Christoph Losem

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. METHODS We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335. FINDINGS 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved ≥3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024). INTERPRETATION In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm/Mundipharma GmbH.

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 plus rituximab (B-R) versus CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) as first-line treatment in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphomas (MCL): Updated results from the StiL NHL1 study.

3 Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in indolent lymphoma and MCL and was presented at ASH 2009 including a comprehensive safety analysis. Here we present an updated analysis with a cut-off date for 31 Oct 2011. METHODS 549 patients (pts) with indolent or MCL were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a max of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS 514 pts randomized pts were evaluable (261 B-R; 253 CHOP-R). Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms; median age was 64 years. At a median follow-up of 45 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; P<0.001). Median PFS was 69.5 versus 31.2 months, respectively. The PFS benefit with B-R was maintained in all histological subtypes except marginal zone lymphoma. The PFS benefit with B-R was independent of age; HR 0.52 (P=0.002) in pts ≤60 years (n=199), and HR 0.62 (P=0.002) in pts >60 years (n=315). In pts with normal LDH (62%), PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P<0.001), while in the elevated LDH group (38%) PFS was numerically, but not significantly increased with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P=0.118). In patients with follicular lymphoma, FLIPI subgroups defined by 0-2 factors (favorable) and 3-5 factors (unfavorable) had a longer PFS with B-R than with CHOP-R (P=0.043 and P=0.068 for the favorable and unfavorable FLIPI subgroups, respectively). Seventy four salvage treatments had been initiated in the B-R group; compared with 116 in the CHOP-R group, of those in the CHOP-R group 52 pts received B-R as salvage regimen. Overall survival did not differ between the treatment arms, with 43 and 45 deaths in the B-R and CHOP-R arms, respectively. Twenty secondary malignancies were observed in the B-R group compared with 23 in the CHOP-R group, with 1 hematological malignancy in each group (1 MDS in B-R, 1 AML in CHOP-R). CONCLUSIONS In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, and elderly patients with MCL, B-R demonstrates a PFS benefit and improved tolerability compared with CHOP-R.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab is frequently used in patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas who relapse after alkylating chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab with bendamustine or fludarabine in patients with relapsed, indolent, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS For this randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 55 centres in Germany, who were subsequently randomised centrally according to prespecified randomisation lists with permuted blocks of randomly variable block size to rituximab (375 mg/m(2), day 1) plus either bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), days 1 and 2) or fludarabine (25 mg/m(2), days 1-3) every 28 days for a maximum of six 28-day cycles. Patients were aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 0-2 and had relapsed or refractory indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma; patients refractory to regimens that included rituximab, bendamustine, or purine analogue drugs were excluded. Patients were stratified by histological subtypes of lymphoma and by their latest previous therapies. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the final analysis was completed per protocol. Non-inferiority of bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab was defined as a difference of less than 15% in 1-year progression-free survival. The protocol was amended in July, 2006, after approval of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m(2) every 3 months for up to 2 years), which was then given to patients achieving a response to either trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01456351 (closed to enrolment, follow-up is ongoing). FINDINGS Between Oct 8, 2003, and Aug 5, 2010, we randomly assigned 230 patients to treatment groups (116 bendamustine plus rituximab, 114 fludarabine plus rituximab). 11 patients were excluded for protocol violations and were not followed up further (two in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and nine in the fludarabine plus rituximab group). Thus, 219 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (114 bendamustine plus rituximab, 105 fludarabine plus rituximab). 1-year progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 0·76 (95% CI 0·68-0·84) and 0·48 (0·39-0·58) with fludarabine plus rituximab (non-inferiority p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 96 months (IQR 73·2-112·9), median progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 34·2 months (95% CI 23·5-52·7) and 11·7 months (8·0-16·1) with fludarabine plus rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·38-0·72], log-rank test p<0·0001). Safety outcomes were similar in both groups, with 46 serious adverse events recorded (23 in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and 23 in the fludarabine plus rituximab group), most commonly myelosuppression and infections. INTERPRETATION In combination with rituximab, bendamustine was more effective than fludarabine, suggesting that bendamustine plus rituximab may be the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, Studiengruppe indolente Lymphome (StiL).

Deferasirox treatment of iron-overloaded chelation-naïve and prechelated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes in medical practice: results from the observational studies eXtend and eXjange.

