Safety and efficacy of odronextamab in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody that engages cytotoxic T cells to destroy malignant B cells, has demonstrated encouraging activity across multiple subtypes of relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study (ELM-2; NCT03888105) evaluated odronextamab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy. Patients received intravenous odronextamab in 21-day cycles, with step-up dosing in cycle 1 to help mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent central review. RESULTS: Among 128 patients evaluated, 95% completed cycle 1, and 85% completed four or more cycles. At 20.1 months' efficacy follow-up, objective response rate was 80.0% and complete response rate was 73.4%. Median duration of complete response was 25.1 months. Median progression-free survival was 20.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. Discontinuation of odronextamab due to adverse events occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome [56%; grade ≥3 1.7% (1/60) with 0.7/4/20 mg step-up], neutropenia (39%), and pyrexia (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Odronextamab achieved high complete response rates with generally manageable safety in patients with heavily pretreated R/R follicular lymphoma.

R-CHOP appears to be the best first-line treatment for second primary diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a cancer registry study.

Second primary diffuse large B cell lymphoma (spDLBCL) is defined as a metachronous tumor occurring after a first primary cancer. To date, while R-CHOP is the standard first-line treatment for de novo DLBCL, no available data show that R-CHOP is the optimal treatment for spDLBCL. This exploratory study aimed to investigate treatment of spDLBCL. From 2008 to 2015, the Poitou-Charentes general cancer registry recorded 68 cases of spDLBCL ≤ 80 years old, having received a first-line treatment with either R-CHOP (78%) or other regimens (22%). Patients without R-CHOP have worse overall survival in univariate (HR 2.89 [1.33-6.24], P = 0.007) and multivariate (HR 2.98 [1.34-6.67], P = 0.008) analyses. Patients without R-CHOP more frequently had PS > 1 (67% vs. 28%, P = 0.007) and prior chemotherapy (60% vs. 26%, P = 0.02), which suggests that both of these factors influence a clinician's decision to not use R-CHOP. Prior chemotherapy had no prognostic impact in univariate and multivariate analyses; this result could call into question the risk-benefit balance of not using R-CHOP to prevent toxicity. In our study, one DLBCL out of ten occurred after a first primary cancer, and as regards de novo DLBCL, R-CHOP appeared to be the best first-line treatment. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.

[Pomalidomide for multiple myeloma]. / Le pomalidomide dans le myélome multiple.

Once characterized by a very poor outcome, multiple myeloma (MM) now has a significantly prolonged survival, with major improvements allowed by the use of "novel agents": proteasome inhibitors (first-in-class bortezomib) and immunomodulatory compounds (IMiDs; first-in-class thalidomide and lenalidomide). However, the vast majority - if not all - of patients with MM ultimately end up being refractory to all existing drugs, including these efficient novel agents. There is a clear unmet medical need in this situation, which warrants the development of the next generation of proteasome inhibitors and IMiDs, as well as new drug classes. This review focuses on pomalidomide, the next generation IMiD, recently approved by the US FDA and the EMA for patients with relapsed or refractory MM who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.

[Monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance do not systematically require a specialized consultation]. / Les gammapathies monoclonales de signification indéterminée ne nécessitent pas systématiquement un recours à une consultation spécialisée.

INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a frequent entity in the general population. The incidence rate of fortuitous discovery of a monoclonal component in asymptomatic patients is increasing nowadays. The majority of MGUS is being addressed to a hematologist for diagnosis or follow-up by their generalist practitioners. The management of MGUS consists of a clinical and biological surveillance as per published and validated international guidelines available for MGUS diagnosis and follow-up. MGUS thus may not necessarily need a specialized consultation and follow-up in a hematology ward, as we believe it could be performed by generalist practitioners. METHODS: We studied 190 patients addressed to our hematology department of Lille for diagnosis or follow-up of MGUS. RESULTS: Among the patients, 9.5% developed a malignant hemopathy (multiple myeloma or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). Among patients diagnosed with MGUS of IgG isotype and a monoclonal component <15 g/L, 96.2% showed no pejorative outcome: these represent simple and routine prognostic factors that can be assessed at diagnosis in order to predict the risk of progression. Those patients could have easily been followed by their generalist practitioner from the diagnosis of MGUS. CONCLUSION: A specialist's consultation would still be recommended for patients with pejorative factors at diagnosis, or if a clinical or biological event that could suggest progression occurs during follow-up, or in case of MGUS with complication, in which cases patients would need a specialized management in a hematology department.

[Smoldering multiple myeloma]. / Myélome multiple indolent.

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell neoplasia, characterized by monoclonal plasma cell proliferation in the absence of end-organ damage, but with a high risk of progression to multiple myeloma. It has therefore to be distinguished from monoclonal gammapathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), which has a much lower risk of progression, but also from multiple myeloma, which remains an incurable disease and requires a specific treatment. The critical question in the management of SMM is whether an early therapeutic strategy could help delaying the progression to multiple myeloma, in order to lower the risk of serious complications related to this progression, or even to cure the disease. This early treatment could not be proposed to all SMM patients, who are indeed asymptomatic, and in whom the risk of toxicity could make it difficult to justify the potential benefit obtained. The challenge is to target early at diagnosis SMM patients with a high risk of progression, using available routine tests sufficiently reliable to warrant the therapeutic sanction which relies on it. Today however, apart from randomized studies, recommendations are to maintain therapeutic abstention in SMM patients.