Neil Osterweil

SAN ANTONIO – When does adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor become too much of a good thing? Or to put it another way, what’s the optimal duration of extended aromatase inhibitor therapy? That’s the question that three clinical trials have tried – but largely failed – to answer.

For example, the randomized, double-blinded NSABP B-42 trial, comparing extended therapy with letrozole (Femara) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who have completed previous adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) showed no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) after 7 years of follow-up between women treated with extended letrozole or placebo.

DATA data

In the DATA study, also presented here, investigators from the Netherlands compared 6 years of anastrozole (Arimidex) to 3 years of anastrozole following 2 or 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), and/or progesterone receptor–positive (PR+) breast cancer.

They found that “adapted” DFS (DFS starting 3 years after randomization) and adapted overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups.

“The findings of the DATA study do not support extended adjuvant AI use after 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy for all postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer patients,” said Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen, MD, of Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Less than ideal

In the optimistically named IDEAL trial, a separate team of investigators, also from the Netherlands, looked at the relative merits of continuing adjuvant therapy with letrozole for 2.5 or 5 years following 5 years of adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or a combination in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer.

They found no differences in either DFS or OS between patients treated for 5 years or those treated for only half that long.

“We conclude that there is no benefit of extending AI-based therapy longer than two-and-a-half years,” said Erik Blok, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Give what to whom for how long?

Results of the trials raise more questions than they answer, said Michael Gnant, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, the invited discussant.

“Essentially, these three trials did not reach the necessary statistical significance levels to demonstrate a clear benefit for the respective AI extension,” he said.

“Can other agents we use in luminal breast cancer help? Frankly, I don’t think so. Based on their tolerability profile, and in part also on financial toxicity, I don’t think that the promising agents we explore in many situations for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer will realistically be used in the extended adjuvant setting,” he said.

What’s needed, he said, are new strategies for targeting the chronic part of luminal breast cancer recurrence risk. Using endocrine therapies in this setting will likely be ineffective. Instead, agents that could directly target dormant cancer stem cells would “eliminate the source of late metastases for good.”

The best evidence to date clearly points to individualized treatment plans for patients, Dr. Gnant said.

For example, for a patient who has had 2-5 years of tamoxifen, an AI for 2.5-5 additional years can help to prevent recurrences, provided that the patient has risk factors for recurrence and excellent bone health.

“Based on the trial results, it is more complex for a patient who comes off initial or sequential AI. There are factors favoring the extension of AI treatment, and other factors to speak against such extension. I suggest to start with patient features at this time,” he said.

Currently, the main factor driving the choice of extended AI therapy will be how well the patient has tolerated AIs in the first years of therapy and whether she is at increased risk for fractures, suggesting younger age as a factor favoring extended AI use.

Patients with higher clinicopathologic risk factors such as node positivity or more luminal type tumors, as well as higher risk according to genomic studies, might also benefit from extended AI therapy, he said.

Biomarkers needed

“What the data from these and other trials tell us is that endocrine therapy is not for everyone. We need biomarkers that can tell us who should be getting extended endocrine therapy, be it 10 years or even a longer duration of time, versus a subgroup that might do very well with 5 five years of AI,” Aditya Bardia, MBBS, MPH, of the breast cancer division at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

There are several such biomarkers under investigation, but they need validation and testing in large scale clinical trials before they find their way into day-to-practice, he said.

Dr. Bardia was not involved in the studies.

NSABP B-42 was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Mamounas reported having no conflicts of interest. The DATA trial was sponsored by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Tjan-Heijnen reported nothing to disclose. IDEAL was supported by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Blok reported nothing to disclose.

SAN ANTONIO – When does adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor become too much of a good thing? Or to put it another way, what’s the optimal duration of extended aromatase inhibitor therapy? That’s the question that three clinical trials have tried – but largely failed – to answer.

For example, the randomized, double-blinded NSABP B-42 trial, comparing extended therapy with letrozole (Femara) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who have completed previous adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) showed no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) after 7 years of follow-up between women treated with extended letrozole or placebo.

DATA data

In the DATA study, also presented here, investigators from the Netherlands compared 6 years of anastrozole (Arimidex) to 3 years of anastrozole following 2 or 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), and/or progesterone receptor–positive (PR+) breast cancer.

They found that “adapted” DFS (DFS starting 3 years after randomization) and adapted overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups.

“The findings of the DATA study do not support extended adjuvant AI use after 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy for all postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer patients,” said Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen, MD, of Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Less than ideal

In the optimistically named IDEAL trial, a separate team of investigators, also from the Netherlands, looked at the relative merits of continuing adjuvant therapy with letrozole for 2.5 or 5 years following 5 years of adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or a combination in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer.

They found no differences in either DFS or OS between patients treated for 5 years or those treated for only half that long.

“We conclude that there is no benefit of extending AI-based therapy longer than two-and-a-half years,” said Erik Blok, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Give what to whom for how long?

Results of the trials raise more questions than they answer, said Michael Gnant, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, the invited discussant.

“Essentially, these three trials did not reach the necessary statistical significance levels to demonstrate a clear benefit for the respective AI extension,” he said.

“Can other agents we use in luminal breast cancer help? Frankly, I don’t think so. Based on their tolerability profile, and in part also on financial toxicity, I don’t think that the promising agents we explore in many situations for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer will realistically be used in the extended adjuvant setting,” he said.

What’s needed, he said, are new strategies for targeting the chronic part of luminal breast cancer recurrence risk. Using endocrine therapies in this setting will likely be ineffective. Instead, agents that could directly target dormant cancer stem cells would “eliminate the source of late metastases for good.”

The best evidence to date clearly points to individualized treatment plans for patients, Dr. Gnant said.

For example, for a patient who has had 2-5 years of tamoxifen, an AI for 2.5-5 additional years can help to prevent recurrences, provided that the patient has risk factors for recurrence and excellent bone health.

