ASCT2-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate MEDI7247 in Adult Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Hematological Malignancies: A First-in-Human, Phase 1 Study.

BACKGROUND: MEDI7247 is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of an anti-sodium-dependent alanine-serine-cysteine transporter 2 antibody-conjugated to a pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer. OBJECTIVE: This first-in-human phase 1 trial evaluated MEDI7247 in patients with hematological malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), multiple myeloma (MM), or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) relapsed or refractory (R/R) to standard therapies, or for whom no standard therapy exists, were eligible. Primary endpoints were safety and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary endpoints included assessments of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity. RESULTS: As of 26 March 2020, 67 patients were treated (AML: n = 27; MM: n = 18; DLBCL: n = 22). The most common MEDI7247-related adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia (41.8%), neutropenia (35.8%), and anemia (28.4%). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (38.8%), neutropenia (34.3%), and anemia (22.4%). Anticancer activity (number of responders/total patients evaluated) was observed in 11/67 (16.4%) patients. No correlation was observed between ASCT2 expression and clinical response. Between-patient variability of systemic exposure of MEDI7247 ADC and total antibody were high (AUCinf geometric CV%: 62.3-134.2, and 74.8-126.1, respectively). SG3199 (PBD dimer) plasma concentrations were below the limit of quantification for all patients after Study Day 8. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) prevalence was 7.7%, ADA incidence was 1.9%, and persistent-positive ADA was 5.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombocytopenia and neutropenia limited repeat dosing. Although limited clinical activity was detected, the dose-escalation phase was stopped early without establishing an MTD. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03106428).

In-class transition (iCT) of proteasome inhibitor-based therapy: a community approach to multiple myeloma management.

Long-term proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment can improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, but this can be difficult to achieve in clinical practice due to toxicity, comorbidities, and the burden of repeated parenteral administration. US MM-6 (NCT03173092) enrolled transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd; ≤39 cycles or until progression or toxicity) following three cycles of bortezomib-based induction. Primary endpoint: 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction, and actigraphy. At datacut, in the fully accrued cohort of 140 patients, median age was 73 years with 42% aged ≥75 and 61% deemed frail; 10% of patients were ongoing on treatment. After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 71% (95% confidence interval: 61-78). ORR increased from 62% at the end of induction to 80% following in-class transition (iCT) to IRd for a median of 11 months. The 2-year OS rate was 86%. The overall safety profile/actigraphy levels were consistent with previous reports; QoL/treatment satisfaction scores were stable with ongoing therapy. iCT to IRd may allow prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile, while maintaining QoL.

Disease and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With a Clinical Diagnosis of Myelofibrosis Enrolled in the MOST Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with lower-risk myelofibrosis (MF) are not well described. This analysis from the MOST (NCT02953704) assessed the demographic and clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with the clinical diagnosis of lower-risk MF at enrollment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MOST is an ongoing, prospective, observational study in patients with clinical diagnoses of MF or essential thrombocythemia enrolled at clinical practices throughout the United States. Patients included in the MF cohort (≥18 years of age) had low-risk MF by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System or intermediate-1 (INT-1) risk MF (by age >65 years only) at enrollment. Patient data were entered into an electronic case report form during usual-care visits over a planned 36 month observation period. RESULTS: Two hundred five patients were eligible for this analysis (low risk, n = 85; INT-1 risk, n = 120; median age, 68 years [range, 35-88]); 166 patients (81.0%) had mutation testing results available. The median time from MF diagnosis to enrollment was 1.8 years. Hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were below the normal range in 50.5% and 48.7% of patients, respectively. Nearly all (98.0%) patients had comorbid conditions, most commonly hypertension (49.8%). Fatigue was the most common physician-reported MF symptom (30.7%). At enrollment, 55.6% of patients were receiving MF-directed monotherapy, most frequently hydroxyurea (46.5%) or ruxolitinib (40.4%). CONCLUSION: Future longitudinal analyses of data from MOST will help identify unmet needs and characterize how patients with lower-risk MF are managed throughout the disease course.

Disease and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With a Clinical Diagnosis of Essential Thrombocythemia Enrolled in the MOST Study.

