Adjunctive volasertib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for standard induction therapy: a randomized, phase 3 trial

In this phase 3 trial, older patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive the polo-like kinase inhibitor, volasertib (V; 350 mg intravenous on days 1 and 15 in 4-wk cycles), combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg subcutaneous, twice daily, days 1–10; n = 444), or LDAC plus placebo (P; n = 222). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Primary ORR analysis at recruitment completion included patients randomized ≥5 months beforehand; ORR was 25.2% for V+LDAC and 16.8% for P+LDAC (n = 371; odds ratio 1.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–2.89]; P = 0.071). At final analysis (≥574 OS events), median OS was 5.6 months for V+LDAC and 6.5 months for P+LDAC (n = 666; hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI, 0.8–1.2]; P = 0.757). The most common adverse events (AEs) were infections/infestations (grouped term; V+LDAC, 81.3%; P+LDAC, 63.5%) and febrile neutropenia (V+LDAC, 60.4%; P+LDAC, 29.3%). Fatal AEs occurred in 31.2% with V+LDAC versus 18.0% with P+LDAC, most commonly infections/infestations (V+LDAC, 17.1%; P+LDAC, 6.3%). Lack of OS benefit with V+LDAC versus P+LDAC may reflect increased early mortality with V+LDAC from myelosuppression and infections

A phase Ib, open-label, dose-escalation trial of the anti-CD37 monoclonal antibody, BI 836826, in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Background BI 836826 is a chimeric mouse-human monoclonal antibody directed against human CD37, a transmembrane protein expressed on mature B lymphocytes. This open-label, phase I dose-escalation trial (NCT02624492) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety/tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of BI 836826 in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods Eligible patients received intravenous infusions of BI 836826 on day 8 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, for up to six 14-day treatment cycles. Dose escalation followed the standard 3 + 3 design. Results Of 21 treated patients, 17 had relapsed/refractory DLBCL and four had follicular lymphoma transformed to DLBCL. BI 836826 dosing started at 25 mg and proceeded through 50 mg and 100 mg. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred during cycle 1, both grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting > 7 days, affecting 1/6 evaluable patients (17%) in both the 50 mg and 100 mg cohorts. Due to early termination of the study, the MTD was not determined. The most common adverse events related to BI 836826 treatment were neutropenia (52%), thrombocytopenia (48%), and anemia (48%). Eight patients (38%) experienced BI 836826-related infusion-related reactions (two grade 3). Overall objective response rate was 38%, including two patients (10%) with complete remission and six patients (29%) with partial remission. Conclusions BI 836826 in combination with GemOx was generally well tolerated but did not exceed the MTD at doses up to 100 mg given every 14 days

Evaluation of epicardial coronary resistance using computed tomography angiography: A Proof Concept

AIMS: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) pullback allows to assess the distribution of pressure loss along the coronary vessels. FFR derived from CT (FFRCT) provides a virtual pullback curve that may also aid in the assessment of the distribution of epicardial coronary resistance in the non-invasive setting. The present study aims to determine the accuracy of the virtual FFRCT pullback curve using a motorized invasive FFR pullback as reference in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: FFR values were extracted from coronary vessels at approximately 1 mm to generate pullback curves. Invasive motorized FFR pullbacks were acquired using a dedicated device at a speed of 1 mm/s. A total of 3172 matched FFRCT and FFR values were obtained in 24 vessels. The correlation coefficient between FFRCT and FFR was 0.76 (95%CI 0.75 to 0.78; p < 0.001). The area under the pullback curve was similar between FFRCT and invasive FFR (79.0 ± 16.1 vs. 85.3 ± 16.4, p = 0.097). The mean difference in lesion gradient between FFRCT and FFR was -0.07 (LOA -0.26 to 0.13) whereas in non-obstructive segments was -0.01 (LOA -0.06 to 0.05). CONCLUSION: The evaluation of epicardial coronary resistance using coronary CT angiography with FFRCT was feasible. FFRCT virtual pullback appears to be accurate for the evaluation of pressure gradients. FFRCT has the potential to identify the pathophysiological pattern of coronary artery disease in the non-invasive setting