublituximab to ibrutinib resulted in a statistically higher overall response rate without affecting the safety profile of ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. These findings provide support for the addition of ublituximab to Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of these patients. FUNDING: TG Therapeutics.

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: phase 2 results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a next-generation hypomethylating agent whose active metabolite decitabine has a longer in-vivo exposure time than intravenous decitabine. More effective hypomethylating agents are needed for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. In the present study, we aimed to compare the activity and safety of two doses of guadecitabine in hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or relapsed or refractory patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: This phase 2 part of the phase 1/2, randomised, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 14 North American medical centres with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1-risk, intermediate-2-risk, or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. They were either hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment as determined by the investigators' judgment. Eligible patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer algorithm for dynamic randomisation to subcutaneous guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment was stratified by previous treatment with hypomethylating agents and neither patients nor investigators were masked. The primary endpoint was overall response (a composite of complete response, partial response, marrow complete response, and haematological improvement) assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2012, and April 7, 2014, 105 patients were enrolled: 55 (52%) were allocated to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 (28 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment) and 50 (48%) patients to 90 mg/m2 (23 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease). Three (3%) patients of 105 did not receive study treatment and were excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 3·2 years (IQR 2·8-3·5). The proportion of patients achieving an overall response did not significantly differ between dose groups (21 of 53 [40%, 95% CI 27-54] with 60 mg/m2 and 27 of 49 [55%, 95% CI 40-69] with 90 mg/m2; p=0·16). 25 of 49 (51%, 95% CI 36-66) patients who were treatment-naive and 23 of 53 (43%, 30-58) patients with relapsed or refractory disease achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups, regardless of relationship to treatment, were thrombocytopenia (22 [41%] of 53 patients in the 60 mg/m2 group and 28 [57%] of 49 in the 90 mg/m2 group), neutropaenia (21 [40%] and 25 [51%]), anaemia (25 [47%] and 24 [49%]), febrile neutropaenia (17 [32%] and 21 [43%]), and pneumonia (13 [25%] and 15 [31%]). Seven (7%) of 102 patients died due to adverse events (three with 90 mg/m2 and four with 60 mg/m2), and all except one were in the relapsed or refractory cohort. Two deaths were deemed treatment related (septic shock with 60 mg/m2; pneumonia with 90 mg/m2). INTERPRETATION: Guadecitabine was clinically active with acceptable tolerability in patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Responses and overall survival in the relapsed or refractory cohort offer the potential of a new therapeutic option for patients for whom currently available hypomethylating agents are not successful. We therefore recommend guadecitabine at a dose of 60 mg/m2 on a 5-day schedule for these patients. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.

DYNAMO: A Phase II Study of Duvelisib (IPI-145) in Patients With Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) remains largely incurable and often requires multiple lines of treatment after becoming refractory to standard therapies. Duvelisib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for relapsed or refractory (RR) chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) and RR follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior systemic therapies. On the basis of the activity of duvelisib, a first-in-class oral dual inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase-δ,-γ, in RR iNHL in a phase I study, the safety and efficacy of duvelisib monotherapy was evaluated in iNHL refractory to rituximab and either chemotherapy or radioimmunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable iNHL (FL, SLL, or marginal zone B-cell lymphoma) double refractory to rituximab (monotherapy or in combination) and to either chemotherapy or radioimmunotherapy. All were treated with duvelisib 25 mg orally twice daily in 28-day cycles until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) using the revised International Working Group criteria for malignant lymphoma. RESULTS: This open-label, global phase II trial enrolled 129 patients (median age, 65 years; median of three prior lines of therapy) with an ORR of 47.3% (SLL, 67.9%; FL, 42.2%; MZL, 38.9%). The estimated median duration of response was 10 months, and the estimated median progression-free survival was 9.5 months. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea (48.8%), nausea (29.5%), neutropenia (28.7%), fatigue (27.9%), and cough (27.1%). Among the 88.4% of patients with at least one grade 3 or greater TEAE, the most common TEAEs were neutropenia (24.8%), diarrhea (14.7%), anemia (14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (11.6%). CONCLUSION: In the DYNAMO study, oral duvelisib monotherapy demonstrated clinically meaningful activity and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated, double-refractory iNHL, consistent with previous observations. Duvelisib may provide a new oral treatment option for this patient population of which many are elderly and in need of additional therapies.

