Christina Howlett

Impact of induction regimen and stem cell transplantation on outcomes in double-hit lymphoma: A multicenter retrospective analysis

Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL), which is characterized by rearrangements of MYC and either BCL2 or BCL6, face poor prognoses. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study of the impact of baseline clinical factors, induction therapy, and stem cell transplant (SCT) on the outcomes of 311 patients with previously untreated DHL. At median follow-up of 23 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates among all patients were 10.9 and 21.9 months, respectively. Forty percent of patients remain disease-free and 49% remain alive at 2 years. Intensive induction was associated with improved PFS, but not OS, and SCT was not associated with improved OS among patients achieving first complete remission (P = .14). By multivariate analysis, advanced stage, central nervous system involvement, leukocytosis, and LDH >3 times the upper limit of normal were associated with higher risk of death. Correcting for these, intensive induction was associated with improved OS. We developed a novel risk score for DHL, which divides patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. In conclusion, a subset of DHL patients may be cured, and some patients may benefit from intensive induction. Further investigations into the roles of SCT and novel agents are needed.

Front‐line, dose‐escalated immunochemotherapy is associated with a significant progression‐free survival advantage in patients with double‐hit lymphomas: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

‘Double‐hit lymphomas’ (DHL), defined by concurrent MYC and BCL2 (or, alternatively, BCL6) rearrangements, have a very poor outcome compared to standard‐risk, diffuse large B‐cell lymphomas (DLBCL). Consequently, dose‐intensive (DI) therapies and/or consolidation with high‐dose therapy and transplant have been explored in DHL, although benefit has been debated. This meta‐analysis compared survival outcomes in DHL patients receiving dose‐escalated regimens [DI: R‐Hyper‐CVAD (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) or R‐CODOX‐M/IVAC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, methotrexate/ifosfamide, etoposide, high dose cytarabine); or intermediate‐dose: R‐EPOCH (rituximab, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)] versus standard‐dose regimens (R‐CHOP; rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) in the first‐line setting. Data were synthesized to estimate hazard ratios of dose‐escalated treatments versus R‐CHOP using a Weibull proportional hazards model within a Bayesian meta‐analysis framework. Eleven studies examining 394 patients were included. Patients were treated with either front‐line R‐CHOP (n = 180), R‐EPOCH (n = 91), or R‐Hyper‐CVAD/rituximab, methotrexate, cytarabine (R‐M/C), R‐CODOX‐M/R‐IVAC (DI) (n = 123). Our meta‐analysis revealed that median progression‐free survival (n = 350) for the R‐CHOP, R‐EPOCH and DI groups was 12·1, 22·2, and 18·9 months, respectively. First‐line treatment with R‐EPOCH significantly reduced the risk of a progression compared with R‐CHOP (relative risk reduction of 34%; P = 0·032); however, overall survival (n = 374) was not significantly different across treatment approaches. A subset of patients might benefit from intensive induction with/without transplant. Further investigation into the role of transplant and novel therapy combinations is necessary.

Optimal Sequencing of Ibrutinib, Idelalisib, and Venetoclax in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Results from a Multi-Center Study of 683 Patients.

Background Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax are approved for treating CLL patients in the United States. However, there is no guidance as to their optimal sequence. Patients and methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of CLL patients treated with kinase inhibitors (KIs) or venetoclax. We examined demographics, discontinuation reasons, overall response rates (ORR), survival, and post-KI salvage strategies. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 683 patients were identified. Baseline characteristics were similar in the ibrutinib and idelalisib groups. ORR to ibrutinib and idelalisib as first KI was 69% and 81%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-60), median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 35 months and not reached. Patients treated with ibrutinib (versus idelalisib) as first KI had a significantly better PFS in all settings; front-line [hazard ratios (HR) 2.8, CI 1.3-6.3, P = 0.01], relapsed-refractory (HR 2.8, CI 1.9-4.1, P < 0.001), del17p (HR 2.0, CI 1.2-3.4, P = 0.008), and complex karyotype (HR 2.5, CI 1.2-5.2, P = 0.02). At the time of initial KI failure, use of an alternate KI or venetoclax had a superior PFS when compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Furthermore, patients who discontinued ibrutinib due to progression or toxicity had marginally improved outcomes if they received venetoclax (ORR 79%) versus idelalisib (ORR 46%) (PFS HR .6, CI.3-1.0, P = 0.06). Conclusions In the largest real-world experience of novel agents in CLL, ibrutinib appears superior to idelalisib as first KI. Furthermore, in the setting of KI failure, alternate KI or venetoclax therapy appear superior to chemoimmunotherapy combinations. The use of venetoclax upon ibrutinib failure might be superior to idelalisib. These data support the need for trials testing sequencing strategies to optimize treatment algorithms.BACKGROUND Ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax are approved for treating CLL patients in the US. However, there is no guidance as to their optimal sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of CLL patients treated with kinase inhibitors (KIs) or venetoclax. We examined demographics, discontinuation reasons, overall response rates (ORR), survival, and post-KI salvage strategies. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS A total of 683 patients were identified. Baseline characteristics were similar in the ibrutinib and idelalisib groups. ORR to ibrutinib and idelalisib as first KI was 69% and 81% respectively. With a median follow up of 17 months (range 1-60), median PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 35 months and not reached. Patients treated with ibrutinib (vs. idelalisib) as first KI had a significantly better PFS in all settings; front-line (HR 2.8, CI1.3-6.3 p=.01), relapsed-refractory (HR 2.8, CI 1.9-4.1 p<.001), del17p (HR 2.0, CI 1.2-3.4 p=.008), and complex karyotype (HR 2.5, CI 1.2-5.2 p=.02). At the time of initial KI failure, use of an alternate KI or venetoclax had a superior PFS as compared to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). Furthermore, patients who discontinued ibrutinib due to progression or toxicity had marginally improved outcomes if they received venetoclax (ORR 79%) versus idelalisib (ORR 46%) (PFS HR .6, CI.3-1.0, p=.06). CONCLUSIONS In the largest real-world experience of novel agents in CLL, ibrutinib appears superior to idelalisib as first KI. Further, in the setting of KI failure, alternate KI or venetoclax therapy appear superior to CIT combinations. The use of venetoclax upon ibrutinib failure might be superior to idelalisib. These data support the need for trials testing sequencing strategies to optimize treatment algorithms.

Outcomes of Patients With Double-Hit Lymphoma Who Achieve First Complete Remission

Purpose Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) rarely achieve long-term survival following disease relapse. Some patients with DHL undergo consolidative autologous stem-cell transplantation (autoSCT) to reduce the risk of relapse, although the benefit of this treatment strategy is unclear. Methods Patients with DHL who achieved first complete remission following completion of front-line therapy with either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or intensive front-line therapy, and deemed fit for autoSCT, were included. A landmark analysis was performed, with time zero defined as 3 months after completion of front-line therapy. Patients who experienced relapse before or who were not followed until that time were excluded. Results Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 3 years were 80% and 87%, respectively, for all patients (n = 159). Three-year RFS and OS rates did not differ significantly for autoSCT (n = 62) versus non-autoSCT patients (n = 97), but 3-year RFS was inferior in patients who received R-CHOP compared with intensive therapy (56% v 88%; P = .002). Three-year RFS and OS did not differ significantly for patients in the R-CHOP or intensive therapy cohorts when analyzed by receipt of autoSCT. The median OS following relapse was 8.6 months. Conclusion In the largest reported series, to our knowledge, of patients with DHL to achieve first complete remission, consolidative autoSCT was not associated with improved 3-year RFS or OS. In addition, patients treated with R-CHOP experienced inferior 3-year RFS compared with those who received intensive front-line therapy. When considered in conjunction with reports of patients with newly diagnosed DHL, which demonstrate lower rates of disease response to R-CHOP compared with intensive front-line therapy, our findings further support the use of intensive front-line therapy for this patient population.

Reduced‐dose fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR‐Lite) plus lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide consolidation/maintenance, in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) remains the standard of care for fit chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients requiring first therapy. However, side effects can be significant, and patients with poor risk features have inferior outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reduced‐dose FCR (FCR‐Lite) plus lenalidomide (FCR2) followed by lenalidomide maintenance as a strategy to shorten immunochemotherapy in untreated CLL. Patients received four to six cycles of FCR2. Patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative in peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) initiated 12 months of lenalidomide maintenance after either four or six cycles (based on MRD status). The primary study endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate after four cycles of FCR2. Twenty patients were evaluable. After four cycles of FCR2, response rates were: CR, 45.0%; CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), 5.0%; partial response (PR), 45.0%; and stable disease (SD), 5.0%. BM and PB samples from 27.8% and 52.9% of patients, respectively, were MRD negative. After six cycles, response rates were: CR, 58.3%; CRi, 16.7%; and PR, 25.0%. BM and PB samples from 50.0% and 72.7% of patients, respectively, were MRD negative. Overall, 75% of evaluable patients achieved a CR or CRi following FCR2. After 17.4 months of median follow‐up, one progression and one death occurred. Our findings suggest that FCR2 combines encouraging clinical activity with acceptable toxicity in previously untreated CLL. Lenalidomide can be safely added to FCR and may reduce chemotherapy exposure without compromising outcomes. Am. J. Hematol. 90:487–492, 2015.

Impact of induction regimen and stem cell transplantation on outcomes in patients with double hit lymphoma: a large multicenter retrospective analysis

Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL), which is characterized by rearrangements of MYC and either BCL2 or BCL6, face poor prognoses. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study of the impact of baseline clinical factors, induction therapy, and stem cell transplant (SCT) on the outcomes of 311 patients with previously untreated DHL. At median follow-up of 23 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates among all patients were 10.9 and 21.9 months, respectively. Forty percent of patients remain disease-free and 49% remain alive at 2 years. Intensive induction was associated with improved PFS, but not OS, and SCT was not associated with improved OS among patients achieving first complete remission (P = .14). By multivariate analysis, advanced stage, central nervous system involvement, leukocytosis, and LDH >3 times the upper limit of normal were associated with higher risk of death. Correcting for these, intensive induction was associated with improved OS. We developed a novel risk score for DHL, which divides patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. In conclusion, a subset of DHL patients may be cured, and some patients may benefit from intensive induction. Further investigations into the roles of SCT and novel agents are needed.

Toxicities and outcomes of 621 ibrutinib-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients in the United States: a real-world analysis

Clinical trials that led to ibrutinib’s approval for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia showed that its side effects differ from those of traditional chemotherapy. Reasons for discontinuation in clinical practice have not been adequately studied. We conducted a retrospective analysis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with ibrutinib either commercially or on clinical trials. We aimed to compare the type and frequency of toxicities reported in either setting, assess discontinuation rates, and evaluate outcomes. This multicenter, retrospective analysis included ibrutinib-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients at nine United States cancer centers or from the Connect® Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Registry. We examined demographics, dosing, discontinuation rates and reasons, toxicities, and outcomes. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Six hundred sixteen ibrutinib-treated patients were identified. A total of 546 (88%) patients were treated with the commercial drug. Clinical trial patients were younger (mean age 58 versus 61 years, P=0.01) and had a similar time from diagnosis to treatment with ibrutinib (mean 85 versus 87 months, P=0.8). With a median follow-up of 17 months, an estimated 41% of patients discontinued ibrutinib (median time to ibrutinib discontinuation was 7 months). Notably, ibrutinib toxicity was the most common reason for discontinuation in all settings. The median progression-free survival and overall survival for the entire cohort were 35 months and not reached (median follow-up 17 months), respectively. In the largest reported series on ibrutinib- treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients, we show that 41% of patients discontinued ibrutinib. Intolerance as opposed to chronic lymphocytic leukemia progression was the most common reason for discontinuation. Outcomes remain excellent and were not affected by line of therapy or whether patients were treated on clinical studies or commercially. These data strongly argue in favor of finding strategies to minimize ibrutinib intolerance so that efficacy can be further maximized. Future clinical trials should consider time-limited therapy approaches, particularly in patients achieving a complete response, in order to minimize ibrutinib exposure.

