Cardiac Amyloid Detection by PET/CT Imaging of Iodine (124I) Evuzamitide (124I-p5+14): A Phase 1/2 Study.

BACKGROUND: The noninvasive detection of cardiac amyloid, as well as deposits in other vital organs, is critical for early diagnosis and quantitative disease monitoring. Positron emission tomography is an intrinsically quantitative imaging modality suitable for high-resolution amyloid detection. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel amyloid-reactive peptide, designated p5+14, labeled with iodine-124 (124I), in patients with diverse types of systemic amyloidosis. METHODS: In a single-site, open label phase 1/2 study (NCT03678259), the safety, biodistribution, and sensitivity of a single intravenous infusion of 124I-evuzamitide was assessed in patients with systemic amyloidosis (n = 50), asymptomatic transthyretin sequence variant carriers (n = 2), and healthy volunteers (n = 5). Subjects were administered 1.4 ± 0.2 mg of 124I-evuzamitide (71.5 ± 12.4 MBq) and positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography images acquired at 5.2 hours (Q25-Q75: 4.9-5.4 hours) postinfusion. Images were assessed visually and semi-quantitatively for positive uptake of radiotracer in the heart and other major organs. RESULTS: Uptake of 124I-evuzamitide in the heart and other abdominothoracic organs was consistent with the patient's clinical presentation and the type of amyloidosis. The patient- and cardiac-associated sensitivity for imaging and clinical observations was 93.6% (95% CI: 82.8%-97.8%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 81.8%-99.8%), respectively. Semi-quantitative uptake of the radiotracer correlated significantly with serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide measurements in patients with light chain-associated amyloidosis. Cardiac uptake was not observed in any healthy volunteers. The agent was well tolerated, with 1 drug-related adverse event and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: 124I-evuzamitide is an amyloid-binding radiotracer capable of detecting cardiac amyloid in patients with high sensitivity.

The iR2 regimen (ibrutinib plus lenalidomide and rituximab) for relapsed/refractory DLBCL: A multicentre, non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study.

Background: This phase 1b/2 PCYC-1123-CA study evaluated efficacy and safety of the combination of ibrutinib, lenalidomide, and rituximab (iR2 regimen) in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Methods: In phase 2, patients with relapsed/refractory non-germinal centre B-cell-like DLBCL received oral ibrutinib 560 mg once daily and oral lenalidomide 20 mg or 25 mg once daily on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on Day 1 of Cycles 1-6. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) in the response-evaluable population (received any study treatment and had ≥1 post-baseline disease assessment). The study was done at 24 academic and community hospitals in Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, and USA. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02077166. Findings: Between March 13, 2014 and October 2, 2018, 89 patients were enrolled with a median time on study of 35.0 months. Best ORR in the response-evaluable population (n = 85) was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-61) across dose cohorts and 53% (95% CI, 39-67) and 44% (95% CI, 26-62) in the 20 mg and 25 mg lenalidomide cohorts, respectively, with complete responses in 24/85 (28%), 17/53 (32%), and 7/32 (22%) patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 81/89 patients (91%), most frequently neutropenia (36/89; 40%), maculopapular rash (16/89; 18%), anaemia (12/89; 13%), and diarrhoea (9/89; 10%). Serious adverse events occurred in 57/89 patients (64%). Fatal AEs occurred in 12/89 patients (13%); causes of death were worsening of DLBCL (n = 7), pneumonia (n = 3), sepsis (n = 1), and cardiac arrest (n = 1). Interpretation: The most frequent AEs (diarrhoea, neutropenia, fatigue, cough, anaemia, peripheral oedema, and maculopapular rash) were consistent with known safety profiles of the individual drugs. The iR2 regimen demonstrated antitumour activity with durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL. Funding: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company.