The phase 3 DUO trial: duvelisib vs ofatumumab in relapsed and refractory CLL/SLL.

Duvelisib (also known as IPI-145) is an oral, dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ and γ (PI3K-δ,γ) being developed for treatment of hematologic malignancies. PI3K-δ,γ signaling can promote B-cell proliferation and survival in clonal B-cell malignancies, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). In a phase 1 study, duvelisib showed clinically meaningful activity and acceptable safety in CLL/SLL patients. We report here the results of DUO, a global phase 3 randomized study of duvelisib vs ofatumumab monotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) CLL/SLL. Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral duvelisib 25 mg twice daily (n = 160) or ofatumumab IV (n = 159). The study met the primary study end point by significantly improving progression-free survival per independent review committee assessment compared with ofatumumab for all patients (median, 13.3 months vs 9.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52; P < .0001), including those with high-risk chromosome 17p13.1 deletions [del(17p)] and/or TP53 mutations (HR = 0.40; P = .0002). The overall response rate was significantly higher with duvelisib (74% vs 45%; P < .0001) regardless of del(17p) status. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, neutropenia, pyrexia, nausea, anemia, and cough on the duvelisib arm, and neutropenia and infusion reactions on the ofatumumab arm. The DUO trial data support duvelisib as a potentially effective treatment option for patients with RR CLL/SLL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02004522.

Dose, schedule, safety, and efficacy of guadecitabine in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are poor. Guadecitabine, a next-generation hypomethylating agent, could be useful in treating such patients. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase 2 dose-expansion study, AML patients from 10 North American medical centers were first randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous guadecitabine at 60 or 90 mg/m2 on 5 consecutive days in each 28-day cycle (5-day regimen). Subsequently, another cohort was treated for 10 days with 60 mg/m2 (10-day regimen). RESULTS: Between June 15, 2012, and August 19, 2013, 108 patients with previously treated AML consented to enroll in the study, and 103 of these patients were treated; 5 patients did not receive the study treatment. A total of 103 patients were included in the safety and efficacy analyses (24 and 26 patients who were randomly assigned to 60 and 90 mg/m2 /d, respectively [5-day regimen] and 53 patients who were assigned to 60 mg/m2 /d [10-day regimen]). The 90 mg/m2 dose showed no benefit in clinical outcomes in comparison with 60 mg/m2 in the randomized cohort. Composite complete response (CRc) and complete response (CR) rates were higher with the 10-day regimen versus the 5-day regimen (CRc, 30.2% vs 16.0%; P = .1061; CR, 18.9% vs 8%; P = .15). Adverse events (grade ≥ 3) were mainly hematologic, with a higher incidence on the 10-day regimen. Early all-cause mortality was low and similar between regimens. Twenty patients (8 on the 5-day regimen and 12 on the 10-day regimen) were bridged to hematopoietic cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Guadecitabine has promising clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile and thus warrants further development in this population. Cancer 2018;124:325-34. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

A Phase II Trial Evaluating the Safety of Rapid Infusion of Ofatumumab in Patients with Previously Treated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

LESSONS LEARNED: Ofatumumab infusion reactions can be diminished by escalating the dose rate in individual patients in sequential infusions. BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab (OFA) is a fully humanized, anti-CD20 antibody approved for use in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The recommended administration requires long infusion times. We evaluated an accelerated infusion regimen of 2 hours. METHODS: The first dose of OFA (300 mg) was given on week 1 day 1 starting at 3.6 mg/hour and doubling every 30 minutes until a rate of 240 mg/hour was reached. If tolerated, the second dose (1,000 mg) was given on week 1 day 3 starting at 50 mg/hour and doubling every 30 minutes until a rate of 800 mg/hour was reached. If tolerated, the third dose (2,000 mg) was given on week 2 day 1 at 800 mg/hour over the first 30 minutes and, if tolerated, at 1,068 mg/hour over the next 90 minutes (goal infusion time: 120 minutes). Subsequent OFA infusions were administered weekly in the same manner for 8 weeks, and then monthly for 4 months. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were treated. Most infusion-related reactions occurred during the first and second infusion. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of patients finished the third infusion within 15 minutes of the planned 2 hours and only one had an infusion reaction. CONCLUSION: Using this stepped-up dosing regimen, a rapid infusion of OFA is safe and well tolerated.