Few data exist regarding the disease and clinical characteristics of patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) in the United States. The ongoing, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective, Myelofibrosis and Essential Thrombocythemia Observational STudy (MOST) was designed to collect data pertaining to the demographics, clinical management, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis or ET in the United States (NCT02953704). This analysis examines the clinical characteristics of patients with clinical diagnoses of high-risk or low-risk ET receiving ET-directed therapy at enrollment. At data cutoff (June 17, 2019), 1207 of 1234 enrolled patients were eligible for this analysis (median age, 70 years; 65% female; 88% white); 917 patients (76%) had mutation testing results available. The median time from ET diagnosis to study enrollment was 4.2 years. The majority of patients (87%) had high-risk ET. Of 333 patients with a history of thrombotic events, 247 had at least 1 event classified as arterial and/or venous. Platelet count was above normal range in 54% of patients. Hypertension (56%) was the most common comorbidity. At enrollment, the majority of patients (low-risk ET, 94%; high-risk ET, 79%) were receiving ET-directed monotherapy. Additional prospective analyses from MOST will help to identify areas of unmet need.

Tapering thrombopoietin receptor agonists in primary immune thrombocytopenia: Expert consensus based on the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method.

BACKGROUND: Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are used to treat primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Some patients have discontinued treatment while maintaining a hemostatic platelet count. OBJECTIVES: To develop expert consensus on when it is appropriate to consider tapering TPO-RAs in ITP, how to taper patients off therapy, how to monitor patients after discontinuation, and how to restart therapy. METHODS: We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method. Ratings were completed independently by each expert before and after a meeting. Second-round ratings were used to develop the panel's guidance. The panel was double-blinded: The sponsor and nonchair experts did not know each other's identities. RESULTS: Guidance on when it is appropriate to taper TPO-RAs in children and adults was developed based on patient platelet count, history of bleeding, intensification of treatment, trauma risk, and use of anticoagulants/platelet inhibitors. For example, it is appropriate to taper TPO-RAs in patients who have normal/above-normal platelet counts, have no history of major bleeding, and have not required an intensification of treatment in the past 6 months; it is inappropriate to taper TPO-RAs in patients with low platelet counts. Duration of ITP, months on TPO-RA, or timing of platelet response to TPO-RA did not have an impact on the panel's guidance on appropriateness to taper. Guidance on how to taper patients off therapy, how to monitor patients after discontinuation, and how to restart therapy is also provided. CONCLUSION: This guidance could support clinical decision making and the development of clinical trials that prospectively test the safety of tapering TPO-RAs.

Efficacy and safety of ofatumumab and bendamustine followed by ofatumumab maintenance in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma after prior rituximab.

In indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL), patients treated with rituximab, alone or in combination with various chemotherapeutic agents eventually relapse. This study evaluated the combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine, followed by maintenance ofatumumab in patients with relapsed iNHL with prior sensitivity to rituximab. Among the 49 patients enrolled, 24.5% achieved a complete response (CR) and 42.9% achieved a partial response (PR), with an overall response rate of 67.3% at the end of the induction therapy. Additionally, six patients with PR during induction phase achieved CR during the maintenance phase. Treatment-related adverse event was observed in 95.9% patients. The most common hematologic and biochemical abnormalities were decrease in lymphocytes (85.7%) and increase in glucose (91.8%), respectively. Overall, 42.9% progressed and 14.3% died during the study. Thus, ofatumumab in combination with bendamustine, followed by ofatumumab maintenance, was effective in the treatment of patients with iNHL with a manageable safety profile (NCT01294579).