Overall Survival with Brentuximab Vedotin in Stage III or IV Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Five-year follow-up in a trial involving patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classic Hodgkin's lymphoma showed long-term progression-free survival benefits with first-line therapy with brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate, plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD), as compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). A planned interim analysis indicated a potential benefit with regard to overall survival; data from a median of 6 years of follow-up are now available. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD or ABVD. The primary end point, modified progression-free survival, has been reported previously. The key secondary end point was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 664 patients were assigned to receive A+AVD and 670 to receive ABVD. At a median follow-up of 73.0 months, 39 patients in the A+AVD group and 64 in the ABVD group had died (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.88; P = 0.009). The 6-year overall survival estimates were 93.9% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.5) in the A+AVD group and 89.4% (95% CI, 86.6 to 91.7) in the ABVD group. Progression-free survival was longer with A+AVD than with ABVD (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.86). Fewer patients in the A+AVD group than in the ABVD group received subsequent therapy, including transplantation, and fewer second cancers were reported with A+AVD (in 23 vs. 32 patients). Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was recommended after an increased incidence of febrile neutropenia was observed with A+AVD. More patients had peripheral neuropathy with A+AVD than with ABVD, but most patients in the two groups had resolution or amelioration of the event by the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received A+AVD for the treatment of stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma had a survival advantage over those who received ABVD. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas and Seagen; ECHELON-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01712490; EudraCT number, 2011-005450-60.).

Outcomes Among Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients After an Interim PET Scan: A Real-World Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The utility of dose escalation after positive positron emission tomography following 2 cycles of ABVD (PET2) for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) remains controversial. We describe the United States real-world practice patterns for PET2 positive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data was collected from 15 sites on PET2 positive HL patients after receiving frontline treatment between January, 2015 and June, 2019. Descriptive analyses between those with therapy change and those continuing initial therapy were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were identified; 111 (86%) were treated with ABVD therapy and 18 (14%) with an alternate regimen. At PET2 assessment, 74.4% (96/129) had Deauville score (DS) 4 and 25.6% (33/129) had DS 5. Of the 66 limited stage (LS) patients with PET2 DS score of 4/5, 77.3% (51/66) continued initial therapy and 22.7% (15/66) changed to escalated therapy. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) for DS 4/5 LS patients was 67.0% (95% CI; 54.9-81.7) for patients without escalation compared with 51.4% (95% CI; 30.8-85.8) for those who escalated. Of the 63 DS 4/5 patients with advanced stage (AS) disease, 76.2% (48/63) continued initial therapy and 23.8% (15/63) changed to escalated therapy. The 12-month PFS for DS 4/5 AS patients was 38.3% (95% CI: 26.3%-55.7%) for patients without escalation compared with 57.1% (95% CI: 36.3-89.9) for those with escalation. CONCLUSION: A minority of PET2 positive HL patients undergo therapy escalation and outcomes remain overall suboptimal. Improved prognostics markers and better therapeutics are required to improve outcomes for high-risk PET2 positive HL patients.

Quality-of-life analysis of pembrolizumab vs brentuximab vedotin for relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) demonstrated a progression-free survival advantage for pembrolizumab over brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients who had relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) following, or who were ineligible for, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-204, are reported from patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 PRO assessment. The EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and EuroQoL EQ-5D were administered at baseline, every 6 weeks until week 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Prespecified end points included least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to week 24 and time to true deterioration (TTD; ≥10-point decline from baseline). Comparisons were evaluated using 2-sided P values uncontrolled for multiplicity. High compliance at baseline (>90%) and through week 24 (>80%) was demonstrated across treatment groups (PRO analysis set: pembrolizumab, n = 146; BV, n = 150). The EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) score improved from baseline to week 24 on pembrolizumab and worsened on BV and demonstrated significant LSM differences at 24 weeks (GHS/QoL: 8.60 [95% confidence interval, 3.89-13.31]; P = .0004). Significant improvements were observed in each QLQ-C30 domain except emotional and cognitive functioning. Compared with BV, pembrolizumab prolonged TTD for GHS/QoL (hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22-0.74]; P = .003) and each QLQ-C30 domain except cognitive functioning. In conclusion, pembrolizumab demonstrated overall improvements in PROs of HRQoL measures over BV in the KEYNOTE-204 study. These data and previously reported efficacy results support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with R/R cHL who are ineligible for or experience relapse after ASCT.

Improved post-ASCT survival of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the era of novel agents.

