Plain Language Summary of the iNNOVATE study: ibrutinib plus rituximab is well-tolerated and effective in people with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This article provides a short summary of 5-year results from the iNNOVATE trial. The original paper was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in October 2021. People with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) were randomly divided into two groups of 75 people each. One group received a combination treatment composed of two drugs, ibrutinib plus rituximab, and the other group took placebo ("sugar pill") plus rituximab. Ibrutinib (also known by the brand name Imbruvica®) is a drug that reduces cancer cells' ability to multiply and survive. Ibrutinib is an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of WM. Rituximab is a drug that helps the immune system find and kill cancer cells. Participants in the trial were treated and their health monitored for up to 5 years (63 months). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: During the 5 years of monitoring, more people who took ibrutinib plus rituximab experienced an improvement in their disease and lived longer without their disease getting worse compared to those who took placebo plus rituximab. Side effects from ibrutinib and rituximab were manageable and generally decreased over time. Participants in both study groups reported improvements in quality of life, but those who took ibrutinib plus rituximab reported significantly greater improvement in their quality of life (as measured by FACT-An score) compared to those who took placebo plus rituximab. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results show that ibrutinib plus rituximab is better than rituximab alone in people with WM and that ibrutinib plus rituximab is safe and effective in the long term. This information confirms the role of ibrutinib plus rituximab as a standard of care for WM. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02165397 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Ibrutinib Plus Rituximab Versus Placebo Plus Rituximab for Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Final Analysis From the Randomized Phase III iNNOVATE Study.

PURPOSE: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III iNNOVATE study showed sustained efficacy of ibrutinib-rituximab in Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM). Here, we present the final analysis from iNNOVATE. METHODS: Patients had confirmed symptomatic WM, either previously untreated or previously treated; patients with prior rituximab had at least a minor response to their last rituximab-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily ibrutinib 420 mg plus rituximab or placebo plus rituximab (n = 75 per arm). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, time to next treatment, hemoglobin improvement, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 50 (range, 0.5-63) months, median (95% CI) PFS was not reached (57.7 months to not evaluable) with ibrutinib-rituximab versus 20.3 months (13.0 to 27.6) with placebo-rituximab (hazard ratio, 0.250; P < .0001). PFS benefit was regardless of prior treatment status, MYD88 and CXCR4 mutation status, or key patient characteristics. Higher response rates (partial response or better) were observed with ibrutinib-rituximab (76% v 31% with placebo-rituximab; P < .0001) and were sustained over time. Median time to next treatment was not reached with ibrutinib-rituximab versus 18 months with placebo-rituximab. More patients receiving ibrutinib-rituximab versus placebo-rituximab had sustained hemoglobin improvement (77% v 43%; P < .0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm. Ibrutinib-rituximab maintained a manageable safety profile; the prevalence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events of clinical interest generally decreased over time. CONCLUSION: In the final analysis of iNNOVATE with a median follow-up of 50 months, ibrutinib-rituximab showed ongoing superiority across clinical outcomes in patients with WM regardless of MYD88 or CXCR4 mutation status, prior treatment, and key patient characteristics.

Benefits of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Elderly Myeloma Patients in the Last Quarter of Life.

Although survival outcomes have improved dramatically over the last few decades in newly diagnosed myeloma patients, elderly patients have not yielded the same magnitude of benefit as evidenced by higher rates of reported myeloma-related deaths in patients over the age of 75. This is of particular importance given this cohort comprises a large proportion of myeloma patients with the median age of diagnosis being 70 years. One contributor to this discrepancy is reduced use of high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) in this population because of concerns for increased toxicity and safety. The objective of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate survival and safety outcomes in 53 newly diagnosed patients ≥74 years of age who underwent HDT/ASCT at our institution in comparison to 122 control patients in the same age bracket who did not undergo stem cell transplantation during this same time period. Patients treated at our institution were identified in our institutional myeloma database by age. They were all treated between November 2006 and October 2016 at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University. Fifty-three patients were identified who had undergone HDT/ASCT, and, to assess the relative benefit of ASCT, 122 control patients in the same age range were also identified who did not undergo HDT/ASCT during the same time period. The median age for the entire cohort was 77 years (74 years in the ASCT group versus 78 in the non-ASCT group). Median time to ASCT was 6 months (range 2-57 months). There were no gender or race differences between the 2 groups, although a higher proportion of high-risk patients underwent HDT/ASCT. Ninety-three percent of ASCT patients received triplet induction therapy with a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory agent backbone in comparison to only 55% of patients the non-ASCT group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for the ASCT group was 50 months versus 30 months in the non-ASCT group. The median overall survival (OS) was 80 months versus 40 months, respectively. In high-risk patients, the median PFS was 60.8 months, and the median OS was 77.8 months in the ASCT group compared to 26 months and 38 months in the non-ASCT group, respectively. There were no transplant-related deaths within the first 100 days in the ASCT group. This study offers real-world perspective and data on the safety and survival benefit of ASCT in the elderly population with a near doubling of OS when compared to those treated with similar regimens and modern agents without ASCT. These data provide a rationale for offering ASCT in elderly patients pending a thorough pretransplantation evaluation.

