Purpose We compared the efficacy of ofatumumab (O) versus rituximab (R) in combination with cisplatin, cytarabine, and dexamethasone (DHAP) salvage treatment, followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods Patients with CD20 DLBCL age ≥ 18 years who had experienced their first relapse or who were refractory to first-line R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)-like treatment were randomly assigned between three cycles of R-DHAP or O-DHAP. Either O 1,000 mg or R 375 mg/m was administered for a total of four infusions (days 1 and 8 of cycle 1; day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP). Patients who experienced a response after two cycles of treatment received the third cycle, followed by high-dose therapy and ASCT. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), with failure to achieve a response after cycle 2 included as an event. Results Between March 2010 and December 2013, 447 patients were randomly assigned. Median age was 57 years (range, 18 to 83 years); 17% were age ≥ 65 years; 63% had stage III and IV disease; 71% did not achieve complete response (CR) or experience response for < 1 year on first-line R-CHOP. Response rate for O-DHAP was 38% (CR, 15%) versus 42% (CR, 22%) for R-DHAP. ASCT on protocol was completed by 74 patients (33%) in the O arm and 83 patients (37%) in the R arm. PFS, event-free survival, and overall survival were not significantly different between O-DHAP versus R-DHAP: PFS at 2 years was 24% versus 26% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.42; P = .33); event-free survival at 2 years was 16% versus 18% (HR, 1.10; P = .35); and overall survival at 2 years was 41% versus 38% (HR, 0.90; P = .38). Positron emission tomography negativity before ASCT was highly predictive for superior outcome. Conclusion No difference in efficacy was found between O-DHAP and R-DHAP as salvage treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

No abstract

No abstract

primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) at many institutions despite limited data in the multi-center setting. We report a large, multi-center retrospective analysis of children and adults with PMBCL treated with DA-EPOCH-R to characterize outcomes, specifically assess both pediatric and adult patients, and to evaluate potential prognostic factors.Methods: 156 patients with PMBCL treated with DA-EPOCH-R across 24 academic medical centers were assessed, including 38 children and 118 adults. All patients received at least one cycle of DA-EPOCH-R.Radiation therapy was administered at the completion of DA-EPOCH-R in 14.7% of patients.