Feasibility of Long-term Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma by in-class Transition From Bortezomib to Ixazomib.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing US MM-6 study is investigating in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral IRd (ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) with the aim of increasing proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence and duration while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and improving outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: US community sites are enrolling non-transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) with no evidence of progressive disease after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based therapy to receive IRd (up to 39 cycles or until progression or toxicity). The patients use mobile or wearable digital devices to collect actigraphy (activity and sleep) data and electronically complete HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and medication adherence questionnaires. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. The key secondary endpoints include response rates and therapy duration. RESULTS: At the data cutoff, 84 patients had been treated (median age 73 years; 44% aged ≥ 75 years; 49% men; 15% Black or African American; and 10% Hispanic or Latino). Of the 84 patients, 62% were continuing therapy. The mean duration of total PI therapy was 10.1 months and for the IRd regimen was 7.3 months. With an 8-month median follow-up, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 86% (95% confidence interval, 73%-93%) from both the start of bortezomib-based treatment and the start of IRd. The overall response rate was 62% (complete response, 4%; very good partial response, 25%; partial response, 33%) after bortezomib-based induction and 70% (complete response, 26%; very good partial response, 29%; partial response, 15%) after iCT. The IRd safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial data, and HRQoL and treatment satisfaction were maintained. CONCLUSION: The patients included in the US MM-6 study are representative of the real-world US MM population. The use of iCT might permit prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy, without impacting patients' HRQoL or treatment satisfaction.

A phase II study of addition of pracinostat to a hypomethylating agent in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes who have not responded to previous hypomethylating agent therapy.

Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are standard of care for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, less than half of patients achieve objective responses and most eventually lose their response. Pracinostat is a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor with demonstrated activity in advanced myeloid malignancies. This phase II study explored the benefit of adding pracinostat to HMAs in MDS patients who did not respond to single-agent HMA treatment. The goal was to estimate the clinical improvement rate [complete remission (CR), marrow CR, partial response (PR) and haematological improvement]. Group 1 included patients with primary/secondary HMA failures; Group 2 included those who did not achieve response but had stable disease (SD) after single-agent HMAs. Forty-five patients (39 Group 1, 6 Group 2) received a median of 3 cycles. Among all patients, 1 (2%) had CR, 7 (16%) had marrow CR and 18 (40%) had SD; disease progression occurred in 3 (7%). Median overall survival was 5·7/5·6 months for Group 1/2. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 38 patients (84%) leading to treatment discontinuation in 12 (33%). Adding pracinostat to HMAs did not improve outcomes in patients previously treated with HMAs. Frequent dose modifications/early discontinuation resulted in suboptimal drug exposure. A reduced pracinostat dose may improve tolerability and efficacy.

Oprozomib, pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: This phase Ib study evaluated oprozomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received oprozomib once-daily on days 1 to 5 and 15 to 19 (5/14 schedule; 150 mg/day starting dose) or on 2 consecutive days weekly (2/7 schedule; 210 mg/day starting dose) of 28-day cycles, pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 (4 mg/day starting dose), and dexamethasone 20 mg on 2 consecutive days weekly. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were treated (5/14, n = 4; 2/7, n = 27). Oprozomib maximum tolerated dose was not defined. The 2/7 schedule (oprozomib 210 mg/day, pomalidomide 4 mg/day) was selected for dose expansion based on overall safety (n = 17). In this group, the most common adverse events (AEs) were gastrointestinal (diarrhea [88.2%], nausea [58.8%], and vomiting [58.8%]); grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal AEs were uncommon. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were hematologic (anemia [47.1%], neutropenia [35.3%], and thrombocytopenia [29.4%]). One dose-limiting toxicity (gastric hemorrhage) occurred; 3 patients discontinued owing to AEs. The overall response rate was 70.6%. CONCLUSION: Safety and pharmacokinetic profiles were concerns with the oprozomib formulation used in this study and need to be improved. Oprozomib-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (2/7 schedule) had encouraging efficacy, supporting an ongoing phase Ib study evaluating new oprozomib formulations for this combination in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Role of Proteasome Inhibitors in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Proteasome inhibition is an established treatment strategy for patients with multiple myeloma as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) selectively target and disrupt the protein metabolism of aberrant plasma cells. Since the introduction of the first-in-class PIs bortezomib, the therapeutic landscape for multiple myeloma has shifted with the development of next-generation PIs (carfilzomib and ixazomib) and new classes of agents. Treatment with modern combination therapies has been shown to result in deep responses and improved outcomes, and these potent regimens are increasingly used as frontline therapy. As patients continue to live longer with modern frontline therapy, there will be an increased need for effective regimens after initial treatment failure. Several recent studies have shown that treatment with combination therapy incorporating PIs induces deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. In this review, we review pivotal data and discuss the role of PIs-based doublet and triplet regimens for the management of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the era of modern combination therapy.