Utilization of novel agents such as brentuximab vedotin (BV) and check-point inhibitors (CI) has increased in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL). We conducted a retrospective study of 209 patients who had ASCT for r/r cHL at our institution and compared outcomes of those who had ASCT from 2010-2018 (cohort 2, n = 110) with those who had ASCT between 2000 and 2009 (cohort 1, n = 99). The median OS was 7.6 years for cohort 1 [HR 2.08; 95% CI 1.14-3.80; p = 0.017] and not reached for cohort 2; with 4-year improved OS difference of 15% (80% vs 65%) in cohort 2 vs cohort 1. The median PFS of cohort 1 was 30 months vs 39 months for cohort 2[HR 1.24; 95% CI 0.82-1.88; p = 0.3]. This study highlights improved OS of r/r cHL patients who have received ASCT in the novel agent era due to the exposure to agents such as BV and CIs.

Concurrent ibrutinib plus venetoclax in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: the safety run-in of the phase 3 SYMPATICO study.

Ibrutinib plus venetoclax, given with an ibrutinib lead-in, has shown encouraging clinical activity in early phase studies in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The ongoing phase 3 SYMPATICO study evaluates the safety and efficacy of concurrently administered, once-daily, all-oral ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. A safety run-in (SRI) cohort was conducted to inform whether an ibrutinib lead-in should be implemented for the randomized portion. Patients received concurrent ibrutinib 560 mg continuously plus venetoclax in a 5-week ramp-up to venetoclax 400 mg for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was occurrence of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The SRI cohort enrolled 21 patients; six and 15 were in low- or increased-risk categories for TLS, respectively. During the 5-week venetoclax ramp-up, three patients had DLTs, and one patient at increased risk for TLS had a laboratory TLS; no additional TLS events occurred during follow-up. With a median follow-up of 31 months, the overall response rate was 81% (17/21); 62% (13/21) of patients had a complete response. SRI data informed that the randomized portion should proceed with concurrent ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with no ibrutinib lead-in. Ibrutinib plus venetoclax demonstrated promising efficacy; no new safety signals were observed.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03112174. Registered 13 April 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03112174 .

Fimepinostat (CUDC-907) in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell and high-grade B-cell lymphoma: report of a phase 2 trial and exploratory biomarker analyses.

Fimepinostat (CUDC-907), a first-in-class oral small-molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, demonstrated efficacy in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large and high-grade B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL/HGBL), particularly those with increased MYC protein expression and/or MYC gene rearrangement/copy number gain (MYC-altered disease). Therefore, a phase 2 study of fimepinostat was conducted in this patient population with 66 eligible patients treated. The primary end-point of overall response (OR) rate for patients with MYC-IHC ≥40% (n = 46) was 15%. Subsequently, exploratory pooled analyses were performed including patients treated on both the phase 1 and 2 studies based upon the presence of MYC-altered disease as well as a biomarker identified by Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon analysis (VIPER). For these patients with MYC-altered disease (n = 63), the overall response (OR) rate was 22% with seven responding patients remaining on treatment for approximately two years or longer, and VIPER yielded a three-protein biomarker classification with positive and negative predictive values of ≥85%. Prolonged durations of response were achieved by patients with MYC-altered R/R DLBCL/HGBL treated with single-agent fimepinostat. Combination therapies and/or biomarker-based patient selection strategies may lead to higher response rates in future clinical trials.

Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ECHELON-1): 5-year update of an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma with the introduction of PET-adapted regimens, practical challenges prevent more widespread use of these approaches. The ECHELON-1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of front-line A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) in patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary analysis showed improved modified progression-free survival with A+AVD. We present an updated analysis of ECHELON-1 at 5 years, an important landmark for this patient population. METHODS: ECHELON-1 was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 218 clinical sites, including hospitals, cancer centres, and community clinics, in 21 countries. Previously untreated patients (≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2) with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, 1·2 mg/kg of bodyweight, doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 of body surface area, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) or ABVD (doxorubicin 25 mg/m2, bleomycin 10 U/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to six cycles. Stratification factors included region (Americas vs Europe vs Asia) and International Prognostic Score risk group (low, intermediate, or high risk). The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival; this 5-year update includes analysis of progression-free survival as per investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population, which was an exploratory endpoint, although the 5-year analysis was not prespecified in the protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01712490) and EudraCT (2011-005450-60), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 19, 2012, and Jan 13, 2016, 1334 patients were randomly assigned to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). At a median follow-up of 60·9 months (IQR 52·2-67·3), 5-year progression-free survival was 82·2% (95% CI 79·0-85·0) with A+AVD and 75·3% (71·7-78·5) with ABVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·87]; p=0·0017). Among PET-2-negative patients, 5-year progression-free survival was higher with A+AVD than with ABVD (84·9% [95% CI 81·7-87·6] vs 78·9% [75·2-82·1]; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·50-0·88]; p=0·0035). 5-year progression-free survival for PET-2-positive patients was 60·6% (95% CI 45·0-73·1) with A+AVD versus 45·9% (32·7-58·2) with ABVD (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·39-1·26]; p=0·23). Peripheral neuropathy continued to improve or resolve over time with both A+AVD (375 [85%] of 443 patients) and ABVD (245 [86%] of 286 patients); more patients had ongoing peripheral neuropathy in the A+AVD group (127 [19%] of 662) than in the ABVD group (59 [9%] of 659). Fewer secondary malignancies were reported with A+AVD (19 [3%] of 662) than with ABVD (29 [4%] of 659). More livebirths were reported in the A+AVD group (n=75) than in the ABVD group (n=50). INTERPRETATION: With 5 years of follow-up, A+AVD showed robust and durable improvement in progression-free survival versus ABVD, regardless of PET-2 status, and a consistent safety profile. On the basis of these findings, A+AVD should be preferred over ABVD for patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. FUNDING: Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and Seagen.