Comparable outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) patients treated with reduced-dose ibrutinib: results from a multi-centre study

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article: Data S1. Supplementary methods. Fig S1. Computed tomography, macroscopic, and loupe images. Table S1. Abberations common to both the malignant phyllodes tumour and myeloid sarcoma components detected by array comparative genomic hybridization. Table S2. Variants common to both the malignant phyllodes tumour and myeloid sarcoma components detected by whole-exome sequencing. Table S3. Variants only in the myeloid sarcoma component detected by whole-exome sequencing. Table S4. Antibodies used for immunohistochemistry and results. Table S5. Primer sequences.

Rituximab, cyclophosphamide-fractionated, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone alternating with rituximab, methotrexate and cytarabine overcomes risk features associated with inferior outcomes in treatment of newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Abstract Subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that have inferior outcomes after front-line therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) have been identified. While it is agreed that R-CHOP is probably not adequate in these patients, there is no standard treatment approach for patients with DLBCL with high-risk features. We present results of a retrospective cohort study of high-risk DLBCL (defined as having at least one unfavorable risk factor: non-germinal center [GC] subtype by immunohistochemistry [IHC], Ki-67 ≥ 80%, high International Prognostic Index [IPI], c-MYC rearrangement) treated with R-HCVAD/R-MTX-AraC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide-fractionated, vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone alternating with rituximab, methotrexate and cytarabine; R-HCVAD) as front-line therapy. With a median follow-up of 25.3 months, the 3-year PFS and OS estimates are 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65–88%) and 76% (95% CI, 61–86%), respectively, which are higher than those for historical comparisons with R-CHOP data for high-risk patients. These data are in accord with other recent reports of dose-intense front-line therapy of high-risk DLBCL. This analysis represents the largest reported cohort of patients with DLBCL treated with R-HCVAD. These data suggest that R-HCVAD can overcome traditional poor risk features such as high IPI, high Ki-67 and non-GC IHC pattern. Future work will focus on identifying molecular markers for failure in patients with DLBCL treated with dose-intensive regimens.

Use of naloxone for reversal of life-threatening opioid toxicity in cancer-related pain.

Objective To review the emergency-based approach to opioid toxicity reversal in cancer-related pain patients. Data source A MEDLINE and PubMed search was conducted (1966 to May 2014) using the terms opioids, cancer, naloxone, respiratory depression, morphine, morphine derivatives, emergency, and anaphylaxis. Methods of study selection English articles in human subjects identified from the MEDLINE and PubMed search were evaluated. Citations were excluded if they addressed acute overdoses, non-cancer pain, and/or acute, non-chronic pain. Data extraction and synthesis Pain is a common occurrence in the oncology population. Although toxicity from opioids is common, life-threatening toxicities are not. The use of naloxone in this particular patient population occurs frequently for any perceived opioid-related effect and can be detrimental to the oncology patient’s care and quality of life. Difficulties exist when attempting to separate opioid toxicity from disease progression or metastases and, therefore, a thorough history is needed prior to complete opioid reversal in this population. Severity of the opioid intoxication should dictate reversal strategy. Dosing strategies that take into account both the treatment of the opioid-related effects as well as the negative effects reversal will have on the patient are offered. We also review the pre-hospital setting and identified the need for protocols that not only take the patient’s symptoms into account, but also the patient’s cancer history. Conclusion Opioid reversal protocols should be developed by a multi-disciplinary team. Each protocol should differentiate those toxicities which are life-threatening and require complete opioid reversal with toxicities that require small aliquots of naloxone to mitigate the presenting symptoms.