“Based on the trial results, it is more complex for a patient who comes off initial or sequential AI. There are factors favoring the extension of AI treatment, and other factors to speak against such extension. I suggest to start with patient features at this time,” he said.

Currently, the main factor driving the choice of extended AI therapy will be how well the patient has tolerated AIs in the first years of therapy and whether she is at increased risk for fractures, suggesting younger age as a factor favoring extended AI use.

Patients with higher clinicopathologic risk factors such as node positivity or more luminal type tumors, as well as higher risk according to genomic studies, might also benefit from extended AI therapy, he said.

Biomarkers needed

“What the data from these and other trials tell us is that endocrine therapy is not for everyone. We need biomarkers that can tell us who should be getting extended endocrine therapy, be it 10 years or even a longer duration of time, versus a subgroup that might do very well with 5 five years of AI,” Aditya Bardia, MBBS, MPH, of the breast cancer division at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

There are several such biomarkers under investigation, but they need validation and testing in large scale clinical trials before they find their way into day-to-practice, he said.

Dr. Bardia was not involved in the studies.

NSABP B-42 was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Mamounas reported having no conflicts of interest. The DATA trial was sponsored by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Tjan-Heijnen reported nothing to disclose. IDEAL was supported by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Blok reported nothing to disclose.

SAN ANTONIO – When does adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor become too much of a good thing? Or to put it another way, what’s the optimal duration of extended aromatase inhibitor therapy? That’s the question that three clinical trials have tried – but largely failed – to answer.

For example, the randomized, double-blinded NSABP B-42 trial, comparing extended therapy with letrozole (Femara) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who have completed previous adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) showed no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) after 7 years of follow-up between women treated with extended letrozole or placebo.

DATA data

In the DATA study, also presented here, investigators from the Netherlands compared 6 years of anastrozole (Arimidex) to 3 years of anastrozole following 2 or 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), and/or progesterone receptor–positive (PR+) breast cancer.

They found that “adapted” DFS (DFS starting 3 years after randomization) and adapted overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups.

“The findings of the DATA study do not support extended adjuvant AI use after 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy for all postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer patients,” said Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen, MD, of Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Less than ideal

In the optimistically named IDEAL trial, a separate team of investigators, also from the Netherlands, looked at the relative merits of continuing adjuvant therapy with letrozole for 2.5 or 5 years following 5 years of adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or a combination in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer.

They found no differences in either DFS or OS between patients treated for 5 years or those treated for only half that long.

“We conclude that there is no benefit of extending AI-based therapy longer than two-and-a-half years,” said Erik Blok, MD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

Give what to whom for how long?

Results of the trials raise more questions than they answer, said Michael Gnant, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, the invited discussant.

“Essentially, these three trials did not reach the necessary statistical significance levels to demonstrate a clear benefit for the respective AI extension,” he said.

“Can other agents we use in luminal breast cancer help? Frankly, I don’t think so. Based on their tolerability profile, and in part also on financial toxicity, I don’t think that the promising agents we explore in many situations for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer will realistically be used in the extended adjuvant setting,” he said.

What’s needed, he said, are new strategies for targeting the chronic part of luminal breast cancer recurrence risk. Using endocrine therapies in this setting will likely be ineffective. Instead, agents that could directly target dormant cancer stem cells would “eliminate the source of late metastases for good.”

The best evidence to date clearly points to individualized treatment plans for patients, Dr. Gnant said.

For example, for a patient who has had 2-5 years of tamoxifen, an AI for 2.5-5 additional years can help to prevent recurrences, provided that the patient has risk factors for recurrence and excellent bone health.

“Based on the trial results, it is more complex for a patient who comes off initial or sequential AI. There are factors favoring the extension of AI treatment, and other factors to speak against such extension. I suggest to start with patient features at this time,” he said.

Currently, the main factor driving the choice of extended AI therapy will be how well the patient has tolerated AIs in the first years of therapy and whether she is at increased risk for fractures, suggesting younger age as a factor favoring extended AI use.

Patients with higher clinicopathologic risk factors such as node positivity or more luminal type tumors, as well as higher risk according to genomic studies, might also benefit from extended AI therapy, he said.

Biomarkers needed

“What the data from these and other trials tell us is that endocrine therapy is not for everyone. We need biomarkers that can tell us who should be getting extended endocrine therapy, be it 10 years or even a longer duration of time, versus a subgroup that might do very well with 5 five years of AI,” Aditya Bardia, MBBS, MPH, of the breast cancer division at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

There are several such biomarkers under investigation, but they need validation and testing in large scale clinical trials before they find their way into day-to-practice, he said.

Dr. Bardia was not involved in the studies.

NSABP B-42 was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Mamounas reported having no conflicts of interest. The DATA trial was sponsored by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Tjan-Heijnen reported nothing to disclose. IDEAL was supported by the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group and Novartis. Dr. Blok reported nothing to disclose.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding everolimus to fulvestrant doubled median progression-free survival among postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer resistant to therapy with an aromatase inhibitor [AI] in the PrECOG 0102 study.

In the randomized phase II trial, the combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) with the selective estrogen receptor down-regulator [SERD] fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo, reported Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York.

This study provides additional evidence that adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease improves clinical outcomes,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Potential role for the combination?

Following the presentation, SABCS fixture Steven “Vogl, New York” Vogl, MD, asked what to do when fulvestrant-based therapy fails.*

“I’m interested in what to do after progression. Let’s say the patient gets fulvestrant, gets everolimus, has a nice response – 9 months later, the tumor gets worse. We’re all pretty sure we shouldn’t continue the fulvestrant. I would love PrECOG to do a study in those patients of giving megestrol or megestrol/everolimus, and see if the everolimus extended beyond progression does the patient some good, as does trastuzumab,” he said.

