Search

Recently, the combination of venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent (HMA; azacitidine ordecitabine) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) showed promise in Phase III trials in previously untreated AML. In France at the time of this study, venetoclax was not yet approved for AML and there were therefore no formal usage recommendations. Here we report the first study in a French cohort that assessed venetoclax in combination with existing treatments for AML under real-life conditions.This retrospective, real-life study collected data on venetoclax use and management in a French cohort with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.Of 118 patients, 81 were in second line/beyond (71.6% also hypomethylating agent [HMA]; 23.5% lowdose cytarabine [LDAC]) and 37 in first line. For venetoclax initiation, 57.3% underwent ramp up and 74.6% were hospitalized. Median venetoclax duration was 2.5 months (range 0.03-16.2). With all treatment lines and regimens, most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic (overall 96.4% of patients) and infections (57.1%). Dosage adjustments for drug interactions and safety varied between centers. In second-line/beyond, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-12.8) with venetoclax-HMA and 3.4 months (1.3-8.9) with venetoclax-LDAC; overall response rate was 51.9% and 41.2%, respectively. Thus, we showed that venetoclax-based treatment yields promising findings in patients with AML, but to address treatment complexity, practice harmonization is needed.

Belantamab mafodotin (BM) is an anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate (GSK2857916) that represents an alternative option in multiple myeloma. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety in real-world of BM in patients who benefited from an early access program. We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Eligibility criteria were treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in monotherapy in adult patients who have received at least 3 lines of therapy previously, including at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and whose disease progressed during the last treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the overall survival (OS). The trial was sponsored by the French group IFM and supported by GSK. Between November 2019 and December 2020, 106 patients were treated with BM; 97 were eligible for the efficacy evaluation and 104 for safety. The median age was 66 (range: 37–82) years. High risk cytogenetics were identified in 40.9% of patients. Fifty-five (56.7%) patients were triple-class refractory and 11 (11.3%) were penta-class refractory. The median number of prior lines of treatment was 5 (range: 3–12). The median number of BM cycles administered was 3 (range: 1–22). The overall response rate at best response was 38.1% (37/97). The median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI: 5.9; 15.3), and median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95%CI: 1.9; 4.7). The median duration of response was 9 months (range 4.65-10.4). Treatment was delayed for 55 (52.9%) patients including 36.5% for treatment-related toxicity. Ophthalmic adverse events, mainly grade ≤2, were the most common toxicity (48%). The occurrence of keratopathy was 37.5%. Overall, our data are concordant with the results from DREAMM-2 in terms of efficacy and safety on a non-biased population.

In previously untreated, medically fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, research is focused on developing fixed-duration strategies to improve long-term outcomes whilst sparing patients from serious toxicities. The ICLL-07 trial evaluated a fixed-duration (15-month) immunochemotherapy approach where, following obinutuzumab-ibrutinib induction for 9 months, patients (n=10) in complete remission (CR) with bone marrow (BM) measurable residual disease (MRD)

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis.METHODS: MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; FINDINGS: 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6-26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]).INTERPRETATION: Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia.FUNDING: Sierra Oncology.

Purpose: Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Peripheral T cell Lymphomas (PTCL) have a poor prognosis. Bendamustine (B) and Brentuximab Vedotin (Bv) have shown interesting results in this setting. However, little information is available about their efficacy in combination. Patients and Methods: This multicenter and retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of BBv in patients with non-cutaneous R/R PTCL among 21 LYSA centers in France and Belgium. The primary objective was the overall response rate. Results: Eighty-two patients with R/R PTCL were included. The best ORR was 68%, with 49% of patients in CR. In multivariable analysis, only the relapse status after the last regimen (relapse vs refractory) was associated with the response with an ORR of 83% vs 57% (OR=3.70 (95%CI:1.3-10.5); p=0.014). Median DoR was 15.4 (0.6-50.2) months for patients in CR. With a median follow-up of 22 (0-52) months, the median PFS and OS were 8.3 and 26.3 months respectively. Moreover, patients in CR, who underwent an allogeneic transplant, had a better outcome than patients who did not with a median PFS and OS of 19.3 versus 4.8 months (p=0.0005) and NR versus 12.4 months (p=0.0013) respectively. Fifty-nine percent of patients experienced grade 3/4 adverse events which were mainly hematologic. Conclusion: BBv is highly active in patients with R/R PTCL and should be considered as a one of the best option of immunochemotherapy salvage combination in this setting and particularly as a bridge to allogeneic transplant for eligible patients.

