Search

PURPOSE Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4–blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A ( P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B ( P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients withIn a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naiveA total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rankCombination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Summary Background A new generation of biological and targeted agents might potentially replace traditional cytotoxic agents in lymphoma. Lenalidomide plus rituximab was felt to be a safe and promising backbone based on available data. Idelalisib is an oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta (PI3Kδ) inhibitor that has promising activity as a monotherapy in refractory indolent lymphomas. The primary objective of these two trials was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab and idelalisib in relapsed follicular and mantle cell lymphoma. Methods A051201 (mantle cell lymphoma) and A051202 (follicular lymphoma) were phase 1 trials. Patients with histologically documented relapsed mantle cell lymphoma who had not received previous lenalidomide or idelalisib (A051201) were started with oral lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1–21 in a 28 day cycle, oral idelalisib 150 mg twice a day with continuous 28-day cycles, and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 weekly during cycle 1. Patients with histologically documented relapsed follicular lymphoma and time to progression 6 months or longer from last rituximab-containing regimen (A051202) were started with oral lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1–21 every 28 days and oral idelalisib 150 mg twice a day with continuous 28-day cycles, and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on cycle 1, day 8, day 15, day 22, and cycle 2, day 1. The primary endpoints of the studies were safety and tolerability of combining idelalisib with lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (A051201) and relapsed follicular lymphoma (A051202). All analyses were by intention to treat. The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01838434 (A051201) and number NCT01644799 (A051202). Findings Between July 9, 2013, and Sept 30, 2014, 11 patients (three with mantle cell lymphoma and eight with follicular lymphoma) were enrolled. Among the first eight patients, four experienced unexpected dose-limiting toxicities: grade 4 sepsis syndrome, grade 4 hypotension with grade 3 rash and fevers, grade 4 aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation with fevers, and grade 3 pulmonary infection with grade 3 maculopapular rash. Symptom onset was 9–20 days after treatment initiation, coinciding with rituximab infusions. Both studies were amended to remove rituximab, but two of three additional patients had grade 3 rashes and one had grade 3 AST elevation. Both trials were permanently closed. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were ALT elevation (two [67%] of three) and rash (two [67%] of three) for patients with mantle cell lymphoma and neutropenia (five [63%] of eight) and rash (four [50%] of eight) for patients with follicular lymphoma. The primary endpoint of safety and tolerability was not met. Interpretation The combination of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in these trials is excessively toxic, and these trials serve as cautionary notes as new combinations are proposed. Off-target effects, drug–drug interactions, and emerging toxicities should be carefully assessed when investigating biological agents in combination and should never be done outside of a clinical trial setting. Funding National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Uproleselan (GMI-1271) is a novel antagonist of E-selectin, an adhesion molecule expressed on endothelial cells. E-selectin is expressed transiently in the normal vasculature during an inflammatory response and constitutively in the bone marrow (BM). Binding of E-selectin (E-sel) to sialyl Lex, the E-sel ligand (E-sel-L), on the leukemic cell surface activates cell survival pathways and promotes chemotherapy resistance in AML. In preclinical models, blockade of E-selectin with uproleselan disrupts the activation of cell survival pathways and enhanced the efficacy of chemotherapy across multiple AML tumor models. Furthermore, uproleselan protected against chemotherapy-induced mucositis by regulating macrophage trafficking to the site of injury in the gut lining. A previous phase I/II study of uproleselan added to chemotherapy in patients with untreated AML (older adults ≥60 yrs) and relapsed/refractory AML (≥ 18yrs) showed promising remission rates (CR/CRi) and survival outcomes, and reduced rates of mucositis. In the newly diagnosed older patients, high remission rates were achieved overall (CR/CRi 72%) and for the high risk subgroup with sAML (CR/CRi 69%). In this phase 2/3 study, we will test the addition of uproleselan to a standard daunorubicin/cytarabine regimen in older adults with previously untreated AML. The study will enroll patients age ≥ 60 yrs with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia, activating mutations in FLT3, or evidence of central nervous system involvement are excluded. Subjects are randomized to 7+3 induction (cytarabine + daunorubicin) +/- uproleselan. Subjects achieving a CR/CRi may receive up to 3 cycles of consolidation with intermediate dose cytarabine 2 gm/m2 IV d1-5 +/- uproleselan. The primary phase II objective is to compare the event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 262 patients was selected for the phase II to detect an improvement in median EFS from 7 months to 11 months (HR= 0.64) with > 95% power, using a log rank test. The phase III primary objective will compare overall survival (OS). For the phase III, a sample size of 335 evaluable patients per arm (670 total inclusive of patients enrolled in phase II) will provide >90% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 12 months to 16 months (HR= 0.75), using a log-rank test. Correlative studies will measure E-selectin ligand on AML blasts and soluble E-selectin and will also measure minimal residual disease after remission induction by multiparameter flow cytometry. A comprehensive geriatric assessment will identify baseline measures associated with EFS and develop a risk model to predict OS among older adults receiving intensive AML therapy. The study is endorsed by SWOG and ECOG-ACRIN and opened to enrollment on 1/16/2019. Figure Disclosures Uy: Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Dinner:Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Strickland:Jazz: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Liesveld:Onconova: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Byrd:Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; BeiGene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Uproleselan in AML