“Sounds like a good idea. I’m game, let’s roll up our sleeves and do it together,” Dr. Kornblum replied.

The study was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Kornblum reported having no conflicts of interest.

Correction 12/8/16: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Steven Vogl's name.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding everolimus to fulvestrant doubled median progression-free survival among postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer resistant to therapy with an aromatase inhibitor [AI] in the PrECOG 0102 study.

In the randomized phase II trial, the combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) with the selective estrogen receptor down-regulator [SERD] fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo, reported Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York.

This study provides additional evidence that adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease improves clinical outcomes,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Potential role for the combination?

Following the presentation, SABCS fixture Steven “Vogl, New York” Vogl, MD, asked what to do when fulvestrant-based therapy fails.*

“I’m interested in what to do after progression. Let’s say the patient gets fulvestrant, gets everolimus, has a nice response – 9 months later, the tumor gets worse. We’re all pretty sure we shouldn’t continue the fulvestrant. I would love PrECOG to do a study in those patients of giving megestrol or megestrol/everolimus, and see if the everolimus extended beyond progression does the patient some good, as does trastuzumab,” he said.

“Sounds like a good idea. I’m game, let’s roll up our sleeves and do it together,” Dr. Kornblum replied.

The study was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Kornblum reported having no conflicts of interest.

Correction 12/8/16: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Steven Vogl's name.

SAN ANTONIO – Adding everolimus to fulvestrant doubled median progression-free survival among postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer resistant to therapy with an aromatase inhibitor [AI] in the PrECOG 0102 study.

In the randomized phase II trial, the combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) with the selective estrogen receptor down-regulator [SERD] fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo, reported Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York.

This study provides additional evidence that adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease improves clinical outcomes,” he said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Potential role for the combination?

Following the presentation, SABCS fixture Steven “Vogl, New York” Vogl, MD, asked what to do when fulvestrant-based therapy fails.*

“I’m interested in what to do after progression. Let’s say the patient gets fulvestrant, gets everolimus, has a nice response – 9 months later, the tumor gets worse. We’re all pretty sure we shouldn’t continue the fulvestrant. I would love PrECOG to do a study in those patients of giving megestrol or megestrol/everolimus, and see if the everolimus extended beyond progression does the patient some good, as does trastuzumab,” he said.

“Sounds like a good idea. I’m game, let’s roll up our sleeves and do it together,” Dr. Kornblum replied.

The study was sponsored by PrECOG with financial support from Novartis. Dr. Kornblum reported having no conflicts of interest.

Correction 12/8/16: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Steven Vogl's name.

SAN ANTONIO – Most women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor will eventually develop resistance to these agents. Strategies for overcoming resistance include the addition of everolimus (Affinitor) to a steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) such as exemestane (Aromasin), as in the BOLERO-2 trial.

Alternatively, blocking estrogen-receptor signaling through the use of a selective estrogen receptor down regulator, such as fulvestrant (Faslodex), may result in more complete blockade of the ER signaling pathway than would a steroidal AI such as exemestane.

In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York, discusses findings from the phase II PrECOG 0102 trial comparing a combination of fulvestrant and everolimus to fulvestrant and placebo for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to AI therapy.

The combination was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .02).

Dr. Kornblum says that the study provides additional evidence for adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease.

SAN ANTONIO – Most women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor will eventually develop resistance to these agents. Strategies for overcoming resistance include the addition of everolimus (Affinitor) to a steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) such as exemestane (Aromasin), as in the BOLERO-2 trial.

Alternatively, blocking estrogen-receptor signaling through the use of a selective estrogen receptor down regulator, such as fulvestrant (Faslodex), may result in more complete blockade of the ER signaling pathway than would a steroidal AI such as exemestane.

In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York, discusses findings from the phase II PrECOG 0102 trial comparing a combination of fulvestrant and everolimus to fulvestrant and placebo for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to AI therapy.

The combination was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .02).

Dr. Kornblum says that the study provides additional evidence for adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease.

SAN ANTONIO – Most women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor will eventually develop resistance to these agents. Strategies for overcoming resistance include the addition of everolimus (Affinitor) to a steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) such as exemestane (Aromasin), as in the BOLERO-2 trial.

Alternatively, blocking estrogen-receptor signaling through the use of a selective estrogen receptor down regulator, such as fulvestrant (Faslodex), may result in more complete blockade of the ER signaling pathway than would a steroidal AI such as exemestane.

In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Noah S. Kornblum, MD, of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York, discusses findings from the phase II PrECOG 0102 trial comparing a combination of fulvestrant and everolimus to fulvestrant and placebo for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to AI therapy.

The combination was associated with a median progression-free survival of 10.4 months, compared with 5.1 months for fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .02).

Dr. Kornblum says that the study provides additional evidence for adding everolimus to anti-estrogen therapy in AI-resistant disease.

SAN DIEGO – It took a clinical trial with a byzantine design to prove it, but neither posttransplant consolidation therapy nor second transplant offered any additional survival benefits to patients with multiple myeloma, including patients with high-risk disease who were treated with an upfront thalidomide analogue and a proteasome inhibitor, followed by stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance.

Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) among patients assigned to follow-on therapy with either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant, followed by lenalidomide maintenance, reported  Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, coleader of the hematologic malignancies program at the Abramson Cancer Center, and chief of the section of hematologic malignancies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

SAN DIEGO – It took a clinical trial with a byzantine design to prove it, but neither posttransplant consolidation therapy nor second transplant offered any additional survival benefits to patients with multiple myeloma, including patients with high-risk disease who were treated with an upfront thalidomide analogue and a proteasome inhibitor, followed by stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance.

Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) among patients assigned to follow-on therapy with either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant, followed by lenalidomide maintenance, reported  Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, coleader of the hematologic malignancies program at the Abramson Cancer Center, and chief of the section of hematologic malignancies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

SAN DIEGO – It took a clinical trial with a byzantine design to prove it, but neither posttransplant consolidation therapy nor second transplant offered any additional survival benefits to patients with multiple myeloma, including patients with high-risk disease who were treated with an upfront thalidomide analogue and a proteasome inhibitor, followed by stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance.

Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) among patients assigned to follow-on therapy with either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant, followed by lenalidomide maintenance, reported  Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, coleader of the hematologic malignancies program at the Abramson Cancer Center, and chief of the section of hematologic malignancies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

SAN DIEGO – For patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, adding the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to a standard-combination chemotherapy regimen resulted in significant improvements in survival, compared with chemotherapy alone. Obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, is being explored in various combinations for the treatment of indolent lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Robert Marcus, FRCP, of King’s College Hospital, London, discussed results of the phase III GALLIUM study, in which patients with untreated follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned to one of three chemotherapy regimens with either obinutuzumab or rituximab. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) favoring obinutuzumab of 0.68 (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates at 3 years were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – For patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, adding the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to a standard-combination chemotherapy regimen resulted in significant improvements in survival, compared with chemotherapy alone. Obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, is being explored in various combinations for the treatment of indolent lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Robert Marcus, FRCP, of King’s College Hospital, London, discussed results of the phase III GALLIUM study, in which patients with untreated follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned to one of three chemotherapy regimens with either obinutuzumab or rituximab. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) favoring obinutuzumab of 0.68 (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates at 3 years were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – For patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, adding the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab to a standard-combination chemotherapy regimen resulted in significant improvements in survival, compared with chemotherapy alone. Obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, is being explored in various combinations for the treatment of indolent lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma.

In this video interview from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Robert Marcus, FRCP, of King’s College Hospital, London, discussed results of the phase III GALLIUM study, in which patients with untreated follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned to one of three chemotherapy regimens with either obinutuzumab or rituximab. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio (HR) favoring obinutuzumab of 0.68 (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates at 3 years were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – Obinutuzumab, a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, offered a progression-free survival (PFS) edge over rituximab when combined with standard chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma.

attended the presentation of the GALLIUM data at a plenary session during the American Society of Hematology annual meeting indicated that despite the data, they weren’t ready to make a switch to the newer, costlier antibody.

“I feel that it is not convincing for practice-changing,” said Kanti R. Rai, MD, professor of medicine and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“Unless we have evidence of a survival advantage in indolent disease, progression-free survivorship is not an adequate reason to jump to another antibody,” he said in an interview.

In GALLIUM, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year PFS at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring obinutuzumab (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

Indolent lymphoma trial

The GALLIUM trial is a phase III study comparing obinutuzumab with rituximab when paired with one of three standard chemotherapy regimens for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and splenic, nodal, or extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. Dr. Marcus presented data on patients with follicular lymphoma only.

The antibodies were delivered in combination with either CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; 33.1% of patients), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone; 9.8%) or bendamustine alone (B; 57.1%) as the chemotherapy backbone. The choice of regimen was at the discretion of the treating center.

A total of 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma were enrolled and randomized to treatment and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

The treatment arms were well balanced with regard to distribution of patients characteristics, with approximately 21% in each arm having Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index low-risk disease; 37% having intermediate-risk disease; and 34% having high-risk disease.

Roughly half of patients in each arm had bone marrow involvement, and two-thirds had extranodal involvement.

Obinutuzumab was dosed 1,000 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle one, and either on day 1 of cycles two through eight every 3 weeks, or every 4 weeks during cycles two through six.

Overall response rates at the end of induction were 86.9% with rituximab and 88.5% with obinutuzumab, with complete responses of 23.8% and 19.5%, respectively.

As noted before, investigator-assessed PFS favored obinutuzumab, as did PFS assessed by independent reviewer, at 81.9% vs. 77.9% for rituximab (HR, 0.71; P = .0138).

The newer antibody also had a slight edge in time to new treatment, with 87.1% of patients on obinutuzumab not starting on new therapy, compared with 81.2% of patients on rituximab.

More bendamustine deaths

Nearly all patients in each arm had an adverse event, with grade 3 or greater events occurring in 74.6% of patients on obinutuzumab vs. 67.8% on rituximab. Rates of neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, infusion reactions, and thrombocytopenia were all slightly higher with obinutuzumab. Grade 3 or greater infections occurred in 20% with obinutuzumab, compared with 15.6% with rituximab.

“What we did note, however, was a high level of mortality in patients receiving either obinutuzumab-based therapy or rituximab-based therapy, which were no different between the two arms and were somewhat higher than one might expect from patients receiving induction treatment in follicular lymphoma. Hence, we did a more detailed analysis of safety by treatment regimen,” Dr. Marcus said.

There were more deaths among patients treated with bendamustine (5.6% for patients in the B-obinutuzumab cohort, and 4.4% of patients in the B-rituximab cohort) vs. 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, for patients on CHOP, and 1.6 and 1.8% for patients on CVP.

Dose effect?

John P. Leonard, MD, from Cornell University, New York , who introduced Dr. Marcus, commented that PFS may not be the ideal endpoint for patients with follicular lymphoma.

He pointed out that in trials comparing rituximab with obinutuzumab for other diseases, results have been mixed, with obinutuzumab showing superiority in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but in data presented elsewhere at ASH 2016, obinutuzumab was not superior to rituximab for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“One question is whether obinutuzumab, which is generally administered at a higher mg dose to patients, is in fact a better antibody or if it is in fact a dose effect,” he said.

In response to a similar question following his presentation, Dr. Marcus replied that, despite sharing a target, the two antibodies are different, with different mechanisms of action. He also noted that there is no evidence to suggest that rituximab potency would be greater in follicular lymphoma if it were given at higher doses.

