Ali Aldaoud

Phase III randomized study of bendamustine compared with chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of bendamustine and chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with advanced (Binet stage B or C) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (<or= 75 years of age) were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine 100 mg/m(2)/d intravenously on days 1 to 2, or chlorambucil 0.8 mg/kg (Brocas normal weight) orally on days 1 and 15; treatment cycles were repeated every 4 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The response to treatment was assessed according to National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria, and the final determination of response was made by a blinded independent review committee. RESULTS A total of 319 patients were randomly assigned (162 bendamustine, 157 chlorambucil). Complete or partial responses were achieved in 110 (68%) of 162 bendamustine-treated and 48 (31%) of 157 chlorambucil-treated patients (P < .0001). More patients showed complete responses with bendamustine than with chlorambucil (31% v 2%). Median progression-free survival was 21.6 months with bendamustine and 8.3 months with chlorambucil (P < .0001). Bendamustine was also associated with an improvement in duration of remission, compared with chlorambucil (median, 21.8 v 8.0 months). Hematologic National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more common with bendamustine than with chlorambucil (occurring in 40% v 19% of patients). Severe infections (grade 3 to 4) occurred in 8% of bendamustine-treated patients and 3% of chlorambucil-treated patients. CONCLUSION Bendamustine offers significantly greater efficacy than chlorambucil, and a manageable toxicity profile, when used as first-line therapy in patients with advanced CLL.

High anti-lymphoma activity of bendamustine/mitoxantrone/rituximab in rituximab pretreated relapsed or refractory indolent lymphomas and mantle cell lymphomas. A multicenter phase II study of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG)

On the basis of a preceding phase I study, the current trial explored bendamustine in combination with mitoxantrone and rituximab (BMR) in patients with stage III/IV relapsed or refractory indolent lymphomas and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) with or without prior rituximab containing chemo-immunotherapy (R-chemo) treatment. Therapy consisted of bendamustine 90 mg/m2 days 1 + 2, mitoxantrone 10 mg/m2 day 1, rituximab 375 mg/m2 day 8. Treatment was repeated on day 29 for a total of four cycles. Between 3 April and 04 July, 57 patients were recruited from 24 participating institutions, 39% of whom had received prior R-chemo therapy. Median age was 66 years (40 – 83). Lymphoma subtypes were 29 follicular (FL), 18 MCL, and 10 other indolent lymphomas. The overall response rate (ORR) was 89% with 35% CR and 54% PR. ORR in R-chemo pretreated patients was 76% (38% CR, 38% PR). After a median observation time of 27 months (1 – 43), the estimated median progression free survival is 19 months. The 2 year overall survival is 60% for patients with FL and MCL. Treatment related toxicities of grade 3/4 comprised a reversible myelosuppression (10% anemia, 78% leukocytopenia, 46% granulocytopenia, 16% thrombocytopenia). However, unexpected hospitalisations were necessary after 4% of BMR-application only. BMR is a very effective new outpatient immuno-chemotherapy with low toxicity for patients with relapsed/refractory FL, MCL and other indolent lymphomas.

Bendamustine compared with chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: updated results of a randomized phase III trial

The efficacy of bendamustine versus chlorambucil in a phase III trial of previously untreated patients with Binet stage B/C chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was re‐evaluated after a median observation time of 54 months in May 2010. Overall survival (OS) was analysed for the first time. At follow‐up, investigator‐assessed complete response (CR) rate (21·0% vs 10·8%), median progression‐free survival (21·2 vs 8·8 months; P < 0·0001; hazard ratio 2·83) and time to next treatment (31·7 vs 10·1 months; P < 0·0001) were improved for bendamustine over chlorambucil. OS was not different between groups for all patients or those ≤65 years, >65 years, responders and non‐responders. However, patients with objective response or a CR experienced a significantly longer OS than non‐responders or those without a CR. Significantly more patients on chlorambucil progressed to second/further lines of treatment compared with those on bendamustine (78·3% vs 63·6%; P = 0·004). The benefits of bendamustine over chlorambucil were achieved without reducing quality of life. In conclusion, bendamustine is significantly more effective than chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL patients, with the achievement of a CR or objective response appearing to prolong OS. Bendamustine should be considered as a preferred first‐line option over chlorambucil for CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab.

