Combination of bendamustine and rituximab in the management of relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: the results of retrospective study

Efficacy and safety results of rituximab and bendamustine combination (Scheme BR) in patients with relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are presented. From 01.2012 to 04.2013, the treatment was initiated in 43 patients (21 with relapses are sensitive to the last line of therapy; 22 – with refractory CLL). Median age at start of therapy was 63.5 years (range from 43 to 81 years). In 40 patients response was evaluated according to NCI-WG criteria (1996). Complete remission (CR) is documented in 5 (12.5 %) cases, partial (PR) or nodular partial remission (nPR) in 17 (42.5 %) cases. MRD-negative CR was achieved in 1 (20.0 %) of 5 patients with CR. With 23.5 months of median follow-up for surviving patients 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 47.2 ± 8.5 % (median – 18.5 months), overall survival (OS) – 66.9 ± 7.9 % (median not achieved). Hematological toxicity Grade 3–4 occurred in 15 (34.9 %) cases, same degree infectious complicationsin 5 (11.6 %) cases. Patients received 3 or more therapy lines before this treatment (37.5 ± 16.1 % against 74.7 ± 8.3 %; p = 0.016), with «bulky disease» more than 10 cm (0.0 % vs. 75.4 ± 7.5 %; p < 0.001) and received rituximab in combination with chemotherapy in the previous lines, compared to the «naive» cases (44.1 ± 10.5 % against 92.9 ± 6.9 %; p = 0.009) have significantly worsened 2-year OS

Combination of bendamustine and rituximab in the management of relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: the results of retrospective study

Efficacy and safety results of rituximab and bendamustine combination (Scheme BR) in patients with relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are presented. From 01.2012 to 04.2013, the treatment was initiated in 43 patients (21 with relapses are sensitive to the last line of therapy; 22 – with refractory CLL). Median age at start of therapy was 63.5 years (range from 43 to 81 years). In 40 patients response was evaluated according to NCI-WG criteria (1996). Complete remission (CR) is documented in 5 (12.5 %) cases, partial (PR) or nodular partial remission (nPR) in 17 (42.5 %) cases. MRD-negative CR was achieved in 1 (20.0 %) of 5 patients with CR. With 23.5 months of median follow-up for surviving patients 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 47.2 ± 8.5 % (median – 18.5 months), overall survival (OS) – 66.9 ± 7.9 % (median not achieved). Hematological toxicity Grade 3–4 occurred in 15 (34.9 %) cases, same degree infectious complicationsin 5 (11.6 %) cases. Patients received 3 or more therapy lines before this treatment (37.5 ± 16.1 % against 74.7 ± 8.3 %; p = 0.016), with «bulky disease» more than 10 cm (0.0 % vs. 75.4 ± 7.5 %; p &lt; 0.001) and received rituximab in combination with chemotherapy in the previous lines, compared to the «naive» cases (44.1 ± 10.5 % against 92.9 ± 6.9 %; p = 0.009) have significantly worsened 2-year OS.</p

Treatment of central nervous system lymphoma — literature review and own experiences

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) occurs in 5–29 % of cases. Primary CNS lymphoma (PLCNS) significantly less revealed: 1–2 % of lymphoma cases and 5 % of all malignant CNS diseases. Historically, PLCNS treated with radiotherapy, but the majority of patients had no long-term remission. Combined treatment (chemotherapy + radiation therap y) has been developed to improve radiotherapy efficacy. The research results, according to several authors, allowed to develop the bas is of modern medical approaches, which includes a combination of high-doses methotrexate and cytarabine with radiation therapy for remission consolidation. New drugs — temozolomide, topotecan and rituximab — in combination with conventional preparates have been studied. Treatment results of 11 patients with primary (8) or secondary (3) CNS lymphomas treated in Botkin Municipal Clinical Hospital was analyzed. In 9 from 11 (all with primary lesion) diffuse B-large cell lymphoma w as diagnosed (by immunohistochemistry). All primary patients received 3.5–5 g/m2 methotrexate and 2–4 doses 2 g/m2 cytarabine (except 2 patients); 3 patients in addition received ifosfamide, vincristine and etoposide under a pediatric protocol BFM-90. Subsequently , all patients received 46 Gy cranial irradiation. 75 % of pa tients achieved complete or partial remission. One patient died from infectious complication after 2nd chemotherapy course. 2 patients have early progression. Five patients are alive with follow-up from 6 months to 3.5 years and 4 of them remains in remission. Therapy with methotrexate + cytarabine was accompanied by III–IV grade neutropenia in the majority of patients, but its duration w as not great. The data obtained are consistent with results of modern treatment protocols PLCNS.</p

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCR) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care), and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg/day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n=158) or CCR (n=161). Median age was 71 years. Median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3-1270) and CCR was 36 days (1-1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. Median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio] 0.86; P=.23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median 4.9 months, vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR 0.68; P=.008), TTF (median 4.9 vs 1.9 months, HR 0.53; P<.001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P<.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and RBC-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population

Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-IDH2 relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCR) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care), and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg/day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n=158) or CCR (n=161). Median age was 71 years. Median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3-1270) and CCR was 36 days (1-1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. Median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio] 0.86; P=.23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median 4.9 months, vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR 0.68; P=.008), TTF (median 4.9 vs 1.9 months, HR 0.53;

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide.Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged &gt;= 18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of beta(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1,4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age &gt;75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled.Findings Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15,2017,559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15.9 months (IQR 9.9-21.7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11.20 months [95% CI 9.66-13-73] vs 7.10 months [5.88-8-48]; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0-77; p&lt;0-0001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%1 of 270 patients; nine p.m vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 118%1), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%1 vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=11) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia In=11, hepatic encephalopathy [n=1.]).Interpretation Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged 6518 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of \u3b2(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1\ub73 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age &gt;75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15\ub79 months (IQR 9\ub79-21\ub77). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11\ub720 months [95% CI 9\ub766-13\ub773] vs 7\ub710 months [5\ub788-8\ub748]; hazard ratio 0\ub761, 95% CI 0\ub749-0\ub777; p&lt;0\ub70001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%] of 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%] vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=1]) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=1], hepatic encephalopathy [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene