Ukraine data on prognostic factors and treatment outcomes in patients with peripheral t-cell lymphomas

Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) is a diverse group of lymphomas (10-15% of all non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) with aggressive behavior. Despite the standard of 1st line anthracycline-contain ingregimens, clinical outcomes are poor compared to B-cell lymphomas. In addition, there are still debates about specific prognostic factors (PF) in PTCLs. Aims: Primary endpoints -event-free survival (EFS) and over all survival (OS). To evaluate the prognostic significance of five PTCLs scores (International Prognostic Index -IPI, International Peripheral T-cell lymphoma Project Score -IPTCL, Prognostic Index for T-cell lymphoma -PIT, modified Prognostic Index for T-cell lymphoma -mPIT and T-cell score). Patients and methods: From 67 enrolled patients, only 50 were included: PTCL not otherwise specified (22, 44%), anaplastic large cell lymphoma ALK+ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive) (10, 20%) and ALK− (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative) (18, 36%). Patients received CHOP-like regimens (CHOP, CHOEP, EPOCH). Results: The over all rate response was observed in 66% of cases (complete response 78%). There were 48% of relapses after the 1st line therapy during follow-up (median 11 months; range 1-85 months). Median age 57 (range 22-80) with male predominance 62%. In total, 40% of patients were > 60 years old, 48% had stage III-IV. Majority of patients were assessed by five prognostic scores. IPI (45 patients): The 3-year EFS and OS were higher for IPI ≤ 1 vs. IPI > 2 (80 vs. 18% and 87 vs. 27%, respectively; p = 0.0002). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed poor clinical outcome to patients with PF > 1 (Se = 88 %; Sp = 68 %; AUC = 0.7; p = 0.0081). IPTCLP (41 patients): The presence of PF = 1-2 showed EFS and OS reduction. A 3-year EFS rate for 1-2 PF was 25 vs. 70% for PF = 0 (p = 0.003). Thus, 3-year OS in patients with PF = 0 vs. PF = 1-2 was 100 vs. 20% (p = 0.0001). PIT (42 patients): Better 3-year EFS and OS in patients with PF = 0 vs. PF = 1-3 (88 vs. 28% and 100 vs. 34%, respectively, p = 0.001). Patients with PF = 1-3 have a higher rate of relapses vs. PF = 0 (p = 0.0005 by Cox-test). mPIT (21 patients): No significant difference between PF and clinical outcomes. T-cell score (18 patients): Higher survival rates with PF ≤ 2. More than 2 PF have an impact on EFS (p = 0.005). The 3-years OS in patients with PF ≤ 2 was 77 vs. 25% in cases with PF ≥ 3 (p = 0.001). Conclusion: IPI, PIT, IPTCLP are still very useful in defining risk stratification. As to mPIT and T-cell score, more patients to evaluate their prognostication possibility are needed

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562

Once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

Background Selinexor with dexamethasone has demonstrated activity in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly SVd versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. Methods This phase 3, randomised, open label trial was conducted at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients who were previously treated with one to three lines of therapy, including PIs were randomised (1:1) to selinexor (100 mg once-weekly) plus bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg twice-weekly) [SVd] or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg 4 times per week) [Vd]. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous PI therapy, lines of treatment, and MM stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. Findings Between June 2017 and February 2019, 402 patients were randomised: 195 to SVd and 207 to Vd. Median PFS was 13·93 (95% CI 11·73–NE) with SVd versus 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with Vd; HR 0·70, [95% CI 0·53–0·93]; P=0.0075. Most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events (SVd vs Vd) were thrombocytopenia (77 [40%] vs 35 [17%]), fatigue (26 [13%] vs 2 [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy rates (overall, 32·3% vs 47·1%; OR 0·52, [95% CI 0·35-0·79]; P=0.0010 and grade ≥2, 21·0% vs 34·3%; OR 0·50, [95% CI 0·32-0·79]; P=0.0013) were lower with SVd. There were 47 (24%) deaths on SVd and 62 (30%) on Vd. Interpretation Once-weekly SVd is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with MM who have received 1-3 prior therapies. Funding Karyopharm Therapeutics In

Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): And randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study

Background: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m2 thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2; intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. Findings: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). Interpretation: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. Funding: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562. © 2021, The Author(s)