Most relapses of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) occur in the brain and are associated with a poor prognosis. Isolated intraocular relapses (IIORs) are rare and poorly described. We retrospectively selected from the French Lymphome Oculo-Cérébral database PCNSL patients who initially presented with cerebral localization and who experienced IIOR during the course of the disease. Of the 1472 patients included in the database, 55 patients presented an IIOR. Their median age was 68 years, and median Karnofsky Performance Status 80. IL-10 levels in the aqueous humor and/or in the vitreous were increased in 42/46 patients. 45/55 patients received systemic chemotherapy, and 11/55 received high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HCT-ASCT) as consolidation treatment. After a median follow-up of 69 months, 42/55 patients had relapsed, including 90% of the patients who did not receive HCT-ASCT at IIOR and 40% of the patients who received HCT-ASCT at IIOR (p 0.001). The first relapse after the initial IIOR was exclusively in the eye in 23/42 patients, and 29/42 patients had a subsequent brain relapse during the course of the disease. The median progression-free survival, brain-free survival and overall survival from IIOR were 12.2, 48.6 and 57.1 months, respectively. Isolated intraocular relapse is not exceptional in the course of PCNSL and deserves systematic ophthalmological follow-up. Its prognosis is much better than the prognosis of brain relapse, with an evolution close to that of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma. With the exception of patients who received HCT-ASCT at IIOR, almost all patients subsequently relapsed, often with other IIORs.