Aberrant Extrafollicular B Cells, Immune Dysfunction, Myeloid Inflammation, and MyD88-Mutant Progenitors Precede Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia.

Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) and its precursor IgM gammopathy are distinct disorders characterized by clonal mature IgM-expressing B-cell outgrowth in the bone marrow. Here, we show by high-dimensional single-cell immunogenomic profiling of patient samples that these disorders originate in the setting of global B-cell compartment alterations, characterized by expansion of genomically aberrant extrafollicular B cells of the nonmalignant clonotype. Alterations in the immune microenvironment preceding malignant clonal expansion include myeloid inflammation and naïve B- and T-cell depletion. Host response to these early lesions involves clone-specific T-cell immunity that may include MYD88 mutation-specific responses. Hematopoietic progenitors carry the oncogenic MYD88 mutations characteristic of the malignant WM clone. These data support a model for WM pathogenesis wherein oncogenic alterations and signaling in progenitors, myeloid inflammation, and global alterations in extrafollicular B cells create the milieu promoting extranodal pattern of growth in differentiated malignant cells. SIGNIFICANCE: These data provide evidence that growth of the malignant clone in WM is preceded by expansion of extrafollicular B cells, myeloid inflammation, and immune dysfunction in the preneoplastic phase. These changes may be related in part to MYD88 oncogenic signaling in pre-B progenitor cells and suggest a novel model for WM pathogenesis. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 549.

Indatuximab ravtansine plus dexamethasone with lenalidomide or pomalidomide in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: Indatuximab ravtansine (BT062) is an antibody-drug conjugate that binds to CD138 and synergistically enhances the antitumor activity of lenalidomide in preclinical models of multiple myeloma. This phase 1/2a study was done to determine the safety, activity, and pharmacokinetics of indatuximab ravtansine in combination with immunomodulatory drugs in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: This open-label, phase 1/2a study took place at nine hospital sites in the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and ECOG performance status or Zubrod score of 2 or below. Patients who received indatuximab ravtansine with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide) had failure of at least one previous therapy. Patients treated with indatuximab ravtansine with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide) had failure of at least two previous therapies (including lenalidomide and bortezomib) and had progressive disease on or within 60 days of completion of their last treatment. In phase 1, patients received indatuximab ravtansine intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle in escalating dose levels of 80 mg/m2, 100 mg/m2, and 120 mg/m2, with lenalidomide (25 mg; days 1 to 21 every 28 days orally) and dexamethasone (20-40 mg; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days). In phase 2, the recommended phase 2 dose of indatuximab ravtansine was given to an expanded cohort of patients in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The protocol was amended to allow additional patients to be treated with indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide (4 mg; days 1 to 21 every 28 days orally) and dexamethasone, in a more heavily pretreated patient population than in the indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide group. The phase 1 primary endpoint was to determine the dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (recommended phase 2 dose) of indatuximab ravtansine, and the phase 2 primary endpoint was to describe the objective response rate (ORR; partial response or better) and clinical benefit response (ORR plus minor response). All patients were analysed for safety and all patients with post-treatment response assessments were analysed for activity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01638936, and is complete. FINDINGS: 64 (86%) of 74 screened patients were enrolled between July 3, 2012, and June 30, 2015. 47 (73%) patients received indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide (median follow-up 24·2 months [IQR 19·9-45·4]) and 17 (27%) received indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide (24·1 months [17·7-36·7]). The maximum tolerated dose of indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was 100 mg/m2, and defined as the recommended phase 2 dose for indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide. An objective response for indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was observed in 33 (71·7%) of 46 patients and in 12 (70·6%) of 17 patients in the indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide group. The clinical benefit response for indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was 85% (39 of 46 patients) and for indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide it was 88% (15 of 17 patients). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in both groups were neutropenia (14 [22%] of 64 patients), anaemia (10 [16%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [11%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that led to discontinuation occurred in 35 (55%) of the 64 patients. Five (8%) patients with a TEAE had a fatal outcome; none was reported as related to indatuximab ravtansine. INTERPRETATION: Indatuximab ravtansine in combination with immunomodulatory drugs shows preliminary antitumor activity, is tolerated, and could be further evaluated in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Biotest AG.