Brentuximab vedotin in combination with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: 3-year study results.

This phase 1-2 study evaluated brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with nivolumab (Nivo) as first salvage therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In parts 1 and 2, patients received staggered dosing of BV and Nivo in cycle 1, followed by same-day dosing in cycles 2 to 4. In part 3, both study drugs were dosed, same day, for all 4 cycles. At end of study treatment, patients could undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) per investigator discretion. The objective response rate (ORR; N = 91) was 85%, with 67% achieving a complete response (CR). At a median follow-up of 34.3 months, the estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 years was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65% to 86%) and 91% (95% CI, 79% to 96%) for patients undergoing ASCT directly after study treatment. Overall survival at 3 years was 93% (95% CI, 85% to 97%). The most common adverse events (AEs) prior to ASCT were nausea (52%) and infusion-related reactions (43%), all grade 1 or 2. A total of 16 patients (18%) had immune-related AEs that required systemic corticosteroid treatment. Peripheral blood immune signatures were consistent with an activated T-cell response. Median gene expression of CD30 in tumors was higher in patients who responded compared with those who did not. Longer-term follow-up of BV and Nivo as a first salvage regimen shows durable efficacy and impressive PFS, especially in patients who proceeded directly to transplant, without additional toxicity concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02572167.

Allogeneic transplantation after PD-1 blockade for classic Hodgkin lymphoma.

Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies yield high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients will eventually progress. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) after PD-1 blockade may be associated with increased toxicity, raising challenging questions about the role, timing, and optimal method of transplantation in this setting. To address these questions, we assembled a retrospective cohort of 209 cHL patients who underwent alloHCT after PD-1 blockade. With a median follow-up among survivors of 24 months, the 2-year cumulative incidences (CIs) of non-relapse mortality and relapse were 14 and 18%, respectively; the 2-year graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and relapse-free survival (GRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were 47%, 69%, and 82%, respectively. The 180-day CI of grade 3-4 acute GVHD was 15%, while the 2-year CI of chronic GVHD was 34%. In multivariable analyses, a longer interval from PD-1 to alloHCT was associated with less frequent severe acute GVHD, while additional treatment between PD-1 and alloHCT was associated with a higher risk of relapse. Notably, post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based GVHD prophylaxis was associated with significant improvements in PFS and GRFS. While awaiting prospective clinical trials, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis may be considered the optimal transplantation strategy for this patient population.