Rituximab with or without bevacizumab for the treatment of patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by the interruption of VEGF pathway signaling is of therapeutic value in several solid tumors. Preclinical evidence supports similar importance of the pathway in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In this randomized phase II trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of rituximab with bevacizumab versus single-agent rituximab, in patients with previously-treated follicular lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 60) were randomized (1:1) to receive rituximab (375 mg/m(2) intravenously [I.V.] weekly for 4 weeks) either as a single agent or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg I.V. on days 3 and 15). Patients with an objective response or stable disease at week 12 received 4 additional doses of rituximab (at months 3, 5, 7, and 9); patients who received rituximab/bevacizumab also received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks for 16 doses. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 34 months, PFS was improved in patients who received rituximab/bevacizumab compared with patients who received rituximab alone (median 20.7 vs. 10.4 months respectively; HR, 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.80); P = .007). Overall survival was also improved numerically (73% vs. 53% at 4 years), but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.40 (95% CI, 0.15-1.05); P = .055). The addition of bevacizumab increased the toxicity of therapy, but both regimens were well tolerated (no grade 4 toxicity). CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to rituximab significantly improved PFS. The role of angiogenesis inhibition in the treatment of follicular lymphoma requires further definition in larger clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy/gefitinib followed by concurrent chemotherapy/radiation therapy/gefitinib for patients with locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of gefitinib added to first-line combined-modality therapy for patients with locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck who had low expected cure rates with local treatment modalities alone were eligible for this treatment. All patients received a 6-week induction course of docetaxel, carboplatin, infusional 5-fluorouracil, and gefitinib (250 mg daily). Gefitinib was continued while patients received concurrent weekly docetaxel and radiation therapy. After the completion of radiation therapy, gefitinib was continued until patients developed disease progression or for a maximum of 24 months. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (53% with stage IV disease) received protocol treatment, and 50 patients (81%) were able to complete the regimen. The addition of gefitinib increased the incidence of grade 3/4 mucositis (27%) and diarrhea (16%) during induction therapy but did not appear to add substantially to toxicity during concurrent chemoradiation. The estimated 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates for the entire group were 41% and 54%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of gefitinib was associated with a moderate increase in toxicity with this combined modality regimen, particularly during induction therapy. Although this regimen was efficacious, the survival results overlap with results reported with chemoradiation alone. The role of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in first-line, combined-modality therapy for patients with head and neck cancer remains undefined.

Clinical relevance of VEGF receptors 1 and 2 in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia.

Vascularity is increased in the bone marrow of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and high vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels correlate with worse survival. We analyzed the significance of VEGF-receptor 1 (VEGF-R1) and VEGF-R2 levels in bone marrow samples from 170 CML patients (137 chronic, 24 accelerated, and 9 blastic phase). Median VEGF-R1 and VEGF-R2 levels were 4.66 and 2-fold, respectively, that in normal control samples. Receptor levels did not correlate with disease phase or other host and disease features examined. Chronic phase CML patients with increased VEGF-R2 levels had significantly inferior survival than patients without receptor up-regulation (P=0.009). Patients in accelerated/blastic phase CML with elevated VEGF-R2 expression had marginally worse survival (P=0.05). In contrast, high VEGF-R1 levels did not correlate with a specific CML phase, characteristic, or outcome. Our findings support VEGF-R2 over-expression as an independent prognostic indicator for shortened survival in patients with CML.