Matthew Mei

Relapsed or Refractory Double-Expressor and Double-Hit Lymphomas Have Inferior Progression-Free Survival After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation

Purpose Double-hit lymphomas (DHLs) and double-expressor lymphomas (DELs) are subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) associated with poor outcomes after standard chemoimmunotherapy. Data are limited regarding outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) DEL or DHL who undergo autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). We retrospectively studied the prognostic impact of DEL and DHL status on ASCT outcomes in patients with rel/ref DLBCL. Methods Patients with chemotherapy-sensitive rel/ref DLBCL who underwent ASCT at two institutions and in whom archival tumor material was available were enrolled. Immunohistochemistry for MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC were performed. In cases with MYC rearrangement or copy gain, FISH for BCL2 and BCL6 was also performed. Results A total of 117 patients were included; 44% had DEL and 10% had DHL. DEL and DHL were associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS), and DHL was associated with poorer overall survival (OS). The 4-year PFS in patients with DEL compared with those with non-DEL was 48% versus 59% ( P = .049), and the 4-year OS was 56% versus 67% ( P = .10); 4-year PFS in patients with DHL compared with those with non-DHL was 28% versus 57% ( P = .013), and 4-year OS was 25% versus 61% ( P = .002). The few patients with concurrent DEL and DHL had a poor outcome (4-year PFS, 0%). In multivariable models, DEL and DHL were independently associated with inferior PFS, whereas DHL and partial response ( v complete response) at transplant were associated with inferior OS. Conclusion DEL and DHL are both associated with inferior outcomes after ASCT in patients with rel/ref DLBCL. Although ASCT remains a potentially curative approach, these patients, particularly those with DHL, are a high-risk subset who should be targeted for investigational strategies other than standard ASCT.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). OBJECTIVES To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendalls W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendalls W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendalls W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. CONCLUSIONS The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.

Management of Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma with Second-Generation Antibody–Drug Conjugates: Focus on Brentuximab Vedotin

Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris, Seattle Genetics) is an antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) that joins an anti-CD 30 monoclonal antibody with the anti-tubulin agent monomethyl auristatin E via a dipeptide linker. It has demonstrated significant activity in CD 30-positive lymphomas and is currently approved by the US FDA for treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma that has relapsed following autologous stem-cell transplantation, or after two lines of chemotherapy in non-transplant candidates. Brentuximab vedotin has also been approved for the treatment of relapsed anaplastic large-cell lymphoma after front-line chemotherapy. We briefly review the biology of Hodgkin lymphoma, with a focus on the pathogenic role of CD 30 as well as the development of CD 30-targeted therapy. We also discuss both the current role of brentuximab vedotin in the management of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and the likely future developments for this agent.

Long-Term Results of High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Effectiveness of Maintenance Rituximab

High-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can improve outcomes for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) but is associated with a high incidence of relapse. A retrospective study of 191 MCL patients who underwent ASCT at City of Hope was performed to examine prognostic factors for outcomes after ASCT. For all patients the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63% to 77%) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 53% (95% CI, 45% to 60%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 41% (95% CI, 34% to 48%) with a continuous pattern of relapse events occurring at a median of 2.1 years (range, .2 to 13.4) after ASCT. In multivariate analysis, post-transplant maintenance rituximab was the factor most significantly associated with both OS (relative risk [RR], .17; 95% CI, .07 to .38) and PFS (RR, .25; 95% CI, .14 to .44). For the subset of patients who had positron emission tomography (PET) data available and were in a PET-negative first complete remission at ASCT (n = 105), maintenance rituximab was significantly associated with superior OS (RR, .17; 95% CI, .05 to .59) and PFS (RR, .20; 95% CI, .09 to .43). These results support a benefit with maintenance rituximab for all MCL patients treated with ASCT.

