PURPOSE Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for relapsed aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in part on the basis of durable remission rates of approximately 40% in a clinical trial population. Whether this efficacy, and the rates of toxicity, would be consistent in a postcommercial setting, with relaxed eligibility criteria and bridging therapy, is unknown. This study describes the efficacy and safety correlates and outcomes in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred twenty-two patients from 7 medical centers in the United States were treated with axi-cel and were included in a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Seventy-six patients (62%) were ineligible for the ZUMA-1 trial. Response and toxicity rates, duration of response (DOR), survival, and covariates are described on the basis of the mITT population. Correlative studies on blood and tumor samples were performed to investigate potential biomarkers of response and resistance. RESULTS Median follow-up was 10.4 months. In the mITT population, the best overall and complete response (CR) rates were 70% and 50%, respectively. Median DOR and progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.0 and 4.5 months in all patients and were not reached (NR) in CR patients. Median overall survival (OS) was NR; 1-year OS was 67% (95% CI, 59% to 77%). Although response rates were similar in the ZUMA-1–eligible and ZUMA-1–ineligible groups (70% v 68%), there was a statistically significant improvement in CR rate (63% v 42%, P = .016), DOR (median, NR v 5.0 months; P = .014), PFS (median, NR v 3.3 months; P = .020), and OS (1-year OS, 89% v 54%; P < .001) in patients who were ZUMA-1 eligible. Rates of grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicty were 16% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION Axi-cel yields similar rates of overall response and toxicity in commercial and trial settings, although CR rates and DOR were more favorable in patients eligible for ZUMA-1.
, and BCL6 and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC were performed. In cases with MYC rearrangement or copy gain, FISH for BCL2 and BCL6 was also performed. Results A total of 117 patients were included; 44% had DEL and 10% had DHL. DEL and DHL were associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS), and DHL was associated with poorer overall survival (OS). The 4-year PFS in patients with DEL compared with those with non-DEL was 48% versus 59% (P = .049), and the 4-year OS was 56% versus 67% (P = .10); 4-year PFS in patients with DHL compared with those with non-DHL was 28% versus 57% (P = .013), and 4-year OS was 25% versus 61% (P = .002). The few patients with concurrent DEL and DHL had a poor outcome (4-year PFS, 0%). In multivariable models, DEL and DHL were independently associated with inferior PFS, whereas DHL and partial response (v complete response) at transplant were associated with inferior OS. Conclusion DEL and DHL are both associated with inferior outcomes after ASCT in patients with rel/ref DLBCL. Although ASCT remains a potentially curative approach, these patients, particularly those with DHL, are a high-risk subset who should be targeted for investigational strategies other than standard ASCT.
Purpose: TTI-621 (SIRPa-IgG1 Fc) is a novel checkpoint inhibitor that activates antitumor activity by blocking the CD47 "don't eat me" signal. This first-in-human phase I study (NCT02663518) evaluated the safety and activity of TTI-621 in relapsed/refractory (R/R) hematologic malignancies.Patients and Methods: Patients with R/R lymphoma received escalating weekly intravenous TTI-621 to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). During expansion, patients with various malignancies received weekly single-agent TTI-621 at the MTD; TTI-621 was combined with rituximab in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) or with nivolumab in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary endpoint was the incidence/ severity of adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoint included overall response rate (ORR).Results: Overall, 164 patients received TTI-621: 18 in escalation and 146 in expansion (rituximab combination, n ¼ 35 and nivo-lumab combination, n ¼ 4). On the basis of transient grade 4 thrombocytopenia, the MTD was determined as 0.2 mg/kg; 0.1 mg/kg was evaluated in combination cohorts. AEs included infusion-related reactions, thrombocytopenia, chills, and fatigue. Thrombocytopenia (20%, grade ≥3) was reversible between doses and not associated with bleeding. Transient thrombocytopenia that determined the initial MTD may not have been dose limiting. The ORR for all patients was 13%. The ORR was 29% (2/7) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 25% (8/32) for T-cell NHL (T-NHL) with TTI-621 monotherapy and was 21% (5/24) for DLBCL with TTI-621 plus rituximab. Further dose optimization is ongoing.
Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia remains poorly defined due to a lack of large data sets recognizing the defining characteristics of this entity. We reviewed all consecutive cases of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated at our institution between 2000 and 2017 and identified therapy-related cases - defined as acute lymphoblastic leukemia preceded by prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation. Of 1022 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 93 (9.1%) were classified as therapy-related. The median latency for therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia onset was 6.8 years from original diagnosis, and this was shorter for patients carrying the MLL gene rearrangement compared to those with other cytogenetics. When compared to de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia, therapy-related patients were older (P<0.01), more often female (P<0.01), and had more MLL gene rearrangement (P<0.0001) and chromosomes 5/7 aberrations (P=0.02). Although therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was associated with inferior 2-year overall survival compared to de novo cases (46.0% vs. 68.1%, P=0.001), prior exposure to cytotoxic therapy (therapy-related) did not independently impact survival in multivariate analysis (HR=1.32; 95% CI: 0.97–1.80, P=0.08). There was no survival difference (2-year = 53.4% vs. 58.9%, P=0.68) between the two groups in patients who received allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation. In conclusion, therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia represents a significant proportion of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnoses, and a subset of cases carry clinical and cytogenetic abnormalities similar to therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. Although survival of therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was inferior to de novo cases, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes were comparable for the two entities.
Although allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF), data are limited on how molecular markers predict transplantation outcomes. We retrospectively evaluated transplantation outcomes of 110 consecutive MF patients who underwent allo-HCT with a fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel) conditioning regimen at our center and assessed the impact of molecular markers on outcomes based on a 72-gene next-generation sequencing panel and Mutation-Enhanced International Prognostic Scoring System 70+ v2.0 (MIPSS70+ v2.0). With a median follow-up of 63.7 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 65% and the nonrelapse mortality (NRM) rate was 17%. In mutational analysis, JAK2 V617F and ASXL1 mutations were the most common. By univariable analysis, higher Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System scores, unrelated donor type, and very-high-risk cytogenetics were significantly associated with lower OS. Only CBL mutations were significantly associated with lower OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.64; P = .032) and increased NRM (HR, 3.68; P = .004) after allo-HCT, but CALR, ASXL1, and IDH mutations did not have an impact on transplantation outcomes. Patient classification per MIPSS70 showed worse OS for high-risk (HR, 0.49; P = .039) compared with intermediate-risk patients. Classification per MIPSS70+ v2.0 demonstrated better OS when intermediate-risk patients were compared with high-risk patients (HR, 0.291) and much lower OS when very-high-risk patients were compared with high-risk patients (HR, 5.05; P ≤ .001). In summary, we present one of the largest single-center experiences of Flu/Mel-based allo-HCT, demonstrating that revised cytogenetic changes and MIPSS70+ v2.0 score predict transplantation outcomes, and thus can better inform physicians and patients in making decisions about allo-HCT.
This phase 2 trial evaluated PET-adapted nivolumab (Nivo) alone or in combination with ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (NICE) as first salvage therapy and bridge to autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) in relapsed/refractory (RR) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Patients with RR cHL received 240mg Nivo every 2 weeks for up to 6 cycles (C). Patients in complete response (CR) after C6 proceeded to AHCT, while patients with progressive disease (PD) at any point or not in CR after C6 received NICE for 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was CR rate per the 2014 Lugano classification at completion of protocol therapy. 43 patients were evaluable for toxicity; 42 were evaluable for response. 34 patients received Nivo alone and 9 patients received Nivo+NICE. No unexpected toxicities were observed after Nivo or NICE. After Nivo, the overall response rate (ORR) was 81% and the CR rate was 71%. Among the 9 patients who received NICE, all responded with 8 (89%) achieving CR. At the end of all protocol therapy, the ORR and CR rates were 93% and 91%. Thirty-three patients were bridged directly to AHCT, including 26 after Nivo alone. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in all treated patients (n=43) were 72% (95%CI:56-83) and 95% (95%CI:82-99), respectively. Among the 33 patients who bridged directly to AHCT after protocol therapy, the 2-year PFS was 94% (95%CI:78-98). PET-adapted sequential salvage therapy with Nivo or Nivo+NICE was well-tolerated and effective, resulting in a high CR rate and bridging most patients to AHCT without chemotherapy. This Clinical Trial is registered under NCT03016871
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.