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, Dr, Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – Obinutuzumab, a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, offered a progression-free survival (PFS) edge over rituximab when combined with standard chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma.

attended the presentation of the GALLIUM data at a plenary session during the American Society of Hematology annual meeting indicated that despite the data, they weren’t ready to make a switch to the newer, costlier antibody.

“I feel that it is not convincing for practice-changing,” said Kanti R. Rai, MD, professor of medicine and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“Unless we have evidence of a survival advantage in indolent disease, progression-free survivorship is not an adequate reason to jump to another antibody,” he said in an interview.

In GALLIUM, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year PFS at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring obinutuzumab (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

Indolent lymphoma trial

The GALLIUM trial is a phase III study comparing obinutuzumab with rituximab when paired with one of three standard chemotherapy regimens for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and splenic, nodal, or extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. Dr. Marcus presented data on patients with follicular lymphoma only.

The antibodies were delivered in combination with either CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; 33.1% of patients), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone; 9.8%) or bendamustine alone (B; 57.1%) as the chemotherapy backbone. The choice of regimen was at the discretion of the treating center.

A total of 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma were enrolled and randomized to treatment and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

The treatment arms were well balanced with regard to distribution of patients characteristics, with approximately 21% in each arm having Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index low-risk disease; 37% having intermediate-risk disease; and 34% having high-risk disease.

Roughly half of patients in each arm had bone marrow involvement, and two-thirds had extranodal involvement.

Obinutuzumab was dosed 1,000 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle one, and either on day 1 of cycles two through eight every 3 weeks, or every 4 weeks during cycles two through six.

Overall response rates at the end of induction were 86.9% with rituximab and 88.5% with obinutuzumab, with complete responses of 23.8% and 19.5%, respectively.

As noted before, investigator-assessed PFS favored obinutuzumab, as did PFS assessed by independent reviewer, at 81.9% vs. 77.9% for rituximab (HR, 0.71; P = .0138).

The newer antibody also had a slight edge in time to new treatment, with 87.1% of patients on obinutuzumab not starting on new therapy, compared with 81.2% of patients on rituximab.

More bendamustine deaths

Nearly all patients in each arm had an adverse event, with grade 3 or greater events occurring in 74.6% of patients on obinutuzumab vs. 67.8% on rituximab. Rates of neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, infusion reactions, and thrombocytopenia were all slightly higher with obinutuzumab. Grade 3 or greater infections occurred in 20% with obinutuzumab, compared with 15.6% with rituximab.

“What we did note, however, was a high level of mortality in patients receiving either obinutuzumab-based therapy or rituximab-based therapy, which were no different between the two arms and were somewhat higher than one might expect from patients receiving induction treatment in follicular lymphoma. Hence, we did a more detailed analysis of safety by treatment regimen,” Dr. Marcus said.

There were more deaths among patients treated with bendamustine (5.6% for patients in the B-obinutuzumab cohort, and 4.4% of patients in the B-rituximab cohort) vs. 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, for patients on CHOP, and 1.6 and 1.8% for patients on CVP.

Dose effect?

John P. Leonard, MD, from Cornell University, New York , who introduced Dr. Marcus, commented that PFS may not be the ideal endpoint for patients with follicular lymphoma.

He pointed out that in trials comparing rituximab with obinutuzumab for other diseases, results have been mixed, with obinutuzumab showing superiority in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but in data presented elsewhere at ASH 2016, obinutuzumab was not superior to rituximab for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“One question is whether obinutuzumab, which is generally administered at a higher mg dose to patients, is in fact a better antibody or if it is in fact a dose effect,” he said.

In response to a similar question following his presentation, Dr. Marcus replied that, despite sharing a target, the two antibodies are different, with different mechanisms of action. He also noted that there is no evidence to suggest that rituximab potency would be greater in follicular lymphoma if it were given at higher doses.

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, Dr, Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – Obinutuzumab, a second-generation anti-CD20 antibody touted as the heir apparent to rituximab, offered a progression-free survival (PFS) edge over rituximab when combined with standard chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma.

attended the presentation of the GALLIUM data at a plenary session during the American Society of Hematology annual meeting indicated that despite the data, they weren’t ready to make a switch to the newer, costlier antibody.

“I feel that it is not convincing for practice-changing,” said Kanti R. Rai, MD, professor of medicine and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“Unless we have evidence of a survival advantage in indolent disease, progression-free survivorship is not an adequate reason to jump to another antibody,” he said in an interview.

In GALLIUM, the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed 3-year PFS at a median follow-up of 34.5 months was 80% for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and one of three standard chemotherapy regimens, compared with 73.3% for patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy. This difference translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring obinutuzumab (P = .0012).

Respective 3-year overall survival rates were similar, however, at 94% and 92.1% (HR, 0.75; P = .21).

Indolent lymphoma trial

The GALLIUM trial is a phase III study comparing obinutuzumab with rituximab when paired with one of three standard chemotherapy regimens for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including follicular lymphoma and splenic, nodal, or extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. Dr. Marcus presented data on patients with follicular lymphoma only.

The antibodies were delivered in combination with either CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone; 33.1% of patients), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone; 9.8%) or bendamustine alone (B; 57.1%) as the chemotherapy backbone. The choice of regimen was at the discretion of the treating center.

A total of 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma were enrolled and randomized to treatment and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

The treatment arms were well balanced with regard to distribution of patients characteristics, with approximately 21% in each arm having Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index low-risk disease; 37% having intermediate-risk disease; and 34% having high-risk disease.

Roughly half of patients in each arm had bone marrow involvement, and two-thirds had extranodal involvement.

Obinutuzumab was dosed 1,000 mg IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle one, and either on day 1 of cycles two through eight every 3 weeks, or every 4 weeks during cycles two through six.

Overall response rates at the end of induction were 86.9% with rituximab and 88.5% with obinutuzumab, with complete responses of 23.8% and 19.5%, respectively.