Lenalidomide maintenance after first-line therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLLM1): final results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND The combined use of genetic markers and detectable minimal residual disease identifies patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with poor outcome after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance therapy in these high-risk patients. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (CLLM1; CLL Maintenance 1 of the German CLL Study Group), patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with immunophenotypically confirmed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with active disease, who responded to chemoimmunotherapy 2-5 months after completion of first-line therapy and who were assessed as having a high risk for an early progression with at least a partial response after four or more cycles of first-line chemoimmunotherapy, were eligible if they had high minimal residual disease levels or intermediate levels combined with an unmutated IGHV gene status or TP53 alterations. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either lenalidomide (5 mg) or placebo. Randomisation was done with a fixed block size of three, and was stratified according to the minimal residual disease level achieved after first-line therapy. Maintenance was started with 5 mg daily, and was escalated to the target dose of 15 mg. If tolerated, medication was administered until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to an independent review. The pre-planned interim analysis done by intention to treat was done after 20% of the calculated progression-free survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01556776; treatment in the lenalidomide group is still ongoing. FINDINGS Between July 5, 2012, and March 15, 2016, 468 previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were screened for the study; 379 (81%) were not eligible. Recruitment was closed prematurely due to poor accrual after 89 of 200 planned patients were randomly assigned: 60 (67%) enrolled patients were assigned to the lenalidomide group and 29 (33%) to the placebo group, of whom 56 (63%) received lenalidomide and 29 (33%) placebo, with a median of 11·0 (IQR 4·5-20·5) treatment cycles at data cutoff. After a median observation time of 17·9 months (IQR 9·1-28·1), the hazard ratio for progression-free survival assessed by an independent review was 0·168 (95% CI 0·074-0·379). Median progression-free survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 9·9-19·7) in the placebo group and not reached (95% CI 32·3-not evaluable) in the lenalidomide group. The most frequent adverse events were skin disorders (35 patients [63%] in the lenalidomide group vs eight patients [28%] in the placebo group), gastrointestinal disorders (34 [61%] vs eight [28%]), infections (30 [54%] vs 19 [66%]), haematological toxicity (28 [50%] vs five [17%]), and general disorders (28 [50%] vs nine [31%]). One fatal adverse event was reported in each of the treatment groups (one [2%] patient with fatal acute lymphocytic leukaemia in the lenalidomide group and one patient (3%) with fatal multifocal leukoencephalopathy in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION Lenalidomide is an efficacious maintenance therapy reducing the relative risk of progression in first-line patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who do not achieve minimal residual disease negative disease state following chemoimmunotherapy approaches. The toxicity seems to be acceptable considering the poor prognosis of the eligible patients. The trial independently confirms the clinical significance of a novel, minimal residual disease-based algorithm to predict short progression-free survival, which might be incorporated in future clinical trials to identify candidates for additional maintenance treatment. FUNDING Celgene Corporation.

Treatment of Non-transplant patients with multiple myeloma: routine treatment by office-based haematologists in Germany--data from the prospective Tumour Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms (TLN).

SummaryBackground: Various treatment options exist for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Clinical registries provide insight into routine treatment and identify changes in treatment over time. Patients and Methods: The Tumour Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms (TLN) prospectively collects data on the treatment of patients with lymphoid B cell neoplasms as administered by office-based haematologists in Germany. Data on patient and tumour characteristics, comorbidities, systemic treatments and outcome parameters are recorded. Results: 371 non-transplant patients with MM were recruited between 2009 and 2011. At the start of first-line (second-line) treatment, the median age was 73 (75) years; 67% (74%) of the patients had stage III MM (classification of Durie and Salmon) and 19% (28%) had renal insufficiency. In the first line, 40% of the patients received bortezomib + melphalan + prednisone (VMP), 25% received bortezomib ± dexamethasone (V±D) and 8% were treated with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide (MPT). While use of bortezomib-based regimens increased from 67% (2009) to 85% (2011), use of melphalan-based regimens decreased from 68% to 48%. The overall objective response rate of treatment was 82%. In the second line, 34% of the patients received V±D and 16% lenalidomide + dexamethasone (LD). Conclusion: Bortezomib-based regimens dominate the first- and second-line treatment of MM. Future analyses will investigate outcome data, e.g. effectiveness of bortezomib retherapy compared to other second-line treatments.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Final results of a non-interventional study and comparison with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials

Lenalidomide (LEN) is an immunomodulatory drug with significant clinical activity against relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM). Based on the pivotal phase 3 trials MM-009 and MM-010, LEN in combination with dexamethasone (DEX) is approved for treatment of patients with MM who have received at least one prior therapy. LEN monotherapy is also approved in first line treatment. Here, we evaluated LEN/DEX combination therapy in a non-interventional study in patients with r/r MM in routine clinical practice. Patients received LEN/DEX as per Summary of Product Characteristics. Ninety-eight patients were treated with at least 1 cycle of LEN/DEX (median age 71 years; range, 42-88), forty-eight patients with at least 6 cycles. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for overall median time to progression was 12.0 months, 13.9 months for patients receiving second-line therapy and 10.3 months for third-line or higher-line therapy. The overall response rate was 60.2%. The median overall survival was 24.3 months. The most common adverse events were anemia (32.7%), thrombocytopenia (27.6%) and leukopenia (24.5%). Seven (7.1%) patients developed thromboembolic events despite prophylaxis. In conclusion, the combination of LEN/DEX administered to patients with r/r MM in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the registration trials.

Results from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study: Treatment algorithms and survival of 1,174 patients with locally advanced, inoperable, or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Routine treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in Germany

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy. Developments in recent years have broadened our therapeutic armamentarium. Novel drugs such as nab‐paclitaxel, liposomal irinotecan and chemotherapy regimens such as FOLFIRINOX have been successfully tested in clinical trials. Data on patients outside of clinical trials are scarce but necessary to assess and improve the standard of care. We present data on treatment and survival of 1,174 patients with locally advanced, inoperable, or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Between February 2014 and June 2017, patients were recruited by 104 sites at start of first‐line therapy into the ongoing, prospective clinical cohort study TPK (Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer). As first‐line therapy, 89% of patients received one of the three treatment regimens: gemcitabine monotherapy (23%), nab‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (42%), or FOLFIRINOX (24%). The corresponding subgroups differed: Patients receiving gemcitabine monotherapy were older and more comorbid (median age 78 years, 73% ECOG ≥ 1) than patients receiving nab‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (median age 71, 64% ECOG ≥ 1) or patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (median age 60, 52% ECOG ≥ 1). At least 40% of patients died before receiving second‐line treatment. First‐line progression‐free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI: 3.7–5.2) for gemcitabine, 5.6 months (95% CI: 5.0–6.2) for nab‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, and 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.5–6.9) for FOLFIRINOX. Our data represent the treatment reality in a German community setting. Although there are no stringent inclusion criteria for our cohort study, overall survival is comparable to that reported by randomised clinical trials.