The use of novel small molecule inhibitors alone or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has raised a number of questions on efficacy, tolerability, long-term treatment adherence in patients with heterogeneous clinical features. To fill this gap, we designed a study focusing on treatment sequencing in patients with CLL in order to (i) compare the outcome of patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) combinations in first-line versus those receiving Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi); (ii) characterize the efficacy and tolerability of venetoclax-based regimens; (ii) understand the impact of treatment sequencing when it comes to chemo-free options including venetoclax after BTKi and vice versa. Data from consecutive sets of patients diagnosed with CLL between 2000-2020 attended at 77 institutions affiliated with ERIC were collected and analyzed. Collected variables included: demographics, clinical stage at diagnosis, IGHV gene somatic hypermutation status; cytogenetic status for chromosomes 11q, 13q 17p and 12 determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization; TP53 gene mutation status; treatment; treatment response; discontinuation; reason for discontinuation; death. We included 9173 patients with a diagnosis of CLL who received at least one line of treatment. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years with a male:female ratio of 1.9. The median follow-up was 78 months (IQR, 48-120 months). Regarding novel targeted agents, 1860/9173 (20.2%) patients had received at least one line of treatment with BTKi (ibrutinib, n=1788; acalabrutinib, n=72) over the disease course; 631/9173 (6.9%) with venetoclax; and, 447/9173 (4.9%) with the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib. Seventy-nine patients were treated with both BTKi and venetoclax (59 BTKi followed by BCL2i, 20 vice versa). At last follow-up, 5870/9173 patients (64.0%) were alive, 3229/9173 (35.2%) died and 74/9173 (0.8%) were lost to follow-up. Patients treated with BTKi in first-line were enriched for TP53 aberrations [del(17p) 27.6%, TP53 mutation 26.3%] and unmutated IGHV genes (69%) and obtained an ORR of 87.7%. Of these, 136 (26.3%) discontinued treatment after a median of 1.2 years (0.07-5.98); main reasons of discontinuation were toxicity (40.5%) and failure (26.2%). Among 631 patients treated with venetoclax at any line, 100 (15.8%) received BCL2 +/- anti-CD20 as first-line; 170 (26.9%) as second line (125 previously treated with CIT, 27 with BTKi); and, 361 as third or subsequent line. ORR ranged between 71.5% (≥3 lines) with 30.5% CR/CRi to 90.3% (first-line) with 68.1% CR/CRi. Treatment discontinuation was due to toxicity in 28.6% of patients treated in the first-line, and 17.6% and 21.8% of patients treated in second and third-or-higher-line, respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation in 14.3%, 20.6% and 33.6% in first, second and third-or-higher line, respectively. CIT was used as front-line treatment in 5465 patients (59.6%). Of these, 2070 (37.9%) and 1018 (18.6%) patients received a second and third line of treatment, respectively. The great majority (865/1086 cases, 79.7%) of patients who received a second line before 2014 were retreated with CIT, most commonly Bendamustine-Rituximab (284/1086, 26.1%) and Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide-Rituximab (252/1086, 23.2%); alemtuzumab monotherapy was used in 55/1086 (5%) of patients. After 2014, 415/984 patients (42.1%) were retreated with BTKi; 93 (9.5%) with venetoclax; 70 (7.2%) with idelalisib; 50 (5%) with Alemtuzumab monotherapy, and 315 (32%) with CIT. Similarly, in the third-or-higher line of treatment, most patients (86.3%) were retreated with CIT before 2014, while BTKi, BCL2i, and PI3Ki were mainly used after 2014 (in 43.1%, 15.7% and 14.7% of cases, respectively). Finally, our cohort included 1075 patients with TP53 aberrations. The ORR of patients receiving BTKis (n=171) as first-line of treatment was 86.5% (22.2 CR+64.3 PR), while the ORR with venetoclax +/- anti-CD20 (n=15) was 91% (45.5% CR+45.5 PR). Patients treated with CIT (n=694) had an ORR of 68.7% (28.3% CR+40.4% PR). In conclusion, in a large international study we provide real world data regarding the selection and sequencing of treatment in CLL, charting a major shift in treatment patterns before and after the introduction of novel trargeted agents and confirming their efficacy even in high-risk CLL. Disclosures Scarfo: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Iacoboni: BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Collado: Abbvie,: Other: pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding. Galimberti: AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. García-Serra: AbbVie: Other: Educational grands; Janssen: Other: Educational grants; Novartis: Other: Educational grants. Gozzetti: Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Hatzimichael: Amgen, Roche, Genesis, Novartis, Bristol Mayer Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Mayer Squibb, MSD, Gilead, Janssen Cilag, Genesis Pharma, Roche, Takeda: Honoraria. Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Jaksic: Roche, Oktal-Pharma/Celtrion, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kater: Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Kotsianidis: Astellas: Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genesis: Consultancy, Other: NONE; Janssen Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kreitman: NIH: Patents & Royalties: Moxetumomab Pasudotox; Genentech: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Innate: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Array BioPharma/Pfizer: Research Funding. Laribi: BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Jansen: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees; AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding. Milosevic: Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie,: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Reda: Beigene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Šimkovič: Janssen, Gilead, Roche, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie: Other: consultancy fees, advisory board participation fees, travel grants, and honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Current Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eli Lilly: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; J&J: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Špaček: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Visentin: Italfarmaco and Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Vassilakopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Integris: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Vitale: Janssen: Honoraria. Yáñez: Gilead-Kite, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Roche, Pfizer, Jazz, BMS, and Merck: Other: Advisory board participation fees ; Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead-Kite, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck: Speakers Bureau. Antic: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other. Cuneo: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Guièze: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam: Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Doubek: Janssen-Cilag, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chatzidimitriou: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding. Stamatopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Primary cutaneous indolent B-cell lymphomas (PCBCLs) are not well characterized due to their rarity and indolent character.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from 52 patients with primary cutaneous follicular lymphoma (PCFL) (n = 26), marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) (n = 25) or undefined PCBCL (n = 1) treated in 10 hematology centers in 1999-2019.Results:Patients characteristics and diagnostic approach: In almost half of the patients, pruritus or pain were present at diagnosis. The lesions were predominantly located on the head and trunk. The disease was present in a form of solitary infiltration or disseminated lesions with a similar frequency.Treatment details and outcomes: Surgery, radiotherapy, rituximab alone or combined with chemotherapy were applied as first-line treatment in 33%, 25%, 21% and 21% of patients, with complete response (CR) achieved by 94%, 83%, 50% and 70% of patients, respectively (p = 0.28). The median duration of response (DoR) was 65 months (95%CI 35-155).Survival: After the median follow-up time of 46 months (range: 3-225), the estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 93% and 54%, respectively.Discussion: Clinical presentation was largely consistent with the literature data, however, we observed some differences, including higher predilection to affect upper extremities (25%) and more frequent multifocal appearance in PCFCL (64%) and unifocal in PCMZL (70%).A high proportion of patients with indolent PCBCL achieved CR after the first-line therapy (77%), regardless of treatment mode. We did not find any impact of clinical features on treatment outcomes.Conclusions: All treatment modalities resulted in a high overall response rate. Surgery and/or radiotherapy are the optimal therapeutic options for patients with localized disease. The decision to treat systemically should rather be limited to the generalized form of the disease. High response rate, long duration of remission and excellent long-term survival confirm the truly indolent character of PCFCL and PCMZL.