As noted before, investigator-assessed PFS favored obinutuzumab, as did PFS assessed by independent reviewer, at 81.9% vs. 77.9% for rituximab (HR, 0.71; P = .0138).

The newer antibody also had a slight edge in time to new treatment, with 87.1% of patients on obinutuzumab not starting on new therapy, compared with 81.2% of patients on rituximab.

More bendamustine deaths

Nearly all patients in each arm had an adverse event, with grade 3 or greater events occurring in 74.6% of patients on obinutuzumab vs. 67.8% on rituximab. Rates of neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, infusion reactions, and thrombocytopenia were all slightly higher with obinutuzumab. Grade 3 or greater infections occurred in 20% with obinutuzumab, compared with 15.6% with rituximab.

“What we did note, however, was a high level of mortality in patients receiving either obinutuzumab-based therapy or rituximab-based therapy, which were no different between the two arms and were somewhat higher than one might expect from patients receiving induction treatment in follicular lymphoma. Hence, we did a more detailed analysis of safety by treatment regimen,” Dr. Marcus said.

There were more deaths among patients treated with bendamustine (5.6% for patients in the B-obinutuzumab cohort, and 4.4% of patients in the B-rituximab cohort) vs. 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, for patients on CHOP, and 1.6 and 1.8% for patients on CVP.

Dose effect?

John P. Leonard, MD, from Cornell University, New York , who introduced Dr. Marcus, commented that PFS may not be the ideal endpoint for patients with follicular lymphoma.

He pointed out that in trials comparing rituximab with obinutuzumab for other diseases, results have been mixed, with obinutuzumab showing superiority in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but in data presented elsewhere at ASH 2016, obinutuzumab was not superior to rituximab for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“One question is whether obinutuzumab, which is generally administered at a higher mg dose to patients, is in fact a better antibody or if it is in fact a dose effect,” he said.

In response to a similar question following his presentation, Dr. Marcus replied that, despite sharing a target, the two antibodies are different, with different mechanisms of action. He also noted that there is no evidence to suggest that rituximab potency would be greater in follicular lymphoma if it were given at higher doses.

The GALLIUM trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, Dr, Marcus disclosed consulting with and receiving honoraria from the company, and relationships with other companies.

SAN DIEGO – A new multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of de novo acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially stagnant for 40 years.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial provides genomic results of bone marrow biopsies in just 7 days, according to Brian J. Druker, MD, director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. With results that fast, patients can quickly receive whichever therapy targets the mutation shared by most or all their leukemia cells, Dr. Druker and other researchers said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patients who lack targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies that have shown broad activity in AML, the researchers said. The goal is for all participants to receive optimized treatment – whether or not that leads to an FDA approval, they emphasized.

Centers now participating in this trial include Memorial Sloan Kettering, Ohio State University, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Oregon Health and Science University. More centers will join soon, according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. Researchers designed the trial with input from the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, they said.

In a video interview, Dr. Druker discussed key aspects of the trial and how it could advance treatment options for AML. Dr. Druker, whose work on imatinib helped pioneer precision medicine in cancer, disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – A new multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of de novo acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially stagnant for 40 years.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial provides genomic results of bone marrow biopsies in just 7 days, according to Brian J. Druker, MD, director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. With results that fast, patients can quickly receive whichever therapy targets the mutation shared by most or all their leukemia cells, Dr. Druker and other researchers said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patients who lack targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies that have shown broad activity in AML, the researchers said. The goal is for all participants to receive optimized treatment – whether or not that leads to an FDA approval, they emphasized.

Centers now participating in this trial include Memorial Sloan Kettering, Ohio State University, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Oregon Health and Science University. More centers will join soon, according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. Researchers designed the trial with input from the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, they said.

In a video interview, Dr. Druker discussed key aspects of the trial and how it could advance treatment options for AML. Dr. Druker, whose work on imatinib helped pioneer precision medicine in cancer, disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – A new multi-arm clinical trial aims to transform the treatment of de novo acute myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer whose standard of care has remained essentially stagnant for 40 years.

Launched in October 2016, the multicenter BEAT AML Master Trial provides genomic results of bone marrow biopsies in just 7 days, according to Brian J. Druker, MD, director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. With results that fast, patients can quickly receive whichever therapy targets the mutation shared by most or all their leukemia cells, Dr. Druker and other researchers said at a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Patients who lack targetable markers will be offered investigational therapies that have shown broad activity in AML, the researchers said. The goal is for all participants to receive optimized treatment – whether or not that leads to an FDA approval, they emphasized.

Centers now participating in this trial include Memorial Sloan Kettering, Ohio State University, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Oregon Health and Science University. More centers will join soon, according to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which is sponsoring the trial. Researchers designed the trial with input from the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, they said.

In a video interview, Dr. Druker discussed key aspects of the trial and how it could advance treatment options for AML. Dr. Druker, whose work on imatinib helped pioneer precision medicine in cancer, disclosed ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO – After more than four decades of near stagnation in the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), investigators are beginning to identify drugs that can produce rapid and deep complete remissions, which recent evidence suggests are associated with prolonged survival.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, describes the early results of one such agent, a novel antibody drug conjugate called vadastuximab talirine, or 33A for short. In the phase Ib clinical trial of induction therapy for newly diagnosed AML, a combination of standard 7+3 induction chemotherapy with cytarabine and daunorubicin plus 33A was associated with a 76% composite rate of complete remissions or complete remissions with incomplete recovery of platelets.

SAN DIEGO – After more than four decades of near stagnation in the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), investigators are beginning to identify drugs that can produce rapid and deep complete remissions, which recent evidence suggests are associated with prolonged survival.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, describes the early results of one such agent, a novel antibody drug conjugate called vadastuximab talirine, or 33A for short. In the phase Ib clinical trial of induction therapy for newly diagnosed AML, a combination of standard 7+3 induction chemotherapy with cytarabine and daunorubicin plus 33A was associated with a 76% composite rate of complete remissions or complete remissions with incomplete recovery of platelets.