Autologous stem cell transplantation after anti-PD-1 therapy for multiply relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Based on studies suggesting that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can sensitize patients to subsequent chemotherapy, we hypothesized that anti-PD-1 therapy before ASCT would result in acceptable outcomes among high-risk patients who progressed on or responded insufficiently to ≥1 salvage regimen, including chemorefractory patients who are traditionally considered poor ASCT candidates. We retrospectively identified 78 HL patients who underwent ASCT after receiving an anti-PD-1 mAb (alone or in combination) as third-line or later therapy across 22 centers. Chemorefractory disease was common, including 42 patients (54%) refractory to ≥2 consecutive systemic therapies immediately before anti-PD-1 treatment. Fifty-eight (74%) patients underwent ASCT after anti-PD-1 treatment, while 20 patients (26%) received additional therapy after PD-1 blockade and before ASCT. Patients received a median of 4 systemic therapies (range, 3-7) before ASCT, and 31 patients (41%) had a positive pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET) result. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 19.6 months, the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 81% (95% CI, 69-89) and 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99), respectively. Favorable outcomes were observed for patients who were refractory to 2 consecutive therapies immediately before PD-1 blockade (18-month PFS, 78%), had a positive pre-ASCT PET (18-month PFS, 75%), or received ≥4 systemic therapies before ASCT (18-month PFS, 73%), while PD-1 nonresponders had inferior outcomes (18-month PFS, 51%). In this high-risk cohort, ASCT after anti-PD-1 therapy was associated with excellent outcomes, even among heavily pretreated, previously chemorefractory patients.

Pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (KEYNOTE-204): an interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: PD-1 blockade via pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumour activity and toxicity in patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Here, we present interim analyses from the KEYNOTE-204 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who were ineligible for or had relapsed after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) were enrolled at 78 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries and territories. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous autologous HSCT and status after front-line therapy. Results from the second interim analysis are presented here, with a database cutoff of Jan 16, 2020. The dual primary endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival (not analysed at this interim analysis). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684292. Recruitment for this trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 8, 2016, and July 13, 2018, 151 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and 153 to brentuximab vedotin. After a median time from randomisation to data cutoff of 25·7 months (IQR 23·4-33·0), median progression-free survival was 13·2 months (95% CI 10·9-19·4) for pembrolizumab versus 8·3 months (5·7-8·8) for brentuximab vedotin (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·48-0·88]; p=0·0027). The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were pneumonitis (six [4%] of 148 patients in the pembrolizumab group vs one [1%] of 152 patients in the brentuximab vedotin group), neutropenia (three [2%] vs 11 [7%]), decreased neutrophil count (one [1%] vs seven [5%]), and peripheral neuropathy (one [1%] vs five [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 (16%) of 148 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 16 (11%) of 152 patients receiving brentuximab vedotin. One treatment-related death due to pneumonia occurred in the pembrolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with brentuximab vedotin, with safety consistent with previous reports. These data support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed post-autologous HSCT or are ineligible for autologous HSCT. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

Checkpoint Blockade Treatment May Sensitize Hodgkin Lymphoma to Subsequent Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued owing to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there are no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen centers across the U.S. and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included. Seventy-two percent had stage III-IV disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of four therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT owing to progression. The ORR to post-CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post-CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post-CBT regimen. CONCLUSION: In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post-CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Novel, life-prolonging treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are greatly desired. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) use in R/R HL may sensitize patients to their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially enhance therapeutic options or to bridge patients to transplant. Prospective data are warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment-related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life.

Checkpoint blockade treatment sensitises relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma to subsequent therapy.

Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have limited options for salvage, and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) has little efficacy. Usage in solid malignancies suggests that CBT sensitises tumours to subsequent chemotherapy. We performed the first analysis of CBT on subsequent NHL treatment. Seventeen North American centres retrospectively queried records. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Fifty-nine patients (68% aggressive NHL, 69% advanced disease) were included. Patients received a median of three therapies before CBT. Fifty-three (90%) discontinued CBT due to progression. Post-CBT regimens included chemotherapy (49%), targeted therapy (30%), clinical trial (17%), transplant conditioning (2%) and chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy (2%). The ORR to post-CBT treatment was 51%, with median PFS of 6·1 months. In patients with at least stable disease (SD) to post-CBT, the median DOR was significantly longer than to pre-CBT (310 vs. 79 days, P = 0·005) suggesting sensitisation. Nineteen patients were transplanted after post-CBT therapy. Median overall survival was not reached, nor affected by regimen. Prospective trials are warranted, as this may offer R/R NHL patients a novel therapeutic approach.

Impact of Treatment Beyond Progression with Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Atypical response patterns following immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) led to the concept of continuation of treatment beyond progression (TBP); however, the longitudinal benefit of this approach is unclear. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of 64 patients treated with ICB; 20 who received TBP (TBP cohort) and 44 who stopped ICB at initial progression (non-TBP cohort). The TBP cohort received ICB for a median of 4.7 months after initial progression and delayed subsequent treatment by a median of 6.6 months. Despite receiving more prior lines of therapy, the TBP cohort achieved longer progression-free survival with post-ICB treatment (median, 17.5 months vs. 6.1 months, p = .035) and longer time-to-subsequent treatment failure, defined as time from initial ICB progression to failure of subsequent treatment (median, 34.6 months vs. 9.9 months, p = .003). With the limitations of a retrospective study, these results support the clinical benefit of TBP with ICB for selected patients.

Urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma.

Urelumab, a fully human, non-ligand binding, CD137 agonist IgG4 monoclonal antibody, enhances T-cell and natural killer-cell antitumor activity in preclinical models, and may enhance cytotoxic activity of rituximab. Here we report results in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other B-cell lymphomas, in phase 1 studies evaluating urelumab alone (NCT01471210) or combined with rituximab (NCT01775631). Sixty patients received urelumab (0.3 mg/kg IV Q3W, 8 mg IV Q3W, or 8 mg IV Q6W); 46 received urelumab (0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or 8 mg IV Q3W) plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV QW. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of urelumab was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg or 8 mg Q3W after a single event of potential drug-induced liver injury occurred with urelumab 0.3 mg/kg. Treatment-related AEs were reported in 52% (urelumab: grade 3/4, 15%) and 72% (urelumab + rituximab: grade 3/4, 28%); three led to discontinuation (grade 3 increased AST, grade 4 acute hepatitis [urelumab]; one death from sepsis syndrome [urelumab plus rituximab]). Objective response rates/disease control rates were 6%/19% (DLBCL, n = 31), 12%/35% (FL, n = 17), and 17%/42% (other B-cell lymphomas, n = 12) with urelumab and 10%/24% (DLBCL, n = 29) and 35%/71% (FL, n = 17) with urelumab plus rituximab. Durable remissions in heavily pretreated patients were achieved; however, many were observed at doses exceeding the MTD. These data show that urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab demonstrated manageable safety in B-cell lymphoma, but the combination did not enhance clinical activity relative to rituximab alone or other current standard of care.

Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma: 3-year update of the ECHELON-1 study.

The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (A) with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD; A+AVD) exhibited superior modified progression-free survival (PFS) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for frontline treatment of patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Maturing positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted trial data highlight potential limitations of PET-adapted approaches, including toxicities with dose intensification and higher-than-expected relapse rates in PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2)-negative (PET2-) patients. We present an update of the ECHELON-1 study, including an exploratory analysis of 3-year PFS per investigator. A total of 1334 patients with stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD (n = 664) or ABVD (n = 670). Interim PET2 was required. At median follow-up of 37 months, 3-year PFS rates were 83.1% with A+AVD and 76.0% with ABVD; 3-year PFS rates in PET2- patients aged <60 years were 87.2% vs 81.0%, respectively. A beneficial trend in PET2+ patients aged <60 years on A+AVD was also observed, with a 3-year PFS rate of 69.2% vs 54.7% with ABVD. The benefit of A+AVD in the intent-to-treat population appeared independent of disease stage and prognostic risk factors. Upon continued follow-up, 78% of patients with peripheral neuropathy on A+AVD had either complete resolution or improvement compared with 83% on ABVD. These data highlight that A+AVD provides a durable efficacy benefit compared with ABVD for frontline stage III/IV cHL, consistent across key subgroups regardless of patient status at PET2, without need for treatment intensification or bleomycin exposure. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01712490 (EudraCT no. 2011-005450-60).

Practical Approaches on CD30 Detection and Reporting in Lymphoma Diagnosis.

While our understanding of the biology of CD30 in lymphoma continues to evolve, our need to detect and measure its expression at the protein level remains critically important for diagnosis and patient care. In addition to its diagnostic and prognostic utility, CD30 has emerged as a vehicle for drug targeting through the antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab-vedotin (BV). Given the numerous ways that CD30 is utilized and its emergence as a predictive/prognostic biomarker, pathologists must come to a general consensus on the best reporting structure and methodology to ensure appropriate patient care. In this manuscript, we review the indications for testing, various modalities for testing, technical challenges, pitfalls, and potential standards of reporting. The following questions will try to be addressed in the current review article: What defines a "POSITIVE" level of CD30 expression?; How do we evaluate and report CD30 expression?; What are the caveats in the evaluation of CD30 expression?