The EUROPE phase 2 trial investigated the predictive value of biomarkers on the clinical efficacy of single agent romiplostim (ROM) treatment in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic neoplasms (LR-MDS) and thrombocytopenia within the ‘European Myelodysplastic Neoplasms Cooperative Group‘ (EMSCO) network. A total of 77 patients with LR-MDS and a median platelet count of 25/nl were included, all patients received ROM at a starting dose of 750 μg by SC injection weekly. Thirty-two patients (42%) achieved a hematologic improvement of platelets (HI-P) with a median duration of 340 days. Neutrophil (HI-N) and erythroid (HI-E) responses were observed in three (4%) and seven (9%) patients, respectively. We could not confirm previous reports that HI-P correlated with baseline endogenous thrombopoietin levels and platelet transfusion history, but SRSF2 mutation status and hemoglobin levels at baseline were significantly linked to HI-P. Sequential analysis of variant allelic frequency of mutations like SRSF2 did not reveal an impact of ROM on clonal evolution in both responders and non-responders. In summary, our study confirms the safety and efficacy of ROM in LR-MDS patients and may allow to better define subgroups of patients with a high likelihood of response.

The real-world efficacy and safety of gilteritinib was assessed in an ambispective study that included 167 R/R FLT3-mutated AML patients. Among them, 140 received gilteritinib as single agent (cohort B), including 67 previously treated by intensive chemotherapy and midostaurin (cohort C). The main differences in patient characteristics in this study compared to the ADMIRAL trial were ECOG ≥ 2 (83.6% vs. 16.6%), FLT3-TKD mutation (21.0% vs. 8.5%), primary induction failure (15.0% vs. 40.0%) and line of treatment (beyond 2nd in 37.1% vs. 0.0%). The rates of composite complete remission, excluding those that occurred after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), were similar at respectively 25.4% and 27.5% in cohorts B and C. Median overall survival (OS) for these two groups was also similar at respectively 6.4 and 7.8 months. Multivariate analyses for prognostic factors associated with OS identified female gender (HR 1.61), adverse cytogenetic risk (HR 2.52), and allogenic HSCT after gilteritinib (HR 0.13). Although these patients were more heavily pretreated, these real-world data reproduce the results of ADMIRAL and provide new insights into the course of patients previously treated by intensive chemotherapy and midostaurin and beyond the 2nd line of treatment who can benefit from treatment in an outpatient setting.

Despite a moderate prevalence in low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML), thrombocytopenia remains a risk of severe bleeding and therapeutic options are still limited. There are only a few studies with eltrombopag (ELT), a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, in those patients. In this retrospective multicentre study, ELT was used in 50 patients with MDS and 11 with CMML, with no excess of marrow blasts and platelet counts of