SAN DIEGO – After more than four decades of near stagnation in the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), investigators are beginning to identify drugs that can produce rapid and deep complete remissions, which recent evidence suggests are associated with prolonged survival.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, describes the early results of one such agent, a novel antibody drug conjugate called vadastuximab talirine, or 33A for short. In the phase Ib clinical trial of induction therapy for newly diagnosed AML, a combination of standard 7+3 induction chemotherapy with cytarabine and daunorubicin plus 33A was associated with a 76% composite rate of complete remissions or complete remissions with incomplete recovery of platelets.

SAN DIEGO – Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, but for some patients with solid stable remissions, halving the TKI dose or even stopping therapy altogether, at least temporarily, appears to be safe and to offer both health and financial benefits,

In the British Destiny [De-escalation and Stopping Treatment of Imatinib, Nilotinib, or Sprycel (dasatinib)], there were 12 molecular relapses occurring between the second and twelfth month of dose reduction among 174 patients with either an MR3 or MR4 molecular response, and all patients had restoration of molecular remissions after resumption of full dose TKIs.

Coinvestigator Mhairi Copland, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Scotland, discussed in a video interview the potential clinical benefits of lower-dose therapy in patients in stable CML remissions, and notes that de-escalation strategy is associated with a nearly 50% saving in costs compared with full-dose TKI therapy.

SAN DIEGO – Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, but for some patients with solid stable remissions, halving the TKI dose or even stopping therapy altogether, at least temporarily, appears to be safe and to offer both health and financial benefits,

In the British Destiny [De-escalation and Stopping Treatment of Imatinib, Nilotinib, or Sprycel (dasatinib)], there were 12 molecular relapses occurring between the second and twelfth month of dose reduction among 174 patients with either an MR3 or MR4 molecular response, and all patients had restoration of molecular remissions after resumption of full dose TKIs.

Coinvestigator Mhairi Copland, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Scotland, discussed in a video interview the potential clinical benefits of lower-dose therapy in patients in stable CML remissions, and notes that de-escalation strategy is associated with a nearly 50% saving in costs compared with full-dose TKI therapy.

SAN DIEGO – Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, but for some patients with solid stable remissions, halving the TKI dose or even stopping therapy altogether, at least temporarily, appears to be safe and to offer both health and financial benefits,

In the British Destiny [De-escalation and Stopping Treatment of Imatinib, Nilotinib, or Sprycel (dasatinib)], there were 12 molecular relapses occurring between the second and twelfth month of dose reduction among 174 patients with either an MR3 or MR4 molecular response, and all patients had restoration of molecular remissions after resumption of full dose TKIs.

Coinvestigator Mhairi Copland, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Scotland, discussed in a video interview the potential clinical benefits of lower-dose therapy in patients in stable CML remissions, and notes that de-escalation strategy is associated with a nearly 50% saving in costs compared with full-dose TKI therapy.

SAN DIEGO – Call it “7+3+1”: an experimental induction regimen combining standard chemotherapy with an antibody drug conjugate induced rapid and deep remissions in a majority of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in a small study.

Among 42 evaluable patients with previously untreated AML, the combination of cytarabine and an anthracycline (7+3, also known as 3+7), and the investigational antibody drug conjugate vadastuximab talirine was associated with a 60% complete remission (CR) rate, and 17% complete remission with incomplete recovery of platelets (CRi), reported Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who discussed the findings in a video interview.

Rapid complete remissions

In the phase Ib trial reported at ASH 2016 by Dr. Erba, adults aged 18-65 years with untreated primary or secondary AML (except acute promyelocytic leukemia) were enrolled.

The patients received 33A in combination with 7+3 induction therapy (cytarabine 100 mg/m² and daunorubicin 60 mg/m²) on days 1 and 4 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Patients were assessed for response on days 1 and 28 according to International Working Group Criteria.

Second induction regimens and postremission therapies were permitted at the investigators discretion, and did not include 33A.

The median patient age was 45.5 years. The patients had generally good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 or 1). In all, 17% of patients had secondary AML. In all, 12% had favorable cytogenetic risk disease, 50% had intermediate risk, and 36% had adverse risk. Ten percent of patients had NPM1 mutated disease, and 14% had FLT-3 mutations.

As noted, the composite CR/CRi rate was 76%, consisting of 60% CR and 17% CRI.

All five patients with favorable risk disease had a CR. The rate of CR/CRi was 86% among patients with intermediate-risk disease, and 60 for those with adverse-risk disease.

Of the 32 patients who achieved a CR or CRi, 94% did so after 1 cycle of therapy, and 25 were MRD negative, as evaluated by an independent laboratory using 10-color multi-parameter flow cytometry.

Treatment-related adverse hematologic events included febrile neutropenia (primarily grade 3) in 43% of patients, thrombocytopenia (mostly grade 4) in 38%, anemia (all grade 3) in 24%, and neutropenia (mostly grade 4) in 17%. Other treatment related events were similar to those seen with 7 + 3 alone, and included nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite and fatigue, mostly grade 1 or 2. One patient had a grade 3 irreversible hepatic toxicity.

The death rate was 2%.

“What we felt we showed is that we were able to combine active doses of 33A with 7 + 3. The doses here were less than the doses used as a single agent, but all doses used in our phase 1b study, including lower doses that what we actually used here, showed complete remissions as a single agent.”

33A “added acceptable on-target myelosuppression. We saw platelet counts recovering to over 100,000, and neutrophils over 1,000 by about four-and-a-half to five weeks, which we felt was reasonable, and patients were able to go on to get post-remission therapy.

A randomized phase II trial comparing 33A and 7+3 to 7+3 alone is slated to launch in the first quarter of 2017.