Azacitidine in Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis of Data from Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: After erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) failure, lenalidomide and hypomethylating agents are the only remaining treatment options for most patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS). Optimal choice of these agents as front-line therapy in non-del(5q) LR-MDS is unclear. Because azacitidine clinical data mainly describe experience in higher-risk MDS, we performed a meta-analysis of patient-level data to evaluate azacitidine in patients with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent LR-MDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched English-language articles for prospective phase II and III azacitidine clinical trials and patient registries published between 2000 and 2015, and Embase abstracts from 2015 conferences. Patient-level data from identified relevant studies were provided by investigators. Meta-analyses followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Efficacy endpoints were RBC transfusion independence (TI) and Clinical Benefit (RBC-TI, erythroid response, and complete or partial remission, per International Working Group 2006 criteria for MDS). RESULTS: Data for 233 patients from 6 clinical studies and 1 registry study met criteria for inclusion in analyses. Overall, 90.3% of patients had non-del(5q) LR-MDS. Pooled estimates from random-effects models of RBC-TI and Clinical Benefit were 38.9% and 81.1%, respectively; for the ESA-refractory subgroup, they were 40.5% and 77.3%; and for patients with isolated anemia, they were 41.9% and 82.5%. In multivariate analyses, planned use of ≥6 azacitidine treatment cycles was significantly predictive of response. CONCLUSION: Azacitidine effects in these patients, most with non-del(5q) LR-MDS, were promising and generally similar to those reported for lenalidomide in similar patients. The choice of initial therapy is important because most patients eventually stop responding to front-line therapy and alternatives are limited. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) are primarily characterized by anemia. After erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) failure, lenalidomide and hypomethylating agents are the only remaining treatment options for most patients. This meta-analysis of 233 azacitidine-treated red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with LR-MDS (92.3% non-del[5q]) from 7 studies showed 38.9% became RBC transfusion-independent. There is no clear guidance regarding the optimal choice of lenalidomide or hypomethylating agents for patients with non-del(5q) LR-MDS following ESA failure. Clinical presentation (e.g., number of cytopenias) and potential outcomes after hypomethylating agent failure are factors to consider when making initial treatment decisions for LR-MDS patients.

Romiplostim monotherapy in thrombocytopenic patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: long-term safety and efficacy.

Romiplostim can improve platelet counts in about 50% of patients with low- or intermediate 1-risk (lower risk) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and thrombocytopenia, but its long-term toxicity and efficacy are not known. This open-label extension study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of romiplostim in 60 patients with lower risk MDS and platelet counts ≤50 × 109 /l. The primary endpoint was adverse event (AE) incidence. Secondary endpoints were efficacy parameters, including bleeding events and platelet response. Median (range) treatment time in the extension study and the median observation times thereafter were 25 (2-181) and 57 (11-209) weeks, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and serious AEs were reported in 14/60 (23%) and 4/60 (7%) patients, respectively. Progression to acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) occurred in two patients after 44 and 46 weeks. Patients (n = 34, 57%) with a platelet response were further evaluated for length of response. Median (range) response duration was 33 (7-174) weeks; 28/34 (82%) patients had a continuous response. Five of 34 patients (15%) had grade ≥3 bleeding events; three when the platelet count was >50 × 109 /l. There were no new safety concerns and the rate of progression to AML was low; response to romiplostim was maintained for most patients.

Safety and efficacy of romiplostim in splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia.