Venetoclax sensitivity in multiple myeloma is associated with B-cell gene expression.

Venetoclax is a highly potent, selective BCL2 inhibitor capable of inducing apoptosis in cells dependent on BCL2 for survival. Most myeloma is MCL1-dependent; however, a subset of myeloma enriched for translocation t(11;14) is codependent on BCL2 and thus sensitive to venetoclax. The biology underlying this heterogeneity remains poorly understood. We show that knockdown of cyclin D1 does not induce resistance to venetoclax, arguing against a direct role for cyclin D1 in venetoclax sensitivity. To identify other factors contributing to venetoclax response, we studied a panel of 31 myeloma cell lines and 25 patient samples tested for venetoclax sensitivity. In cell lines, we corroborated our previous observation that BIM binding to BCL2 correlates with venetoclax response and further showed that knockout of BIM results in decreased venetoclax sensitivity. RNA-sequencing analysis identified expression of B-cell genes as enriched in venetoclax-sensitive myeloma, although no single gene consistently delineated sensitive and resistant cells. However, a panel of cell surface makers correlated well with ex vivo prediction of venetoclax response in 21 patient samples and may serve as a biomarker independent of t(11;14). Assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing of myeloma cell lines also identified an epigenetic program in venetoclax-sensitive cells that was more similar to B cells than that of venetoclax-resistant cells, as well as enrichment for basic leucine zipper domain-binding motifs such as BATF. Together, these data indicate that remnants of B-cell biology are associated with BCL2 dependency and point to novel biomarkers of venetoclax-sensitive myeloma independent of t(11;14).

Comanagement Strategy Between Academic Institutions and Community Practices to Reduce Induction Mortality in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia.

PURPOSE: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is a curable leukemia with > 90% survival in clinical trials. Population-based studies from Sweden and US SEER data have shown long-term survival rates of 62% and 65.7%, with the lower rate being from a higher percentage of early deaths. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter trial, we developed a simplified algorithm that focused on prevention and early treatment of the three main causes of death: bleeding, differentiation syndrome, and infection. All patients with a diagnosis of APL were included. The initial 6 months were spent educating oncologists about early deaths in APL. At the time of suspicion of an APL, an expert was contacted. The algorithm was made available followed by discussion of the treatment plan. Communication between expert and treating physician was frequent in the first 2 weeks, during which time most deaths take place. RESULTS: Between September 2013 and April 2016, 120 patients enrolled in the study from 32 hospitals. The median age was 52.5 years, with 39% > 60 years and 25% with an age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index > 4. Sixty-three percent of patients were managed at community centers. Two patients did not meet the criteria for analysis, and of 118 evaluable patients, 10 died, with an early mortality rate of 8.5%. With a median follow-up of 27.3 months, the overall survival was 84.5%. CONCLUSION: Induction mortality can be decreased and population-wide survival improved in APL with the use of standardized treatment guidelines. Support from experts who have more experience with induction therapy is crucial and helps to improve the outcomes.