EXtend and eXjange were prospective, 1‐yr, non‐interventional, observational, multicentre studies that investigated deferasirox, a once‐daily oral iron chelator, in iron‐overloaded chelation‐naïve and prechelated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), respectively, treated in the daily‐routine setting of office‐based physicians. No inclusion or exclusion criteria or additional monitoring procedures were applied. Deferasirox was administered as recommended in the European Summary of Product Characteristics. Haematological parameters and adverse events (AEs) were collected at two‐monthly intervals. Data from 123 chelation‐naïve patients with MDS (mean age 70.4 yrs) with median baseline serum ferritin level of 2679 (range 184–16 500) ng/mL, and 44 prechelated patients with MDS (mean age 69.6 yrs) with median baseline serum ferritin level of 2442 (range 521–8565) ng/mL, were assessed. The mean prescribed daily dose of deferasirox at the first visit was 15.7 and 18.7 mg/kg/d, respectively. Treatment with deferasirox produced a significant reduction in median serum ferritin levels in chelation‐naïve patients with MDS from 2679 to 2000 ng/mL (P = 0.0002) and a pronounced decrease in prechelated patients with MDS from 2442 to 2077 ng/mL (P = 0.06). The most common drug‐related AEs were gastrointestinal, increased serum creatinine levels and rash. These studies demonstrate that deferasirox used in physicians’ medical practices is effective in managing iron burden in transfusion‐dependent patients with MDS.

Bendamustine plus mitoxantrone for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL): results of a multicentre phase II study of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).

The efficacy of bendamustine (50 mg/m², days 1–3) plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m², day 1), every 28 days for up to four courses, was evaluated in a Phase II multicentre trial enrolling 59 patients with relapsed or refractory B‐cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Major toxicities were grade 3/4 leucopenia, thrombocytopenia and infections in 42%, 12% and 12% of patients, respectively. Complete and partial response was achieved in 5/59 and 25/29 patients, respectively (overall response rate, 51%). Median time to progression was 22 months (range 1–49 + ) and median survival 27 months (range 0–49 + ). The combination of bendamustine and mitoxantrone is an active regime in relapsed or refractory CLL.

Prognostic value of circulating Bcl-2/IgH levels in patients with follicular lymphoma receiving first-line immunochemotherapy.

Bcl-2/IgH rearrangements can be quantified in follicular lymphoma (FL) from peripheral blood (PB) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The prognostic value of Bcl-2/IgH levels in FL remains controversial. We therefore prospectively studied PB Bcl-2/IgH levels from 173 first-line FL patients who were consecutively enrolled, randomized, and treated within the multicenter phase 3 clinical trial NHL1-2003 comparing bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone. From April 2005 to August 2008, 783 pre- and posttreatment PB samples were quantified by quantitative PCR. At inclusion, 114 patients (66%) tested positive and 59 (34%) were negative for Bcl-2/IgH. High pretreatment Bcl-2/IgH levels had an adverse effect on progression-free survival (PFS) compared with intermediate or low levels (high vs intermediate: hazard [HR], 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-10.77; P = .002; high vs low: HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.55-5.86; P = .001). No PFS difference between treatment arms was observed in Bcl-2/IgH-positive patients. A positive posttreatment Bcl-2/IgH status was associated with shorter PFS (8.7 months vs not reached; HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.51-6.58; P = .002). By multivariate analysis, the pretreatment Bcl-2/IgH level was the strongest predictor for PFS. Our data suggest that pre- and posttreatment Bcl-2/IgH levels from PB have significant prognostic value for PFS in FL patients receiving first-line immunochemotherapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00991211 and at the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices as #BfArM-4021335.

NADIR: A Non-Interventional Study on the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia Using Lipegfilgrastim - First Interim Analysis.

Background: The non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim, a novel glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, in reducing the risk of both febrile and severe neutropenia. Methods: Here, the interim analysis of NIS Nadir performed under real-world conditions at 80 oncology practices across Germany is reported. For a patient to be included, lipegfilgrastim at a subcutaneous single dose of 6 mg had to be administered during at least 1 cycle of the chemotherapy under consideration. Results: The interim analysis included 224 patients. Median patient age was 61.1 years (interquartile range 51.2-70.2 years). Main tumor type was breast cancer followed by lung cancer, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (46.0, 13.4, and 10.7%, respectively). When lipegfilgrastim was given as primary prophylaxis, no patient developed febrile neutropenia (FN). 1.3% of patients developed FN when primary prophylaxis was withheld. Only 68.6% of patients undergoing chemotherapy and at high risk (> 20%) of developing FN were treated with lipegfilgrastim during the first cycle, exposing disparity between real-world practices and current treatment guidelines. Lipegfilgrastim was well tolerated. The only grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse event was anemia in 1 patient. Conclusion: Lipegfilgrastim was effective and safe when administered for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia under real-world conditions.

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.

Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-induced Neutropenia and Febrile Neutropenia with Lipegfilgrastim in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NADIR study)

The prospective non‐interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to evaluate both effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex®), a glycopegylated granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor, in cancer patients with different tumor entities undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was incidence of severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia‐associated complications.