Primary immune thrombocytopenia is an autoimmune disorder characterized by increased platelet destruction and insufficient platelet production without another identified underlying disorder. Splenectomy may alter responsiveness to treatment and/or increase the risk of thrombosis, infection, and pulmonary hypertension. The analysis herein evaluated the safety and efficacy of the thrombopoietin receptor agonist romiplostim in splenectomized and nonsplenectomized adults with primary immune thrombocytopenia. Data were pooled across 13 completed clinical studies in adults with immune thrombocytopenia from 2002-2014. Adverse event rates were adjusted for time of exposure. Results were considered different when 95% confidence intervals were non-overlapping. Safety was analyzed for 1111 patients (395 splenectomized; 716 nonsplenectomized) who received romiplostim or control (placebo or standard of care). At baseline, splenectomized patients had a longer median duration of immune thrombocytopenia and a lower median platelet count, as well as a higher proportion with >3 prior immune thrombocytopenia treatments versus nonsplenectomized patients. In each treatment group, splenectomized patients used rescue medications more often than nonsplenectomized patients. Platelet response rates (≥50×109/L) for romiplostim were 82% (310/376) for splenectomized and 91% (592/648) for nonsplenectomized patients (P<0.001 by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test). Platelet responses were stable over time in both subgroups. Exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were higher for control versus romiplostim for both splenectomized (1857 versus 1226 per 100 patient-years) and nonsplenectomized patients (1052 versus 852 per 100 patient-years). In conclusion, responses to romiplostim were seen in both splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, and romiplostim was not associated with an increase in the risk of adverse events in splenectomized patients. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 00111475(A)(B), 00117143, 00305435, 01143038, 00102323, 00102336, 00415532, 00603642, 00508820, 00907478, 00116688, and 00440037.

Relation between chelation and clinical outcomes in lower-risk patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Registry analysis at 5 years.

Prospective data are needed to ascertain the impact of iron chelation therapy in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. The present 5-year prospective registry analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes between chelated and nonchelated patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and transfusional iron overload. In an interim analysis at 24 months, we previously reported that chelation therapy was associated with longer median overall survival and a tendency toward longer leukemia-free survival and fewer cardiac events. In the present report, we detail findings from the final analysis at 5 years. We confirm, at the conclusion of this 5-year, prospective, non-interventional study, that overall survival was significantly longer in patients who received iron chelation therapy vs those who did not. Causes of death in the overall population were predominantly myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia followed by cardiac disease. Time to progression to acute myeloid leukemia was also significantly longer in patients receiving chelation therapy, and significantly fewer patients progressed to leukemia vs those not receiving chelation therapy. Limitations of the study include a potential for clinical bias, as patients with longer predicted survival may have been chosen for chelation therapy, the differences present in concomitant conditions at baseline, and the possibility that some high-risk patients were not identified due to limited cytogenetic classification.

Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis: 5-year update from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial evaluated the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2/high-risk myelofibrosis. The primary and planned 3-year analyses of COMFORT-I data demonstrated that ruxolitinib-the first myelofibrosis-approved therapy-reduced splenomegaly and prolonged overall survival versus placebo. Here, we present the final 5-year results. METHODS: Patients managed in Australia, Canada, and the USA were randomized centrally (interactive voice response system) 1:1 to oral ruxolitinib twice daily (15 or 20 mg per baseline platelet counts) or placebo. Investigators and patients were blinded to treatment. The secondary endpoints evaluated in this analysis were durability of a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume (spleen response) and overall survival, evaluated in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in patients who received study treatment. RESULTS: Patients were randomized (September 2009-April 2010) to ruxolitinib (n = 155) or placebo (n = 154). At termination, 27.7% of ruxolitinib-randomized patients and 25.2% (28/111) who crossed over from placebo were on treatment; no patients remained on placebo. Patients randomized to ruxolitinib had a median spleen response duration of 168.3 weeks and prolonged median overall survival versus placebo (ruxolitinib group, not reached; placebo group, 200 weeks; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96; P = 0.025) despite the crossover to ruxolitinib. The ruxolitinib safety profile remained consistent with previous analyses. The most common new-onset all-grade nonhematologic adverse events starting <12 versus ≥48 months after ruxolitinib initiation were fatigue (29.0 vs 33.3%) and diarrhea (27.8 vs 14.6%). New-onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia both primarily occurred within the first 6 months, with no cases after 42 months. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event-related deaths in the ruxolitinib-randomized group were sepsis (2.6%), disease progression (1.9%), and pneumonia (1.9%). CONCLUSION: The final COMFORT-I results continue to support ruxolitinib as an effective treatment for patients with intermediate-2/high-risk MF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00952289.

A phase 2 safety study of accelerated elotuzumab infusion, over less than 1 h, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, in patients with multiple myeloma.

Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory SLAMF7-targeting monoclonal antibody, induces myeloma cell death with minimal effects on normal tissue. In a previous phase 3 study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), elotuzumab (10 mg/kg, ∼3-h infusion), combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, demonstrated durable efficacy and acceptable safety; 10% (33/321) of patients had infusion reactions (IRs; Grade 1/2: 29; Grade 3: 4). This phase 2 study (NCT02159365) investigated an accelerated infusion schedule in 70 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma or RRMM. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of Grade 3/4 IRs by completion of treatment Cycle 2. Dosing comprised elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously (weekly, Cycles 1-2; biweekly, Cycles 3+), lenalidomide 25 mg (daily, Days 1-21), and dexamethasone (28 mg orally and 8 mg intravenously, weekly, Cycles 1-2; 40 mg orally, weekly, Cycles 3+), in 28-day cycles. Premedication with diphenhydramine, acetaminophen, and ranitidine (or their equivalents) was given as in previous studies. If no IRs occurred, infusion rate was increased in Cycle 1 from 0.5 to 2 mL/min during dose 1 (∼2 h 50 min duration) to 5 mL/min for the entire infusion by dose 3 and also during all subsequent infusions (∼1-h duration). Median number of treatment cycles was six. No Grade 3/4 IRs occurred; only one Grade 1 and one Grade 2 IR occurred, both during the first infusion. These data support the safety of a faster infusion of elotuzumab administered over ∼1 h by the third dose, providing a more convenient alternative dosing option for patients.

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of pracinostat in combination with azacitidine in patients with untreated, higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) remains poor despite available therapies. Histone deacetylase inhibitors have demonstrated activity in patients with MDS and in vitro synergy with azacitidine. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of azacitidine and pracinostat was conducted in patients who had International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-2-risk or high-risk MDS. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate by cycle 6 of therapy. RESULTS: Of 102 randomized patients, there were 51 in the pracinostat group and 51 in the placebo group. The median age was 69 years. The CR rate by cycle 6 of therapy was 18% and 33% (P = .07) in the pracinostat and placebo groups, respectively. No significant differences in overall survival (median, 16 vs 19 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-2.23) or progression-free survival (11 vs 9 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.546-1.46) were observed between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred more frequently in the pracinostat group (98% vs 74%), leading to more treatment discontinuations (20% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of azacitidine with pracinostat did not improve outcomes in patients with higher-risk MDS. Higher rates of treatment discontinuation may partially explain these results, suggesting alternative dosing and schedules to improve tolerability may be required to determine the potential of the combination. Cancer 2017;123:994-1002. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The efficacy and safety of continued hydroxycarbamide therapy versus switching to ruxolitinib in patients with polycythaemia vera: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, symptom study (RELIEF).

The randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b RELIEF trial evaluated polycythaemia vera (PV)-related symptoms in patients who were well controlled with a stable dose of hydroxycarbamide (also termed hydroxyurea) but reported PV-related symptoms. Patients were randomized 1:1 to ruxolitinib 10 mg BID (n = 54) or hydroxycarbamide (prerandomization dose/schedule; n = 56); crossover to ruxolitinib was permitted after Week 16. The primary endpoint, ≥50% improvement from baseline in myeloproliferative neoplasm -symptom assessment form total symptom score cytokine symptom cluster (TSS-C; sum of tiredness, itching, muscle aches, night sweats, and sweats while awake) at Week 16, was achieved by 43·4% vs. 29·6% of ruxolitinib- and hydroxycarbamide-treated patients, respectively (odds ratio, 1·82; 95% confidence interval, 0·82-4·04; P = 0·139). The primary endpoint was achieved by 34% of a subgroup who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose from baseline to Weeks 13-16. In a post hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was achieved by more patients with stable screening-to-baseline TSS-C scores (ratio ≤ 2) receiving ruxolitinib than hydroxycarbamide (47·4% vs. 25·0%; P = 0·0346). Ruxolitinib treatment after unblinding was associated with continued symptom score improvements. Adverse events were primarily grades 1/2 with no unexpected safety signals. Ruxolitinib was associated with a nonsignificant trend towards improved PV-related symptoms versus hydroxycarbamide, although an unexpectedly large proportion of patients who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose reported symptom improvement.