Final results of a phase 1 study of loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) remains poor, with a need for alternatives to current salvage therapies. Loncastuximab tesirine (ADCT-402) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a humanized anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer toxin. Presented here are final results of a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study in patients with R/R B-NHL. Objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose(s) for expansion and evaluate safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of loncastuximab tesirine. Overall, 183 patients received loncastuximab tesirine, with 3 + 3 dose escalation at 15 to 200 µg/kg and dose expansion at 120 and 150 µg/kg. Dose-limiting toxicities (all hematologic) were reported in 4 patients. The MTD was not reached, although cumulative toxicity was higher at 200 µg/kg. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were most common, followed by fatigue, nausea, edema, and liver enzyme abnormalities. Overall response rate (ORR) in evaluable patients was 45.6%, including 26.7% complete responses (CRs). ORRs in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma were 42.3%, 46.7%, and 78.6%, respectively. Median duration of response in all patients was 5.4 months and not reached in patients with DLBCL (doses ≥120 µg/kg) who achieved a CR. Loncastuximab tesirine had good stability in serum, notable antitumor activity, and an acceptable safety profile, warranting continued study in B-NHL. The recommended dose for phase 2 was determined as 150 µg/kg every 3 weeks for 2 doses followed by 75 µg/kg every 3 weeks. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02669017.

Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Vorinostat Plus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD) is a standard induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Given preclinical and clinical data suggesting the synergistic activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat with both bortezomib and lenalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma, we hypothesized that adding vorinostat to VRD (R2V2) would increase the rate and the quality of responses to induction treatment. Here we report the results of a phase 1 trial (NCT01038388) evaluating R2V2 as up-front treatment for NDMM patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: R2V2 was tested as induction therapy in a dose-escalation phase 1 study in 30 NDMM patients deemed eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Treatment consisted of 4 induction cycles with R2V2, followed by either autologous stem-cell transplantation or 4 additional R2V2 cycles and lenalidomide maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat was 200 mg daily. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (87%), fatigue and peripheral neuropathy (60%), and thrombocytopenia (33%). R2V2 induced an objective response in 96% of patients, with 48% obtaining at least a complete remission. Median progression-free survival was 52 months, with 77% of patients alive at 5 years. CONCLUSION: R2V2 as induction treatment for NDMM patients resulted in remarkable response rates at the cost of increased toxicity.

Outcomes of Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia after Treatment with Multiple Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

We sought to evaluate the outcomes of chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in an era where five tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are commercially available for the treatment of CML. Records of patients diagnosed with CP CML, treated with TKIs and referred to our center were reviewed. Between January 2005 and April 2016, 206 patients were followed for a median of 48.8 (1.4-190.1) months. A total of 76 (37%) patients received one TKI, 73 (35%) received two TKIs and 57 (28%) were exposed to >3 TKIs (3 TKIs, n = 33; 4 TKIs, n = 17; 5 TKIs, n = 7). Nineteen (9.2%) patients progressed to advanced phases of CML (accelerated phase, n = 6; myeloid blastic phase, n = 4; lymphoid blastic phase, n = 9). One third (n = 69) achieved complete molecular response (CMR) at first-line treatment. An additional 55 patients achieved CMR after second-line treatment. Twenty-five patients (12.1%) attempted TKI discontinuation and 14 (6.8%) stopped TKIs for a median of 6.3 months (range 1-53.4). The 10-year progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) rates were 81% and 87%, respectively. OS after 10-years, based on TKI exposure, was 100% (1 TKI), 82% (2 TKIs), 87% (3 TKIs), 75% (4 TKIs) and 55% (5 TKIs). The best OS was observed in patients tolerating and responding to first line TKI, but multiple TKIs led patients to gain treatment-free remission.

Long-Term Follow-Up Results of Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Induction Therapy and Risk-Adapted Maintenance Approach in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is a highly effective and convenient induction regimen for both transplantation-eligible and -ineligible patients with myeloma. Here, we present the largest cohort of patients consecutively treated with RVD induction therapy followed by risk-adapted maintenance therapy with the longest follow-up and important information on long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe 1,000 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma treated with RVD induction therapy from January 2007 until August 2016. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes data were obtained from our institutional review board-approved myeloma database. Responses and progression were evaluated per International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 97.1% after induction therapy and 98.5% after transplantation, with 89.9% of patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) or better and 33.3% achieving stringent complete response after transplantation at a median follow-up time of 67 months. The estimated median progression-free survival time was 65 months (95% CI, 58.7 to 71.3 months) for the entire cohort, 40.3 months (95% CI, 33.5 to 47 months) for high-risk patients, and 76.5 months (95% CI, 66.9 to 86.2 months) for standard-risk patients. The median overall survival (OS) time for the entire cohort was 126.6 months (95% CI, 113.3 to 139.8 months). The median OS for high-risk patients was 78.2 months (95% CI, 62.2 to 94.2 months), whereas it has not been reached for standard-risk patients. Five-year OS rates for high-risk and standard-risk patients were 57% and 81%, respectively, and the 10-year OS rates were 29% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSION: RVD is an induction regimen that delivers high response rates (VGPR or better) in close to 90% of patients after transplantation, and risk-adapted maintenance can deliver unprecedented long-term outcomes. This study includes the largest cohort of patients treated with RVD reported to date with long follow-up and demonstrates the ability of 3-drug induction regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to result in a substantial survival benefit.