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

BACKGROUND Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the convergent validity and interrater reliability of 4 value frameworks to understand the extent to which these tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS Eight panelists used the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration-refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. Kendalls Coefficient of Concordance for Ranks (Kendalls W) was used to measure convergent validity by cancer type among the 4 frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure interrater reliability for each framework across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences. RESULTS Kendalls W across all 4 frameworks for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs was 0.560 (P= 0.010), 0.562 (P = 0.010), and 0.920 (P < 0.001), respectively. Pairwise, Kendalls W for breast cancer drugs was highest for ESMO-ICER and ICER-NCCN (W = 0.950, P = 0.019 for both pairs) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.300, P = 0.748). For lung cancer drugs, W was highest pairwise for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974, P = 0.007) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.218, P = 0.839); for prostate cancer drugs, pairwise W was highest for ICER-NCCN (W = 1.000, P < 0.001) and lowest for ESMO-ICER and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.900, P = 0.052 for both pairs). When ranking drugs on distinct framework subdomains, Kendalls W among breast cancer drugs was highest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.908, P = 0.046) and lowest for clinical benefit (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.345, P = 0.436). Among lung cancer drugs, W was highest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0. 944, P < 0.001) and lowest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.230, P = 0.827); and among prostate cancer drugs, it was highest for quality of life (ASCO, ESMO: W = 0.986, P = 0.003) and lowest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.200, P = 0.711). ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0-100, NCCN provided the narrowest band of scores. When asked about their experiences using the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks, panelists generally agreed that the frameworks were logically organized and reasonably easy to use, with NCCN rated somewhat easier. CONCLUSIONS Convergent validity among the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Interrater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of these frameworks will bring us closer to the ultimate goal of using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes. DISCLOSURES This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this works methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.

Outcomes after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Double-Hit and Double-Expressor Lymphoma.

Double-hit lymphomas (DHLs) and double-expressor lymphomas (DELs) are associated with resistance to frontline and salvage immunochemotherapy, as well as autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). We hypothesized that allogeneic SCT (alloSCT) could overcome the chemoresistance associated with DEL/DHL. We retrospectively studied the impact of DEL/DHL status in a multicenter cohort of patients who underwent alloSCT for relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Seventy-eight patients transplanted at 3 centers in whom tumor tissue was available for immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization were enrolled; 47% had DEL and 13% had DHL. There were no significant differences in 4-year progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between patients with DEL compared with patients without DEL (PFS 30% versus 39%, P = .24; OS 31% versus 49%, P = .17) or between patients with DHL compared with patients without DHL (PFS 40% versus 34%, P = .62; OS 50% versus 38%, P = .46). The lack of association between DEL or DHL and outcome was confirmed in multivariable models, although inadequate sample size may have limited our ability to detect significant differences. In our cohort alloSCT produced durable remissions in patients with rel/ref aggressive B-NHL irrespective of DEL and DHL status, justifying its consideration in the treatment of patients with rel/ref DEL/DHL.

Autologous transplantation versus allogeneic transplantation in patients with follicular lymphoma experiencing early treatment failure

Early treatment failure (ETF) in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as relapse or progression within 2 years of frontline chemoimmunotherapy, is a newly recognized marker of poor survival and identifies a high‐risk group of patients with an expected 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 50%. Transplantation is an established option for relapsed FL, but its efficacy in this specific ETF FL population has not been previously evaluated.

Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia has distinct clinical and cytogenetic features compared to de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but outcomes are comparable in transplanted patients

Therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia remains poorly defined due to a lack of large data sets recognizing the defining characteristics of this entity. We reviewed all consecutive cases of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated at our institution between 2000 and 2017 and identified therapy-related cases - defined as acute lymphoblastic leukemia preceded by prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation. Of 1022 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 93 (9.1%) were classified as therapy-related. The median latency for therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia onset was 6.8 years from original diagnosis, and this was shorter for patients carrying the MLL gene rearrangement compared to those with other cytogenetics. When compared to de novo acute lymphoblastic leukemia, therapy-related patients were older (P<0.01), more often female (P<0.01), and had more MLL gene rearrangement (P<0.0001) and chromosomes 5/7 aberrations (P=0.02). Although therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was associated with inferior 2-year overall survival compared to de novo cases (46.0% vs. 68.1%, P=0.001), prior exposure to cytotoxic therapy (therapy-related) did not independently impact survival in multivariate analysis (HR=1.32; 95% CI: 0.97–1.80, P=0.08). There was no survival difference (2-year = 53.4% vs. 58.9%, P=0.68) between the two groups in patients who received allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation. In conclusion, therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia represents a significant proportion of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnoses, and a subset of cases carry clinical and cytogenetic abnormalities similar to therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. Although survival of therapy-related acute lymphoblastic leukemia was inferior to de novo cases, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes were comparable for the two entities.

