Changes in quality of life and disease-related symptoms in patients with polycythemia vera receiving ruxolitinib or standard therapy

Objectives Polycythemia vera (PV)-related symptoms may not be adequately controlled with conventional therapy. This current analysis of the RESPONSE trial evaluated the effects of ruxolitinib compared with standard therapy on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms in patients with PV who were hydroxyurea resistant/intolerant. Methods In the previously reported primary analysis, ruxolitinib achieved the primary composite endpoint of hematocrit control and ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at Week 32. The current analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF), the Pruritus Symptom Impact Scale (PSIS), and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results Compared with standard therapy, ruxolitinib was associated with greater improvements in global health status/QoL, functional subscales, and individual symptom scores of the EORTC QLQ-C30. At Week 32, more patients in the ruxolitinib arm (44%) achieved a ≥10-point improvement in global health status/QoL vs. standard therapy (9%). Improvements in MPN-SAF symptom scores were consistent with improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30, PSIS, and PGIC scores. Conclusions Ruxolitinib provides clinically relevant improvements in QoL and ameliorates symptom burden in patients with PV who are hydroxyurea resistant/intolerant

Location and type of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations influence clinical characteristics and disease outcome of acute myeloid leukemia

Background: Mutations of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 are novel common genetic alterations identified in acute myeloid leukemia. Aims: To investigate the frequency, clinical associations and prognostic effect of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations together, followed by a detailed investigation of particular mutations. Methods: A consecutive cohort of 376 patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia were enrolled to compare clinical characteristics. Prognostic impact was analyzed for 314 patients younger than 60 years treated with curative intention. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations were screened using allele-specific PCR and high resolution melting, followed by a confirmatory sequencing. Results: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 mutations were mutually exclusive, detected in 8.5% and 7.5% of the cases respectively. Presence of mutations was associated with older age (p=0.001), higher platelet count (p=0.001), intermediate risk karyotype (p<0.0001), nucleophosmin1 mutation (p=0.022), and with lower mRNA expression level of ABCG2 gene (p=0.006), as compared to mutation negative cases. Remission, relapse rates and overall survival were not different in IDH-mutation positive patients. Interestingly, particular mutations differred in association with nucleophosmin1 mutation: co-occurrence was observed in 14.3% of R132C vs. 70% of R132H carriers (p=0.02); and in 47.4% of R140Q vs. 0% R172K carriers (p=0.02) of IDH1 and IDH2 genes, respectively. R132H negatively influenced overall survival compared to isocitrate dehidrogenase 1 and 2 negative (p=0.02) or to R132C (p=0.019) patients. Conclusions: IDH mutations are frequent recurrent mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Although a general common pathogenetic role is proposed, our results indicate that differences in clinical characteristics and treatment outcome may exist among disctinct mutations of both genes

The Aethera Trial: An Ongoing Phase 3 Study of Brentuximab Vedotin in the Treatment of Patients at High Risk of Residual Hodgkin Lymphoma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

n/

Updated Efficacy and Safety Data from the AETHERA Trial of Consolidation with Brentuximab Vedotin after Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients at High Risk of Relapse