Gemcitabine and bendamustine is a safe and effective salvage regimen for patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: Results of a phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Both gemcitabine and bendamustine have been evaluated in patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma but to the authors' knowledge not as a doublet. The authors completed a phase 1/2 trial to identify the optimal dose and frequency of administration and to assess the efficacy of this combination in patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: Patients were treated up to a maximum dose of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1) and bendamustine (120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2), which was determined to be the recommended phase 2 dose, administered every 21 days for up to 6 cycles. Patients could discontinue study therapy after 2 cycles to proceed with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were identified, but 4 patients experienced grade 3 to 5 pulmonary adverse events (toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4]). A total of 26 patients were enrolled having completed a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-7 lines), including 13 patients at the recommended phase 2 dose, in whom the overall response rate was 69% and the complete response rate was 46%. The median progression-free survival for the phase 2 patients was 11 months (95% CI, 3 months to not reached), and the median overall survival for this group had not been reached at the time of last follow-up (95% CI, 4 months to not reached). CONCLUSIONS: This doublet was found to be tolerable and effective, but patients must be monitored closely for pulmonary toxicity. The authors currently are evaluating this doublet in combination with nivolumab.

A Phase I Study of ADCT-402 (Loncastuximab Tesirine), a Novel Pyrrolobenzodiazepine-Based Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: ADCT-402 (loncastuximab tesirine) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprising a CD19-targeting antibody and pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimers. A first-in-human study evaluated the safety and preliminary clinical activity of loncastuximab tesirine in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study enrolled patients ages ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell NHL. Patients received loncastuximab tesirine every 3 weeks at doses assigned by a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Dose escalation was used to assess the safety and tolerability of loncastuximab tesirine to determine the dose for expansion. Secondary objectives evaluated clinical activity, characterized the pharmacokinetic profile, and evaluated antidrug antibodies. RESULTS: During dose escalation, 88 patients with R/R B-cell NHL were treated with loncastuximab tesirine at doses 15 to 200 µg/kg. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by 87/88 (98.9%) patients. Most common TEAEs (≥20% of patients) were hematologic abnormalities, fatigue, edema, liver test abnormalities, nausea, rash, and dyspnea. Grade ≥3 TEAEs (≥5% of patients) included hematologic abnormalities, liver test abnormalities, fatigue, and dyspnea. Overall response rate at doses ≥120 µg/kg was 59.4% (41 of 69 patients; 40.6% complete response; 18.8% partial response). Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival (all doses) were 4.8, 5.5, and 11.6 months, respectively. Drug exposure increased with increasing dose, showing moderate accumulation with multiple doses ≥150 µg/kg. There was no evidence of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: Loncastuximab tesirine had promising activity with acceptable safety in this dose-escalation study. A phase II study with initial dosing at 150 µg/kg has been initiated based on these results.

Gain of Chromosome 1q is associated with early progression in multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone.

Gain of chromosome 1q (+1q) is commonly identified in multiple myeloma and has been associated with inferior outcomes. However, the prognostic implication of +1q has not been evaluated in the setting of standard triplet regimens. We retrospectively analyzed 201 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who received induction with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) and were tested for +1q at diagnosis by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Patients with +1q (n = 94), compared to those without +1q (n = 107), had shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) (41.9 months vs 65.1 months, p = 0.002, HR = 1.90) and overall survival (median not reached (NR) for either arm, p = 0.003, HR 2.69). In subgroup analyses, patients with co-occurring +1q and t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p) or with 4 or more copies of 1q had significantly worse PFS (25.1 months and 34.6 months, p < 0.001 and p = 0.0063, respectively), whereas patients with three copies and no other high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities had no significant difference in PFS. These data suggest that when treated with RVD induction, patients with +1q should be considered at very high risk for early progression in multiple myeloma when ≥4 copies are detected or in the context of other high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.