Edoxaban for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: results from a non-inferiority subgroup analysis of the Hokusai-VTE randomised, double-blind, double-dummy trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism occurs commonly in patients with cancer. Direct oral anticoagulants are non-inferior to conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. We hypothesised that edoxaban, a direct oral inhibitor of activated clotting factor Xa, might be more suitable than conventional anticoagulants in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin in a subgroup of patients with cancer enrolled in the Hokusai-VTE trial. METHODS: We did a prespecified subgroup analysis in August, 2013, and a post-hoc analysis of non-inferiority and safety in March, 2016, of the patients with cancer enrolled in the randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, Hokusai-VTE trial done between Jan 28, 2010, and Oct 31, 2012. In this study, patients aged at least 18 years with acute symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis or acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (with or without deep-vein thrombosis) were assigned to receive edoxaban 60 mg once per day (or 30 mg once per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/min, bodyweight <60 kg, or who were receiving concomitant treatment with the P-glycoprotein inhibitors quinidine or verapamil) or warfarin (dose adjusted to maintain the international normalised ratio between 2·0 and 3·0) or placebos for either group for at least 3 months up to 12 months. All patients received initial therapy with open-label enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for at least 5 days. Edoxoban (or placebo) was started after discontinuation of initial heparin; warfarin (or placebo) started concurrently with the study regimen of heparin. In our analysis we examined data for a subgroup of these patients who had a history of cancer or who had been categorised as having active cancer by the study physician at the time of enrolment. Additionally, all patients with a history of cancer were reviewed post hoc and categorised according to the presence or absence of active cancer. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of these patients with symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism during the 12-month study period, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, with an upper limit of the CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5. The principal safety outcome was the proportion of patients who had clinically relevant bleeding in the population of patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00986154. FINDINGS: Of 771 patients with cancer enrolled in the trial, 378 were assigned to edoxaban and 393 to warfarin. Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 14 (4%) of 378 patients given edoxaban and in 28 (7%) of 393 patients given warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·28-1·00; p=0·0007). The upper limit of this 95% CI did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1·5 that was prespecified for the trial. Clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) occurred in 47 (12%) of 378 patients who received edoxaban and in 74 (19%) of 393 patients who received warfarin; HR for clinically relevant bleeding 0·64, 95% CI 0·45-0·92; p=0·017. Major bleeding occurred in ten (3%) of 378 patients with a history of cancer who received edoxaban and in 13 (3%) of 393 who received warfarin (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·35-1·83). INTERPRETATION: Edoxaban might be as effective as warfarin for the treatment of patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism, and with less clinically relevant bleeding. Additional clinical trials of edoxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer are warranted. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo.

CHAMPION-1: a phase 1/2 study of once-weekly carfilzomib and dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is approved in the United States as a single agent, and in combination with dexamethasone or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Under the single-agent and KRd approvals, carfilzomib is administered as a 10-minute IV infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles (20 mg/m(2) [cycle 1, days 1-2]; 27 mg/m(2) thereafter). This multicenter, single-arm, phase 1/2 study, Community Harmonized Assessment of Myeloma Patients via an Integrated Oncology Network-1 (CHAMPION-1), evaluated once-weekly carfilzomib with dexamethasone in relapsed, or relapsed and refractory MM (1-3 prior therapies). Patients received carfilzomib (30-minute IV infusion) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles. The phase 1 portion used a 3 + 3 dose-escalation scheme to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of carfilzomib. During phase 2, patients received carfilzomib on the same schedule at the MTD. Patients received dexamethasone (40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; dexamethasone was omitted on day 22 for cycles 9+. A total of 116 patients were enrolled. The MTD was 70 mg/m(2), and 104 patients (phase 1/2) received carfilzomib 70 mg/m(2) At 70 mg/m(2), the median number of prior regimens was 1; and 52% were bortezomib-refractory. At 70 mg/m(2), the most common grade ≥3 adverse events were fatigue (11%) and hypertension (7%). Overall response rate at 70 mg/m(2) was 77%. Median progression-free survival was 12.6 months. These findings merit additional evaluation of the once-weekly dosing regimen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01677858.