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is highly sensitive to chemotherapy. Despite a dramatic initial response, however, most patients relapse. Given the activity of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and early clinical trials suggesting activity of gemcitabine in chemo-naive SCLC patients, we conducted a phase II study to determine the efficacy and toxicities of gemcitabine in SCLC patients who have failed first-line chemotherapy. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 was given intravenously on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Eligibility criteria included prior treatment with only one chemotherapy regimen and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2. Patients with brain metastases were eligible. Results: Between April 1998 and October 2001, 27 patients were enrolled: 15 patients with sensitive (S) disease (recurred>3 months after first-line chemotherapy) and 12 patients with refractory (R) disease (failed

Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) infection has been implicated in the etiology of Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), primary effusion lymphoma (PEL), and multicentric Castleman’s disease (MCD), three diseases that frequently develop in immunocompromised, human immunodeficiency virus-positive individuals. One hypothesis that would account for different pathological manifestations of infection by the same virus is that viral genes are differentially expressed in heterogeneous cell types. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed the localization and levels of expression of two viral genes expressed in latent and lytic infections and the viral homologue of interleukin-6 (vIL-6). We show that PEL parallels KS in the pattern of latent and lytic cycle viral gene expression but that the predominant infected cell type is a B cell. We also show that MCD differs from KS not only in the infected cell type (B-cell and T-cell lineage) but also in the pattern of viral gene expression. Only a few cells in the lesion are infected and all of these cells express lytic-cycle genes. Of possibly greater significance is the fact that in a comparison of KS, PEL, and MCD, we found dramatic differences in the levels of expression of vIL-6. Interleukin-6 is a B-cell growth and differentiation factor whose altered expression has been linked to plasma cell abnormalities, as well as myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. Our findings support the hypothesis that HHV-8 plays an important role in the pathogenesis of PEL and MCD, in which vIL-6 acts as an autocrine or paracrine factor in the lymphoproliferative processes common to both.

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma has the poorest 5-year survival of all the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma subtypes and appears incurable with standard therapies. High response rates are seen with CHOP plus rituximab (R), but the progression free survival (PFS) is disappointingly short (median 16–20 months). Favorable results have been reported for hyper-CVAD + R with midcycle high dose methotrexate and cytarabine, but this regimen can be prohibitively toxic for some patients. We hypothesized that eliminating methotrexate and cytarabine while adding R to the induction hyper-CVAD would produce high response rates with acceptable toxicity. We further hypothesized that adding R maintenance would prolong the PFS. Methods: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed CD20+ mantle cell lymphoma and could not have received more than 1 cycle of CHOP-like therapy for their disease prior to study entry. PS 0-2 was allowed. The treatment plan included rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV day 1, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 IV over 3 hrs q 12 hrs X 6 doses days 1–3, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 48 hrs days 1–2, vincristine 2 mg IV day 3, dexamethasone 40 mg po days 1–4, and G-CSF 5mg/kg/day starting after therapy until ANC ≥ 4000/mm3. Cycles were repeated every 28 days, up to 6 cycles. Patients achieving at least a PR received R maintenance therapy (375 mg/m2 IV weekly X 4 doses) every 6 months for 2 years. The accrual goal was 20 patients evaluable for response. Results: Enrollment is completed. All 22 patients are evaluable for toxicity, PFS, and OS and 20 patients evaluable for response rate (2 patients died before any restaging). Patient characteristics include 20/22 male, median age 63 (40–81), median IPI 3 (1–5), and 19/22 stage IV. All patients have completed the induction chemotherapy. Six patients have completed the R maintenance, 10 remain on R maintenance, and 6 patients came off study due to progressive disease (4) or death (2). The ORR is 85% (17/20) with 3 PR, 14 CR/CRu. With a median follow up of 22.5 months (range 4–45), the median PFS and OS have not been reached. The 2-year PFS is 73% (95% CI 50–89%) and the 2-year OS is 82% (95% CI 60–95%). Responses are ongoing in 16 patients, with response duration ranging from 2+ to 39+ months. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities in the 22 patients included neutropenia (10), anemia (5), thrombocytopenia (5), and infection (4). To date, five patients who participated in this study have died (1 treatment-related neutropenic fever, 1 post-surgical infection, 3 progressive disease). The major toxicity of this treatment regimen is expected hematologic toxicity. Conclusion: Modified hyper-CVAD with rituximab maintenance demonstrates ORR comparable to conventional hyper-CVAD (85% vs. 93%) and is less toxic, especially in patients over 60. Compared with published reports for R-CHOP, we observed higher CR rates (70% vs 34–48%) and considerably longer median PFS (not yet reached vs. 16–20 months). Longer follow up will better define the effectiveness of this regimen, but the encouraging results of this pilot study provide the basis for additional study in a larger setting.