Autologous stem-cell transplantation after second-line brentuximab vedotin in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma

Background We previously demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (BV) used as second-line therapy in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma is a tolerable and effective bridge to autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). Here, we report the post-AHCT outcomes of patients treated with second-line standard/fixed-dose BV and an additional cohort of patients where positron-emission tomography adapted dose-escalation of second-line BV was utilized. Patients and methods Patients on the dose-escalation cohort received 1.8 mg/kg of BV intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles. Patients in complete remission (CR) after two cycles received two additional cycles of BV at 1.8 mg/kg, while patients with stable disease or partial response were escalated to 2.4 mg/kg for two cycles. All patients, regardless of treatment cohort, proceeded directly to AHCT or received additional pre-AHCT therapy at the discretion of the treating physician based on remission status after second-line BV. Results Of the 20 patients enrolled to the BV dose-escalation cohort, 8 patients underwent BV dose-escalation. BV escalation was well-tolerated, but no patients who were escalated converted to CR. Of 56 evaluable patients treated across cohorts, the overall response rate (ORR) to second-line BV was 75% with 43% CR. Twenty-eight (50%) patients proceeded directly to AHCT without post-BV chemotherapy, and a total of 50 patients proceeded to AHCT. Thirteen patients received consolidative post-AHCT therapy with either radiation, BV, or a PD-1 inhibitor. After AHCT, the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 67% and 93%, respectively. The 2-year PFS among patients in CR at the time of AHCT (n = 37) was 71% compared with 54% in patients not in CR (p = 0.12). The 2-year PFS in patients who proceeded to AHCT directly after receiving BV alone was 77%. Conclusions Second-line BV is an effective bridge to AHCT that produces responses of sufficient depth to provide durable remission in conjunction with AHCT (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01393717).

Outcomes of Patients with Recurrent and Refractory Lymphoma Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with BEAM Conditioning and Sirolimus- and Tacrolimus-Based GVHD Prophylaxis

The current standard of care for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is high-dose conditioning followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). For some patients (ie, those with highest-risk disease, insufficient stem cell numbers after mobilization, or bone marrow involvement) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) offers the potential for cure. However, the majority of patients undergoing alloHCT receive reduced-intensity conditioning as a preparative regimen, and studies assessing outcomes of patients after alloHCT with myeloablative conditioning are limited. In this retrospective study, we reviewed outcomes of 22 patients with recurrent and refractory NHL who underwent alloHCT with myeloablative BEAM conditioning and received tacrolimus/sirolimus as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis at City of Hope between 2005 and 2018. With a median follow-up of 2.6 years (range, 1.0 to 11.2 years), the probabilities of 2-year overall survival and event-free survival were 58.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.0% to 75.8%) and 45.5% (95% CI, 24.4% to 64.3%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD was 45.5% (95% CI, 23.8% to 64.9%), with only 1 patient developing grade IV acute GVHD. However, chronic GVHD was seen in 55% of the patients (n = 12). Of the 22 eligible patients, 2 had undergone previous ASCT and 2 had undergone previous alloHCT. Both patients with previous ASCT developed severe regimen-related toxicity. Patients who underwent alloHCT with chemorefractory disease had lower survival rates, with 1-year OS and EFS of 44.4% and 33.0%, respectively. In conclusion, alloHCT with a BEAM preparative regimen and tacrolimus/sirolimus-based GVHD should be considered as an alternative option for patients with highest-risk lymphoma whose outcomes are expectedly poor after ASCT.