Search

Introduction: Ibrutinib works by inhibiting downstream signaling after the interaction between the mutated MYD88 (Leu265Pro) protein and BTK. In 2015, Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), was approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with symptomatic Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM). Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search following PRISMA guidelines. Beginning with articles published after April 2015, we used databases like PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A total of 580 articles were identified initially, and after a detailed screening, we finalized 4 studies involving 248 WM patients. Results: The total number of patients who received Ibratunib based regimens were 248. The dose ranged from 140-560 mg. The overall response rate ranged from 90-92%, very good partial response ranged from 13-23%, and the partial response ranged from 36-75%. 1) Ibtrutunib +Rituximab: In a study by Dimopoulos et al., (N=150), the overall response rate (ORR) was 92% vs 47% in control vs placebo respectively. The progression-free survival (PFS) of 30 months was 82% vs 28% respectively. 2) Ibrutinib alone: In a study by Dimopoulos et al., with (N=31), ORR was 90%, a very good progression rate (VGPR) was 13 %, and the partial response (PR) was 58%. In a study by Treon et al., (N=63) ORR was observed in Treon et al. at 90.50%, VGPR was 15%, PR was 36%, no response (NR) was 57%, with overall survival (OS) was 24 months. In a study by Richard et al., (N=4), PR was noted at 75%. Conclusion: Ibtrutunib used for the treatment of WM showed an overall response rate of 92%. Infections, cytopenia, bleeding, hypertension and atrial fibrillation were major side effects reported. However, due to the recent FDA approval of the drug to be used for the patients of WM there is very limited studies on Ibrutinib. We recommend future randomized prospective trials to understand the efficacy and safety profile of Ibrutinib for WM treatment. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Waldenström's macroglobulinemia is a rare low-grade lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma characterized by CD20 expression on malignant cells and produces a monoclonal immunoglobulin M (IgM). Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD20 antigen and the most widely used therapeutic agents in WM. Rituximab works by adhering to CD20, causes B-cell lysis mainly through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. Cyclophosphamide is an alkylating agent binds to DNA. Its cytotoxic effect is mainly due to cross-linking of strands of DNA and RNA, and to inhibition of protein synthesis. Our objective is to analyze and summarize the published literature for the efficacy of regimens containing both rituximab and cyclophosphamide for the treatment of Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM). Methods:We performed a comprehensive literature search on articles following PRISMA guidelines. Beginning with articles published after January 2005, we used databases like PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A total of 585 articles were identified initially, and after a detailed screening, we finalized 10 studies involving 425 WM patients. Results:The total number of patients were 425. The dose was 375 mg/m2. The complete response (CR) ranged from 3-19%, very good partial response (VGPR) ranged from 4-22%, and the partial response (PR) ranged from 8-82%. The overall response rate (ORR) ranged from 79-95%. Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CHOP): In a retrospective study by Ioakimidis et al., included 23 WM patients were given R-CHOP. The ORR was 95%, with 69% achieving a major response, 43%, PR, and VGPR OF 9%. In a randomized control trial by Buske et al., N=23, the major response rate was 91%, and PR was 82%. Treon et al. (N=13) observed a major response rate of 27%. (Table 1). Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide and Rituximab (FCR): In a retrospective study by Peinert et al., involving 29 patients receiving the FCR regimen, the ORR was 90%, with 79%, 3%, and 10% of patients achieving PR, CR, and NR, respectively. In a study by Tedeschi et al., involving 40 patients, ORR was 80%, and the major response rate was 80%. Souchet et al., N=82 reported an ORR of 84% and a PR of 46%. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 51.2 months for Tedeschi et al. Dexamethasone, Rituximab and Cyclophosphamide (DRC) In study Paludo et al., (N=50), receiving the DRC regimen, the highest ORR was 87%, PR 64%, and major response was 68%. In a phase II study by Dimopoulos et al., (N=72), the ORR of 82% and PR of 67% was observed. PFS was 24 months in this study. (Table 1) 4.Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone (R-CVP) In study Ioakimidis et al, N=16, the ORR was 87%, the major response rate was 62%, and the PR was 43%. Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, and Prednisone (RCP) Ioakimidis et al., reported 19 patients who were given RCP. The ORR, PR, and the major response rate was 94%, 73%, and 73%, respectively.Lenalidomide, Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone (LR-CD) A study by Rosenthal et al., 15 patients were given LR-CD. ORR was 80%, with a major response rate in 80% and PR in 73% of patients. PFS was 38 months. Conclusion: Rituximab and cyclophosphamide, in combination regimens for the treatment of WM showed the overall response rate of 95%. Neutropenia was the dominant side effect reported in these regimens. There is a paucity of phase 3 randomized trials demonstrating a clinical benefit of anyone regimen over another. We recommend future randomized prospective trials better to understand the efficacy and safety profile of regimens containing both rituximab and cyclophosphamide base combinations. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by lymphoplasmacytic bone marrow infiltration and immunoglobulin M (IgM) monoclonal gammopathy. Various studies have shown that the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (V) targets signaling pathways of relevance in WM. We reported published data on the efficacy profile of (V) for the patients of WM. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search on articles following PRISMA guidelines. Beginning with articles published after 2004, we used databases like PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Total 580 articles were identified initially and after detailed screening, we finalized 9 studies involving 375 patients with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) treated by combination of Bortezomib. Results: The total number of patients in the studies involving Bortezomib were 375 and dose of the drug used ranged between 1.3 mg/m2 to 1.6mg/m2. The Complete response (CR) ranged from 0-19% and the partial response (PR) ranged from 44-58%. Bortezomib(V): In the study Treonet et al., N=27, the highest major respose rate was 85% and minimal response rate was 37%. In the study Chen et al., N=27, the major response rate was 26% and the PR was 44%. Progression free survival (PFS) was 16.3 months for Chen et al. Bortezomib(V), Rituximab(R), and Dexamethasone(D): In the study Treon et al., N=23, the highest major response rate was 96%, CR was 13%, Very good partial response (VGPR) was 13%, and PR was 46%. Highest PR and was observed in Dimopolous et al., which was 58% and 42 months respectively. Bortezomib(V), and Rituximab(R): In the study Agathocleus et al., N=42, the highest CR was 14.2-19%. The highest PR was between 47.6-52.3%. In the study Ghobrial et al., N=37, the CR was 3% and PR was 46%. PFS was 15.6 months. Bortezomib(V), Rituximab(R) and Everolimus(E): In the study Ghobrial et al., N=46, the CR was 4%, PR was 46% and PFS was 18 months. Conclusion: Despite heterogenicity in WM patients and various regimens used in literature, Bortezomib containing regimens are a remarkably effective treatment. Combination regimens showed an overall response rate of 96%. The main side effects being anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and sensory neuropathies. Although we recommend future randomized prospective trials to better understand the efficacy and safety profile of Bortezomib for WM treatment. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Melphalan causes cross linkage between DNA, causes cytotoxicity in both dividing and non-dividing tumor cells. Our objective is to analyze and summarize the published literature for the efficacy of melphalan based regimen used for the treatment of newly diagnosed Amyloidosis (ND-AL). Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search on articles following PRISMA guidelines. Beginning with articles published after June 2006, we used databases like PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Total 649 articles were identified initially and after detailed screening, we finalized 10 studies involving 616 ND-AL patients. Results: Melphalan (M), Bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (d)/prednisone (p): A retrospective study by Zhao et al., included 123 ND-AL patients (pts) were given M, V, and d. Overall hematological response (OHR) was 100% with complete response (CR) in 44% and partial response (PR) in 38.9% pts. Median overall survival (mOS) was 38 months (mo) and 3-yr survival ranged from 41-72%. Organ response (OR) was 25%. In a study by Lee et al., with 19 pts who received M, V, and p demonstrated OHR of 84% (Table 1). Melphalan (M) and dexamethasone (d): Sanchorawala et al. (n=70) reported patients treated with M and d showed OHR of 69%, with CR in 13% and PR in 25%. Similarly, a study by Lebovic et al. reported 40 pts who were given M, d. OHR was 58% and 13% pts showed CR (Table 1). High dose Melphalan/Stem Cell Transplant (HDM/SCT) with and without induction: In study by Cowan et al., (n=45) pts in group A (n=21) were given novel induction using agents like protease inhibitor (PI), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD), Lenalidomide (L), dexamethasone (d) prior to high-dose melphalan (HDM). CR was observed in 50%, VGPR in 7% and PR in 7% pts. Group B (n=24) pts were given frontline HDM/SCT upfront. CR was observed in 28%, VGPR in 14% and PR in 14% pts. In a study by Scott et. al., 31 pts were categorized in 3 groups who received HDCT either with no induction, induction with V-based regimen and induction with other regimens including lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex), melphalan/dexamethasone (mel/dex) and thalidomide/dexamethasone (Thal/dex). OHR in mel/dex cohort (n=3) was 67% (Table 1). In a study by Huang, X. et al., 56 pts were divided in two groups of 28 pts each. Pts in group A received Vd+HDM/SCT demonstrated CR in 67.9%, VGPR in 7.1%, PR in 10 .7 % and no response (NR) in 7.1 % pts. In group B, pts received with HDM/SCT upfront demonstrated CR in 35.7%, VGPR in 10.7%, PR in 2.1 % and no response NR in 21.4 % pts (Table 1). Randomized Standard dose Melphalan (SDM) versus HDM: In a study by Jaccard et al., there were two groups. The OHR was 68% in group A pts who were given SDM and high-dose dexamethasone (HD-dex) with CR in 31% and PR in 36% pts. The OHR was 67% in group B pts who were given HDM+ASCT with CR in 40% and PR in 25% pts (Table 1). Melphalan with Total body irradiaton (TBI): Vesole et al., reported 107 pts who were given M and TBI. OHR was 32% with CR in 16% and PR in 16% pts. mOS was 47.2 mo (Table 1). Melphalan (M), dexamethasone (d), Lenalidomide (L): In a clinical trial (NCT00890552) involving 25 pts M, d, and lenalidomide were give. CR, VGPR and PR were observed in 8%, 16% and 33%. 