Dr. Erba disclosed serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from Seattle Genetics, which supported the study.

SAN DIEGO – Call it “7+3+1”: an experimental induction regimen combining standard chemotherapy with an antibody drug conjugate induced rapid and deep remissions in a majority of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in a small study.

Among 42 evaluable patients with previously untreated AML, the combination of cytarabine and an anthracycline (7+3, also known as 3+7), and the investigational antibody drug conjugate vadastuximab talirine was associated with a 60% complete remission (CR) rate, and 17% complete remission with incomplete recovery of platelets (CRi), reported Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who discussed the findings in a video interview.

Rapid complete remissions

In the phase Ib trial reported at ASH 2016 by Dr. Erba, adults aged 18-65 years with untreated primary or secondary AML (except acute promyelocytic leukemia) were enrolled.

The patients received 33A in combination with 7+3 induction therapy (cytarabine 100 mg/m² and daunorubicin 60 mg/m²) on days 1 and 4 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Patients were assessed for response on days 1 and 28 according to International Working Group Criteria.

Second induction regimens and postremission therapies were permitted at the investigators discretion, and did not include 33A.

The median patient age was 45.5 years. The patients had generally good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 or 1). In all, 17% of patients had secondary AML. In all, 12% had favorable cytogenetic risk disease, 50% had intermediate risk, and 36% had adverse risk. Ten percent of patients had NPM1 mutated disease, and 14% had FLT-3 mutations.

As noted, the composite CR/CRi rate was 76%, consisting of 60% CR and 17% CRI.

All five patients with favorable risk disease had a CR. The rate of CR/CRi was 86% among patients with intermediate-risk disease, and 60 for those with adverse-risk disease.

Of the 32 patients who achieved a CR or CRi, 94% did so after 1 cycle of therapy, and 25 were MRD negative, as evaluated by an independent laboratory using 10-color multi-parameter flow cytometry.

Treatment-related adverse hematologic events included febrile neutropenia (primarily grade 3) in 43% of patients, thrombocytopenia (mostly grade 4) in 38%, anemia (all grade 3) in 24%, and neutropenia (mostly grade 4) in 17%. Other treatment related events were similar to those seen with 7 + 3 alone, and included nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite and fatigue, mostly grade 1 or 2. One patient had a grade 3 irreversible hepatic toxicity.

The death rate was 2%.

“What we felt we showed is that we were able to combine active doses of 33A with 7 + 3. The doses here were less than the doses used as a single agent, but all doses used in our phase 1b study, including lower doses that what we actually used here, showed complete remissions as a single agent.”

33A “added acceptable on-target myelosuppression. We saw platelet counts recovering to over 100,000, and neutrophils over 1,000 by about four-and-a-half to five weeks, which we felt was reasonable, and patients were able to go on to get post-remission therapy.

A randomized phase II trial comparing 33A and 7+3 to 7+3 alone is slated to launch in the first quarter of 2017.

Dr. Erba disclosed serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from Seattle Genetics, which supported the study.

SAN DIEGO – Call it “7+3+1”: an experimental induction regimen combining standard chemotherapy with an antibody drug conjugate induced rapid and deep remissions in a majority of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in a small study.

Among 42 evaluable patients with previously untreated AML, the combination of cytarabine and an anthracycline (7+3, also known as 3+7), and the investigational antibody drug conjugate vadastuximab talirine was associated with a 60% complete remission (CR) rate, and 17% complete remission with incomplete recovery of platelets (CRi), reported Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who discussed the findings in a video interview.

Rapid complete remissions

In the phase Ib trial reported at ASH 2016 by Dr. Erba, adults aged 18-65 years with untreated primary or secondary AML (except acute promyelocytic leukemia) were enrolled.

The patients received 33A in combination with 7+3 induction therapy (cytarabine 100 mg/m² and daunorubicin 60 mg/m²) on days 1 and 4 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Patients were assessed for response on days 1 and 28 according to International Working Group Criteria.

Second induction regimens and postremission therapies were permitted at the investigators discretion, and did not include 33A.

The median patient age was 45.5 years. The patients had generally good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0 or 1). In all, 17% of patients had secondary AML. In all, 12% had favorable cytogenetic risk disease, 50% had intermediate risk, and 36% had adverse risk. Ten percent of patients had NPM1 mutated disease, and 14% had FLT-3 mutations.

As noted, the composite CR/CRi rate was 76%, consisting of 60% CR and 17% CRI.

All five patients with favorable risk disease had a CR. The rate of CR/CRi was 86% among patients with intermediate-risk disease, and 60 for those with adverse-risk disease.

Of the 32 patients who achieved a CR or CRi, 94% did so after 1 cycle of therapy, and 25 were MRD negative, as evaluated by an independent laboratory using 10-color multi-parameter flow cytometry.

Treatment-related adverse hematologic events included febrile neutropenia (primarily grade 3) in 43% of patients, thrombocytopenia (mostly grade 4) in 38%, anemia (all grade 3) in 24%, and neutropenia (mostly grade 4) in 17%. Other treatment related events were similar to those seen with 7 + 3 alone, and included nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite and fatigue, mostly grade 1 or 2. One patient had a grade 3 irreversible hepatic toxicity.

The death rate was 2%.

“What we felt we showed is that we were able to combine active doses of 33A with 7 + 3. The doses here were less than the doses used as a single agent, but all doses used in our phase 1b study, including lower doses that what we actually used here, showed complete remissions as a single agent.”

33A “added acceptable on-target myelosuppression. We saw platelet counts recovering to over 100,000, and neutrophils over 1,000 by about four-and-a-half to five weeks, which we felt was reasonable, and patients were able to go on to get post-remission therapy.

A randomized phase II trial comparing 33A and 7+3 to 7+3 alone is slated to launch in the first quarter of 2017.

Dr. Erba disclosed serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from Seattle Genetics, which supported the study.