Background: Salvage chemoimmunotherapy, followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for responding patients, is standard treatment for fit patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) failing first line rituximab-CHOP treatment. Response to salvage treatment is critical for a durable progression free survival (PFS) following ASCT. The 3-year event free survival (EFS) for patients treated with rituximab (R) in first-line regimens who received salvage chemotherapy in combination with R was only 21% (ref-1). The anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (O) has shown efficacy in R resistant lymphoma cell lines and in patients with relapsed or refractory intermediate grade lymphoma when combined with chemotherapy (ref-2). In this randomised phase III study we compared the efficacy of O versus R in combination with DHAP (cisplatin, cytarabine, dexamethasone), aiming to improve PFS following salvage treatment and ASCT (NCT01014208). Methods: CD20+ DLBCL patients, aged ≥18y, in first relapse or not responding (<CR) to first-line R-CHOP-like treatment, with FDG-PET positive measurable disease, were randomised 1:1 between 3 cycles of R-DHAP or O-DHAP. Randomisation was stratified for risk factors: relapse >1y vs ≤1y (including PR, SD or PD) and secondary age adjusted IPI (sAAIPI) 0-1 vs 2-3. Either O 1000 mg or R 375 mg/m2was administered for a total of 4 infusions on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2 and 3 of DHAP. DHAP was dosed as published (ref 1). Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were harvested during cycle 2 or 3. Responding patients (PR+CR) after 2 cycles received the third cycle followed by high-dose therapy and ASCT. Response after 2 cycles was determined by CT scans, and response after 3 cycles and 3 months after ASCT was determined by combined CT+FDG-PET scans according to RRCML criteria by an independent review. Patients with SD after cycle 2 or progressive disease did not proceed to ASCT. The primary endpoint was PFS, defined as time from randomisation to SD after cycle 2, PD or death, whichever came first. EFS included new therapy as an event in addition to the definitions for PFS. Results: Between March 2010 and December 2013, 447 patients were randomised: 222 O-DHAP, 225 R-DHAP. Two patients in the R-DHAP arm were excluded from the ITT-population in accordance with the protocol because they did not receive any study treatment. The database cut-off date was Feb 28, 2014. Patient characteristics were evenly distributed between study arms: median age 57y (range, 18-83); 39% ≥60y; male 61%; Caucasian 72%; LDH >ULN 49%; ECOG PS >1 8%; stage III/IV 63%; sAAIPI 2-3 40%; and response to first line therapy: CR >1y 29%, CR ≤1y 11%, PR 36%, SD 8%, PD 16%. PFS, EFS and OS were not significantly different in the O-arm vs R-arm: PFS-2y 21% vs 26% (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.45, p=0.27); EFS-2y 14% vs 17% (HR 1.12, p=0.27); OS-2y 41% vs 36% (HR 0.86, p=0.25). sAAIPI and response duration after first-line treatment were risk factors significantly associated with PFS and OS. In all, 102 (46%) patients in the O-arm and 113 (51%) in the R-arm died, 79% due to disease progression. Response to salvage was not significantly different between the study arms; ORR: O-arm 38% (CR 15%) vs R-arm 42% (CR 22%). ASCT on protocol was completed by 74 (33%) patients in the O-arm and 81 (36%) in the R-arm. Off protocol SCT was completed by 37 (17%) patients in the O-arm and 26 (12%) in the R-arm. No major differences in clinically relevant toxicity were observed between the arms. Rash (22% vs 9%) and raised serum creatinine (24% vs 16%) were increased in the O-arm. Time to neutrophil (ANC >0.5x109/L and increasing) and platelet (PLT >10x109/L and increasing) recovery after each cycle of DHAP therapy, and PBSC harvest, did not differ between the arms. Time to engraftment (PLT ≥20x109/L and 3 consecutive days of ANC ≥0.5x109/L, prior to day 42) after ASCT was shorter in the R-arm vs the O-arm (HR 0.62, p=0.05). Conclusion: In this large international study no difference in efficacy was found between ofatumumab and rituximab in combination with DHAP as salvage treatment for refractory or relapsed DLBCL. Improved treatment for patients failing first line R-CHOP treatment is urgently needed. Ref 1: Gisselbrecht, J Clin Oncol; 2010:28:4184 Ref 2: Matasar, Blood; 2013 122: 499 Disclosures Off Label Use: Ofatumumab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. Ofatumumab is not indicated in DLBCL. Matasar:Genentech, Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radford:Millennium, Seattle Genetics, Cell Medica: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, Wife is a GSK/AZ Share Holder Other. Ardeshna:Roche, Gilead, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kim:Novartis, Takeda, Celgene: Research Funding. Hong:Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center: Employment. Davies:Hoffman LaRoche, GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ogura:GlaxoSmithKline Jansen Pharma Takeda, Eisai, Symbio, Zenyakuu, Pfizer, Chugai, Celgene, Astra Zeneca, Mundi, Sorasia, GSK, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fennessy:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liao:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lisby:Genmab: Employment. Lin:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagenbeek:Milennium, Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) simulating eosinophilic fasciitis (EF) is an underdiagnosed and challenging complication due to the lack of knowledge about its pathogenesis, refractoriness to traditional immunosuppressive agents and their negative impact on the physical function and quality of life. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical-biological characteristics and response to treatment of a case series and to provide a comprehensive literature review on cGVHD related EF involvement. Methods Prospective observational study to describe the clinical and diagnostic evaluation characteristics of patients with EF-like follow-up as part of our multidisciplinary cGVHD consultations. In addition, the literature on joint and/or fascial musculoskeletal manifestations due to cGVHD was comprehensively reviewed. Results 118 patients were evaluated in multidisciplinary cGVHD consultations, 39 of whom (33%) developed fasciitis. Notably, 11 patients had isolated joint contractures without sclerotic skin. After a median of three lines of treatment, the vast majority of patients achieved some degree of response. 94 potentially eligible articles were identified by the search strategy, with 17 of them, the majority isolated case reports, making the final selection. The validated staging scales used for the assessment were the Joint and Fascial Score and the Photographic Range of Motion. Conclusion Fascial/articular involvement needs to be recognized and evaluated early. To our knowledge, our cohort is the second largest series to have been reported. Literature addressing fascial/joints complications related to cGVHD is scarce. The search for new biomarkers, the use of advanced imaging techniques and multidisciplinary approach may help improve the prognosis of patients with cGVHD.