37.5% pts showed no-response (Table 1). Conclusion: Despite heterogeneity in the AL patient population and various regimens used in published literature, melphalan based regimens are very effective for treatment. Induction regimens and supportive care have evolved over the years. Novel combination regimens used for induction followed by HD-Melphalan consolidation along with careful selection of patients for high dose chemotherapy consolidation and stem cell transplantation in routine clinical practice is the best approach for personalized therapy selection for AL amyloidosis. Cytopenias of three cell lines are the major side effects reported with Mel therapy. Just like melphalan use for treatment of multiple myeloma in novel combination regimens, future randomized prospective trials are needed to better understand the efficacy and safety profile of melphalan based newer combination regimens for AL amyloidosis treatment. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Lenalidomide (L), a commonly used drug for the treatment of Multiple Myeloma, but currently it is not being not used as front line agent for the treatment of AL amyloidosis. It works through various mechanism, can cause direct toxicity to plasma cells, inhibits angiogenesis, and promotes tumor apoptosis. Cyclophosphamide (Cy), causes cross links between DNA which leads to cell apoptosis. For last decade, Cy is being used in combination with agents like Velcade for more than and decade, there is paucity of literature about its use in combination with L. L based regimen may be necessary in patients who have contraindications to bortezomib use, additionally targeted immunotherapy based combinations with daratumumab, through NK cell mediated cytotoxicity, may be more effective in the presence of immunomodulatory drugs. Our main objective is to analyze the published literature for the efficacy and toxicity of L based regimens for the treatment of newly diagnosed Amyloidosis (ND-AL). Methods: A systematic search of databases using (per PRISMA guidelines) PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane database and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from January 2012 onward, with no restrictions of publication language. A total of 649 articles were identified initially and after a detailed screening, we finalized 9 studies involving 223 ND-AL patients. Results: Lenalidomide, dexamethasone, Cyclophosphamide (LCyD): In a phase II trial by Ciberia et al, (n=28) ND-AL patients (pts) were treated with LCyD. Overall hematological response (OHR) was 46% with complete response (CR) in 25%, very good partial response (VGPR) in 18% and partial response (PR) in 3% pts. Organ response (OR) was 46% with maximum pts. showing response in kidney (43%) and heart (26%). In a study by Kastritis et al., involving 24 pts, LCyD induced, OHR was observed in 55% pts with CR in 8 % (Table 1). For comparison with regimens like Cy, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (CyBorD), in a retrospective study by Hong et al., 24 pts were given CyBorD. OHR was 89% with CR, VGPR and PR demonstrated in 55%, 33% and 10% pts respectively. 5-yr OS was 80% and 5-yr PFS was 69% (Table 1). Mikhael et al., reported 17 pts given CyBorD. OHR was 94% with CR in 71% and PR in 24% pts. Venner et al., et al. (n=43) reported 20 patients of ND-AL treated with CyBorD showed OHR of 81.4%, with CR in 41.9% and PR in 39.5%. 46% pts showed OR. Chari et al. reported 9 pts. who were given extensive combinations of Cyc and L. OHR was 88%, with CR in 22% and PR in 66% pts. 77% pts showed an OR (Table 1). Induction with L prior to High dose Melphalan (HDM) and stem cell transplant (SCT) vs front line HDM/SCT: In a study by Cowan et al., (n=45) pts in group A (n=21) received induction therapy using novel agent induction using agents like Bortezomib and Lenalidomide prior to HDM/SCT. CR was observed in 50%, VGPR in 7% and PR in 7% pts. Group B (n=24) pts were given HDM/SCT upfront. CR was observed in 28%, VGPR in 14% and PR in 14% pts. Similarly study by Scott et. al., 31 pts who received HDM consolidation were categorized in 3 groups i.e no induction, induction with V-based regimen and induction with other regimens including L. In pts with len/dex (n=2) OHR was 100%, with CR observed in 100% pts (Table 1). Melphalan (M), Lenalidomide (L) and Dexamethasone (d): In a clinical trial (NCT00890552), 25 pts who were given L, M and d, showed a CR of 8%, VGPR of 16% and PR of 33% pts. mOS was 12 mo (Table 1). Conclusion: There is paucity of literature about the use of Lenalidomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed AL patients. In ND-AL pts, CyBorD and as well as Lenalidomide/dexamethasone-based regimens has shown excellent overall hematological responses (up to 100%). Major adverse effects were anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and rash. We recommend, with adequate sample size, prospective studies need to be conducted for better understanding of efficacy and safety of L based therapies in newer combinations for the treatment of AL Amyloidosis. With good efficacy and tolerance data to support its use, Lenalidomide may have a potential role for its use as an induction agent, salvage therapy as well as post induction long term term maintenance therapy for select AL amyloidosis cases who cant achieve complete remission with induction and / or consolidation regimens. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.