Dasatinib in the treatment of imatinib refractory chronic myeloid leukemia

The development of imatinib for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has proven to be an example of medical success in the era of targeted therapy. However, imatinib resistance or intolerance occurs in a substantial number of patients. Additionally, patients who have progressed beyond the chronic phase of CML do relatively poorly with imatinib therapy. Mechanisms of imatinib resistance include BCR-ABL point mutations resulting in decreased imatinib binding, as well as mutation-independent causes of resistance such as SRC family kinase dysregulation, BCR-ABL gene amplification, drug influx/efflux mechanisms and other poorly understood processes. The options for therapy in these patients include stem cell transplantation, imatinib dose escalation as well as the use of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Dasatinib is a second-generation multi-kinase inhibitor with several theoretical and mechanistic advantages over imatinib. Moreover, several studies have evaluated dasatinib in patients who have progressed on imatinib therapy with encouraging results. Other novel agents such as mTOR inhibitors, bosutinib and INNO 406 have also shown promise in this setting. Although treatment options have increased, the choice of second-line therapy in patients with CML is influenced by concerns surrounding the duration of response as well as toxicity. Consequently, there is no agreed upon optimal second-line agent. This paper reviews the current data and attempts to address these issues

Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin in patients with CD30-positive hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND: Brentuximab vedotin is a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate. Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin monotherapy was investigated in patients with CD30-positive Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) who relapsed after achieving complete or partial remission (CR or PR) with initial brentuximab vedotin therapy in a previous study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00947856). METHODS: Twenty-one patients with HL and 8 patients with systemic ALCL were retreated; 3 patients with systemic ALCL were retreated twice. Patients generally received brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg intravenously approximately every 3 weeks over 30 minutes as an outpatient infusion. The primary objectives of this study were to assess safety and to estimate antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin retreatment. RESULTS: The objective response rate was 60% (30% CR) in HL patients and 88% (63% CR) in systemic ALCL patients. The estimated median duration of response for patients with an objective response was 9.5 months (range, 0.0+ to 28.0+ months) at the time of study closure. Of the 19 patients with objective response, 7 patients had not had an event of disease progression or death at the time of study closure; duration of response for these patients ranged from 3.5 to 28 months. Of the 11 patients with CR, 45% had response durations of over 1 year. Adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥25% of patients during the retreatment period were generally similar in type and frequency to those observed in the pivotal trials of brentuximab vedotin monotherapy, with the exception of peripheral neuropathy, which is known to have a cumulative effect. Grade 3 or higher events were observed in 48% of patients; these were generally transient and managed by dose modifications or delays. Deaths due to AEs occurred in 3 HL patients; none were considered to be related to brentuximab vedotin retreatment. DISCUSSION: With the exception of a higher rate of peripheral motor neuropathy, retreatment with brentuximab vedotin was associated with similar side effects seen in the pivotal trials. CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin monotherapy is associated with response rates in 68% (39% CR) of patients with relapsed HL and systemic ALCL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: United States registry and results database ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00947856

Safety and activity of ibrutinib in combination with durvalumab in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma or diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma

This phase 1b/2, multicenter, open‐label study evaluated ibrutinib plus durvalumab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) or diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients were treated with once‐daily ibrutinib 560 mg plus durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks in 28‐day cycles in phase 1b without dose‐limiting toxicities, confirming the phase 2 dosing. Sixty‐one patients with FL (n = 27), germinal center B‐cell (GCB) DLBCL (n = 16), non‐GCB DLBCL (n = 16), and unspecified DLBCL (n = 2) were treated. Overall response rate (ORR) was 25% in all patients, 26% in patients with FL, 13% in patients with GCB DLBCL, and 38% in patients with non‐GCB DLBCL. Overall, median progression‐free survival was 4.6 months and median overall survival was 18.1 months; both were longer in patients with FL than in patients with DLBCL. The most frequent treatment‐emergent adverse events (AEs) in patients with FL and DLBCL, respectively, were diarrhea (16 [59%]; 16 [47%]), fatigue (12 [44%]; 16 [47%]), nausea (9 [33%]; 12 [35%]), peripheral edema (7 [26%]; 13 [38%]), decreased appetite (8 [30%]; 11 [32%]), neutropenia (6 [22%]; 11 [32%]), and vomiting (5 [19%]; 12 [35%]). Investigator‐defined immune‐related AEs were reported in 12/61 (20%) patients. Correlative analyses were conducted but did not identify any conclusive biomarkers of response. In FL, GCB DLBCL, and non‐GCB DLBCL, ibrutinib plus durvalumab demonstrated similar activity to single‐agent ibrutinib with the added toxicity of the PD‐L1 blockade; the combination resulted in a safety profile generally consistent with those known for each individual agent.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152736/1/ajh25659_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152736/2/ajh25659.pd

Urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma

Altres ajuts: This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ.Urelumab, a fully human, non-ligand binding, CD137 agonist IgG4 monoclonal antibody, enhances T-cell and natural killer-cell antitumor activity in preclinical models, and may enhance cytotoxic activity of rituximab. Here we report results in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other B-cell lymphomas, in phase 1 studies evaluating urelumab alone (NCT01471210) or combined with rituximab (NCT01775631). Sixty patients received urelumab (0.3 mg/kg IV Q3W, 8 mg IV Q3W, or 8 mg IV Q6W); 46 received urelumab (0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or 8 mg IV Q3W) plus rituximab 375 mg/m 2 IV QW. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of urelumab was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg or 8 mg Q3W after a single event of potential drug-induced liver injury occurred with urelumab 0.3 mg/kg. Treatment-related AEs were reported in 52% (urelumab: grade 3/4, 15%) and 72% (urelumab + rituximab: grade 3/4, 28%); three led to discontinuation (grade 3 increased AST, grade 4 acute hepatitis [urelumab]; one death from sepsis syndrome [urelumab plus rituximab]). Objective response rates/disease control rates were 6%/19% (DLBCL, n = 31), 12%/35% (FL, n = 17), and 17%/42% (other B-cell lymphomas, n = 12) with urelumab and 10%/24% (DLBCL, n = 29) and 35%/71% (FL, n = 17) with urelumab plus rituximab. Durable remissions in heavily pretreated patients were achieved; however, many were observed at doses exceeding the MTD. These data show that urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab demonstrated manageable safety in B-cell lymphoma, but the combination did not enhance clinical activity relative to rituximab alone or other current standard of care

Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy for Stage III or IV Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Brentuximab vedotin is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate that has been approved for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

ReCAP: Pattern of Duplicate Presentations at National Hematology-Oncology Meetings: Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

CONTEXT AND QUESTION ASKED: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meetings are two of the largest conferences in the fields of hematology and oncology. These meetings are attended by physicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industry colleagues, and representatives from the media and business sectors. The intention of both societies, as stated in their submission guidelines, is to accept abstracts that have not previously been presented. These policies are presumably in place to minimize redundancy and, due to time and space constraints, allow the largest number of researchers to present their findings. Hence, we asked, are there duplicative presentations at these two large meetings, and if so, how often do they occur? METHODS—WHAT WE DID: To date, however, the success of the societies in eliminating duplication has not been carefully analyzed. In addition, the motivations behind re-presentation have not been evaluated objectively. Therefore, we conducted a review of 327 malignant hematology (non-transplantation) abstracts presented at ASCO 2010 and compared them with prior and subsequent ASCO and ASH meetings to evaluate the incidence of duplicate presentations and their relationship to funding sources over a 2 year time frame. RESULTS—WHAT WE FOUND: Our analysis indicated that 31% of accepted abstracts were duplicated during the 2-year time frame, with those indicating pharmaceutical support three times more likely to be duplicated ( Figure 1 ). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE &amp; LIMITATIONS OF DATA: These findings suggest that a substantial number of duplicative abstracts are re-presented, with a disproportionate number having pharma sponsorship. The motivations for duplication are varied but may include an influence of pharma marketing strategies. Although these results are limited by our search strategy and to this 2-year time frame, the results were similar when we analyzed ASH and ASCO 2014 leukemia abstracts. These findings demonstrate the need for a more effective abstract selection system and that further study of the role of marketing in large meetings such as ASCO and ASH would be appropriate. [Figure: see text] </jats:sec

Duplicate Submissions to the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meetings.

Abstract Abstract 4532 Background Modern medical practice has benefitted significantly from the ability of practitioners and scientists to effectively present and debate their discoveries. Presentations at large subspecialty meetings have been an integral part of this process. The guidelines for abstract submissions to ASH and ASCO discourage repeated submission of the same or similar information. Methods We searched all submissions to the 2009 ASCO meeting involving hematologic malignancies (leukemia, lymphoma, MDS, myeloma and myeloproliferative disorders) and compared these with abstracts from the preceding 2008 ASH meeting to identify duplicate submissions. Duplicate abstracts were identified by correlating subject and author data through the online search engines of the respective organization's websites. Duplication was defined as the repetitive publication or presentation of data that did not seem to differ significantly in terms of content or clinical and scientific impact. The conflict of interest disclosures from the abstracts were examined to identify submissions utilizing pharmaceutical industry support, although such disclosures can be incomplete and it can be difficult to assess the precise role of the industry participants in the process. Hematopoietic stem cell transplant submissions were excluded from this analysis due to the low rate of duplication (3/32) ASCO transplant submissions were similar to those from ASH. Results 19% (47/250) of non-transplant hematologic malignancy ASCO abstracts had been previously presented at oral/poster sessions or published at the 2008 ASH meeting. 71 of the 250 submissions (28%) had authors from pharmaceutical companies while a total of 40% acknowledged research support from pharmaceutical companies (likely but not definitely always related to the content of the abstract). A significant fraction of the submitted and presented abstracts had major involvement with pharmaceutical companies as defined by authorship and/or research support (see table). The degree of pharmaceutical involvement was somewhat higher in the group of duplicate submissions. Conclusions A significant fraction of abstracts submitted to and presented at ASCO are very similar to work previously submitted to ASH. The titles of the abstracts are usually changed somewhat and the order of the authors is frequently shuffled. These findings are similar to a previous analysis of the 2006-ASH/2007-ASCO meetings done by one of the authors (CAS – unpublished data). There are many motivations for repeat presentation, including marketing or publicity opportunities for pharmaceutical companies as well as career advancement for academic investigators. Although arguments might be made that these meetings address different audiences, given the size limitations of the meeting agendas, duplicative presentations may potentially restrict other novel ideas from exposure and should be discouraged. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. </jats:sec