Phase I study of samalizumab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma: blockade of the immune checkpoint CD200.

PURPOSE: Samalizumab is a novel recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD200, an immunoregulatory cell surface member of the immunoglobulin superfamily that dampens excessive immune responses and maintains self-tolerance. This first-in-human study investigated the therapeutic use of samalizumab as a CD200 immune checkpoint inhibitor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and multiple myeloma (MM). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Twenty-three patients with advanced CLL and 3 patients with MM were enrolled in an open-label phase 1 study (NCT00648739). Patients were assigned sequentially to one of 7 dose level cohorts (50 to 600 mg/m2) in a 3 + 3 study design, receiving a single dose of samalizumab intravenously once every 28 days. Primary endpoints were safety, identification of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetics. Secondary endpoints were samalizumab binding to CD200, pharmacodynamic effects on circulating tumor cells and leukocyte subsets, and clinical responses. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received > 1 treatment cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were generally mild to moderate in severity. Samalizumab produced dose-dependent decreases in CD200 expression on CLL cells and decreased frequencies of circulating CD200 + CD4+ T cells that were sustained at higher doses. The MTD was not reached. Decreased tumor burden was observed in 14 CLL patients. One CLL patient achieved a durable partial response and 16 patients had stable disease. All MM patients had disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Samalizumab had a good safety profile and treatment was associated with reduced tumor burden in a majority of patients with advanced CLL. These preliminary positive results support further development of samalizumab as an immune checkpoint inhibitor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00648739 registered April 1, 2008.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Young Adults: Does Everyone Need a Transplant?

With the exception of the minority of patients with acute myelocytic leukemia who are considered potentially cured by chemotherapy, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has traditionally been the recommended approach for those patients achieving complete remission who meet the criteria for HCT and have an appropriate stem-cell donor. This decision has become more complex with the discovery of new risk factors, such as genomic abnormalities and minimal residual disease, especially in younger populations. Patients younger than age 60 years who are considered fit and who do not harbor poor prognostic features are felt still to have a high likelihood of cure without having to undergo HCT. Here, we discuss the role that these emerging risk factors play in the decision to undergo transplantation, but emphasize that this remains a decision made jointly by the patient, the treating hematologist, and the transplant physician.

Clinical efficacy of daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma: Utility of re-treatment with daratumumab among refractory patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of daratumumab (DARA) both as a monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens in multiple myeloma (MM) has been established in clinical trials. This article presents a retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of DARA in combination with pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (ie, daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DARA-POM-D]) and, more importantly, the long-term follow-up of a cohort that was naive to DARA and POM as well as a cohort in which the utility of re-treatment was evaluated among patients who were DARA- and/or POM-refractory. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM treated with DARA-POM-D at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University from January 2015 through July 2016 were included in the analysis. The study was approved by Emory University's institutional review board. All received prior proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and were refractory to their last line of therapy. RESULTS: All patients were lenalidomide-refractory, and 91% were bortezomib-refractory. Two cohorts were identified on the basis of prior exposure to DARA and/or POM. Cohort 1 (12 patients) was DARA- and POM-naive, and cohort 2 (22 patients) was DARA- and/or POM-refractory. A subgroup of 12 patients in cohort 2 (cohort 3) was DARA- and POM-refractory. The combination's tolerability was consistent with the results of the published phase 1b study (EQUULES) that evaluated the combination and no new safety signals were observed. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 91.7%, 40.9%, and 33.3% in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Deep responses, including 4 stringent complete responses, were observed in cohort 1. In cohort 2, the ORR comprised 8 partial responses (PRs) and 1 very good PR. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in cohort 1 at a median follow-up of 41 months, and it was 3.2 months in cohort 2. DARA-POM-D not only was effective in DARA- and POM-naive patients but also produced clinical responses in a third of patients re-treated with these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: A better than quadrupled PFS benefit observed in cohort 1 in comparison with the previously reported benefit in the EQUULEUS trial (which led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of the DARA-POM-D combination) highlights the fact that the introduction of monoclonal antibody combination strategies and IMiDs as earlier lines of therapeutic options potentially could deliver better clinical outcomes. One-third of patients refractory to separate lines of DARA and/or POM responded when they were re-treated with a combination, and this resulted in survival benefits equivalent to those of other antimyeloma agents/combinations available for DARA-refractory patients.