Abstract Introduction The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502), which evaluated whether post-ASCT consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) could prevent disease progression in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients at high risk for relapse. The study met its primary endpoint: significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review with BV versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, P=0.001) (Moskowitz, 2015). The 2 most common adverse events (AEs) in the BV- treatment group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (56%) and neutropenia (35%). We are presenting updated efficacy and safety data after approximately 1 additional year of follow-up after the primary analysis. Methods Patients were randomized to receive BV 1.8 mg/kg q3wk or placebo for 16 cycles (approximately 12 months), 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomization was stratified by response to frontline therapy and by best clinical response to pre-ASCT salvage therapy. Patients whose disease had progressed after salvage treatment were not eligible. Patients received CT scans quarterly for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months during long-term follow-up (LTFU). Clinical lymphoma assessments were performed at each cycle of treatment, quarterly during the first year of LTFU, and every 6 months thereafter. AEs were collected for 30 days after the end of treatment, except for peripheral neuropathies and secondary malignancies, which were followed throughout LTFU. Clinical responses to subsequent BV treatment received after progression were also recorded. Results A total of 329 patients were randomized to the BV- (n=165) or placebo- (n=164) treatment arms. Median PFS per investigator assessment was not reached (95% CI not estimable [NE]-NE) in the BV arm and was 15.8 months (95% CI 8.5-44.0) in the placebo arm (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.71). A sustained plateau with substantial separation is evident between both treatment groups, with improved PFS at 3-years post-randomization with BV consolidation versus placebo (Figure). The 3-year PFS rate was 61% (95% CI 52-68) for the BV arm and 43% (95% CI 36-51) for the placebo arm. Six PFS events (2 progressions and 4 deaths) were recorded after the 24-month evaluation period in the BV arm and 3 in the placebo arm (2 progressions and 1 death). The HR for PFS per independent review was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.82). No new secondary malignancies have been observed since the primary analysis. The number of cases were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (n=4 BV, n=2 placebo). Malignancies on the BV arm included bladder cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). In the placebo arm, secondary malignancies included mantle cell lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). Among the 112 patients on the BV arm who experienced treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy based on a Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Query (SMQ) analysis, 99 patients (88%) experienced some improvement (23%) or complete resolution (65%) of neuropathy symptoms at the time of analysis. Discontinuation of treatment due to an AE occurred in 54 patients (33%) on the BV arm, most commonly due to peripheral sensory and motor neuropathies (14% and 7%, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment as a result of an AE received a median of 9.5 cycles (range, 1 to 15) on the BV arm. The 2-year PFS rate in these patients was 69% (95% CI 54-79) versus 82% (95% CI 71-89) for patients who completed all 16 treatment cycles. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with BV in HL patients at high risk of relapse after ASCT showed an improvement in PFS versus placebo, approximately 3 years since the last patient was randomized. Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS per investigator assessment showed a continued benefit of BV consolidation. No additional secondary malignancies have been observed in either treatment arm and most patients experienced resolution of peripheral neuropathy symptoms. We are currently analyzing clinical responses to BV treatment after disease progression. Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Disclosures Sweetenham: Seattle Genetics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study investigates the use of brentuximab vedotin for consolidation therapy soon after ASCT. . Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Nademanee:Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Agura:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Abidi:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Stiff:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viviani:Italfarmaco SpA: Consultancy; Teva Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda International: Consultancy. Carella:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larsen:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership

Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0–2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60–72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61–72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2–5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4–22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1–23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1–25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0–25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1–31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8–23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85–1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). Interpretation Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Oncopeptides ABPeer reviewe

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Impact of the type of hematopoietic stem-cell transplant on quality of life and psychopathology

Background and purpose – Despite the decrease in transplant-related mortality, patients who receive hematopoietic stemcell transplants often suffer from short-and long-term morbidities, poorer quality of life, and psychosocial functioning deficits. Several studies have compared the quality of life and affective symptoms of patients after undergoing autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplants. Some studies have reported similar or greater quality of life impairments in allogeneic hematopoietic stemcell recipients, but the findings have been inconsistent. Our purpose was to examine the influence of the type of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation on the quality of life and affective symptoms of patients. Methods – The study sample comprised 121 patients with various hematological diseases who underwent hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation at St. István and St. László Hospitals, Budapest. The study had a cross-sectional design. Quality of life was evaluated using the Hungarian version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy– Bone Marrow Transplant scale (FACT-BMT). Anxiety and depressive symptoms were assessed using Spielberger’s State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), respectively. Basic sociodemographic and clinical variables were also recorded. Comparisons between autologous and allogeneic recipients were analyzed using a t-test when the variables were normally distributed and a Mann–Whitney U test otherwise. A stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors that contributed to the quality of life and the affective symptoms in each group. Results – Quality of life (p=0.83) and affective symptoms (pBDI=0.24; pSSTAI=0.63) were similar between the autologous and allogeneic transplant groups. The BDI scores of allogeneic transplant patients indicated mild depression, but their STAI scores were similar to those of the general population. Allogeneic transplant patients with symptoms of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) experienced more severe clinical conditions (p=0.01), poorer functional status (p\u3c0.01) and received more immunosuppressive treatment (p\u3c0.01) than those without graft versus host disease. Patients suffering from graft versus host disease experienced more severe depression (p=0.01), and constant anxiety (p=0.03) than those without graft versus host disease. Quality of life was affected by depressive and anxiety symptoms and psychiatric comorbidity in both the allogeneic and autologous groups. Conclusion – Graft versus host disease-related severe somatic complaints seemed to influence the allogeneic transplant patients’ quality of life by inducing depressive and anxiety symptoms