Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 124, No. 21 ( 2014-12-06), p. 145-145

Abstract: Introduction: Fludarabine plus rituximab (F-R) is an established treatment option for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), other indolent lymphoma, or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). To further improve the treatment in this setting we initiated in 2003 a multicenter, randomized phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) versus F-R for pts with relapsed FL, other indolent lymphomas or MCL. Patients and Methods: 230 pts in need of treatment were randomized to rituximab 375 mg/m² (day 1) plus either bendamustine 90 mg/m² (days 1+2) or fludarabine 25 mg/m² (days 1–3) q 28 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. Prophylactic use of antibiotics or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not generally recommended; however, in case of severe granulocytopenia, G-CSF use was permitted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CR). The protocol was amended in 2006 to allow rituximab maintenance therapy (rituximab 375 mg/m2 q 3 months for up to 2 years) in both arms, following regulatory approvals in this setting. Results: A total of 219 pts were evaluable for the analysis (114 B-R; 105 F-R). There were no significant differences between arms for patient characteristics, including age, stage, LDH, IPI, FLIPI, bone marrow infiltration, and extranodal involvement. Most pts had stage IV (71.6% B-R; 60.6% F-R) or stage III disease (21.1% B-R; 25.3% F-R). Median patient age was 68 yrs (range 38–87). Patients had received a median of 1 prior therapy (range 1–7). Histological subtypes were distributed equally between the B-R and F-R arms: follicular, 45.9% and 47.5%, respectively; Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia, 11.9% and 11.1%; MCL, 20.2% and 21.2%; other indolent lymphomas, 23% and 20.2%. A median of 6 cycles were given in both treatment arms, with 75.2% and 53.4% of B-R and F-R pts receiving 6 cycles, respectively. At the time of this analysis (June 2014), the median observation time was 96 months. The ORR was significantly higher with B-R than with F-R (83.5% vs. 52.5%, respectively; p 〈 0.0001). The CR rate with B-R was also significantly higher than that with F-R (38.5% vs. 16.2%; p=0.0004). Median PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with F-R (34 vs. 12 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–0.72; p 〈 0.0001). The longer PFS translated into a survival benefit with a significantly longer median overall survival in the B-R group than in the F-R group (110 vs. 49 months; HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91; p=0.0125) comprising 55 and 71 deaths in the B-R and F-R groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of alopecia, stomatitis, erythema, allergic reactions, peripheral neuropathy, or infectious episodes between groups. Hematologic toxicities were also similar between arms: 8.9% grade 3/4 neutropenia with B-R vs. 9.1% with F-R; 11.8% grade 3/4 leukocytopenia with B-R vs. 12.4% with F-R. The overall incidence of serious adverse events was similar for the B-R and F-R groups (17.4% and 22.2%, respectively). 17 pts (14.9%) developed a secondary neoplasia after B-R compared with 16 pts (15.2%) after F-R. Of these, 5 pts in the B-R group, and 3 pts in the F-R group developed a secondary hematological neoplasia (2 AML [1 AML M4], 1 CML, 1 DLBCL, and 1 HD after B-R; and 2 AML M4, and 1 MDS after F-R). An unplanned subanalysis showed that rituximab maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.71; p=0.0003) and PFS (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.31-0.62; p 〈 0.0001) in the small group of 40 pts who received this treatment (23 B-R, 17 F-R) compared with those who did not. Although the numbers are too small in this non-randomized comparison to draw validated conclusions, these results appear to confirm the favorable role of rituximab maintenance. Conclusions: B-R was more effective than F-R in this setting of relapsed FL, other indolent lymphomas and MCL due to higher overall and complete response rates, a longer PFS, and an improved OS. These data confirm the high anti-lymphoma activity of B-R. Disclosures Off Label Use: Indication and dosage of bendamustine.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.145.145

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 124, No. 21 ( 2014-12-06), p. 4779-4779

Abstract: Background High quality response [very good partial remission (VGPR), complete remission (CR)] is associated with improved long-term outcome in multiple myeloma (MM) therapy. Lenalidomide (Len)/ dexamethasone (Dex) (Rd) is considered a standard 2nd-line regimen. However, after 1st-line MM therapy containing a “novel agent” like thalidomide, only a relatively small fraction (21.3%) of patients (pts) achieved VGPR or better when RD was used in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM)1. Bendamustine (Ben) is an alkylating agent with superior activity compared to melphalan/prednisone. The combination of Ben, Len and Dex (BRd) in pts with advanced RRMM resulted in dose-limiting hematotoxicity, which restricted its efficacy in extensively pretreated pts2. However, recent phase I experience demonstrated the feasibility of BRd as 2nd- and 3rd-line myeloma therapy3. We therefore evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the BRd-regimen as 2nd line therapy for RRMM. Patients and methods This multicenter Phase II study was designed to enroll 50 pts with RRMM undergoing 2nd-line MM therapy [including also pts with prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)]. Pts had to have measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0-2, adequate hematological values and a creatinine clearance 〉 50 ml/min. Study treatment consisted of Ben 75 mg/m2 i.v. day (d) 1 & 2 and Len 25 mg p.o. d 1-21 for a total of six 28-day induction cycles. Dex (40 and 20 mg p.o. for pts 〈 = or 〉 75 years of age, respectively) was given on d 1, 8, 15, and 22. Pegfilgrastim 6 mg s.c. was administered on d 3 in case of severe neutropenia, treatment delay due to neutropenia or febrile neutropenia according to predefined application rules. Induction treatment was followed by 12 cycles (28 d) of maintenance therapy with Rd at the same dose. The primary study endpoint was the CR/VGPR rate after induction therapy, based on standard IMWG criteria. A Simon's two stage design was used to differentiate between 20% (considered uninteresting) vs 40 % (considered promising, power of 80%, p=5%) of high quality responses. At least 13 pts with VGPR or better after induction therapy were required to meet the statistical threshold predefined for promising activity of the BRd regimen in this study. Results 50 pts were enrolled between 04/2012 and 07/2014 (median age 68 years [46-84y], 73% men). 49% pts had ISS stage II/III, 42.5% had undergone prior SCTs, and 13% had known high risk cytogenetic aberrations. 91% of pts had received novel agents (thalidomide, bortezomib) during 1st-line therapy. At the time of abstract submission, data from 38 pts having completed induction treatment were available. Final analysis of the primary study endpoint including all patients will be updated and presented at the meeting. Of the currently 38 evaluable pts, 20 (52.6%, Table 1) achieved a CR/VGPR after a median of 3.3 induction cycles. Only 1 patient experienced disease progression (PD) during induction phase. 77% of pts received pegfilgrastim. Dose reduction during induction therapy was required in 7.7% of pts. 42.5% received 〈 6 scheduled induction cycles (50% due to toxicities, 50% for other reasons). 49% had treatment-related SAEs. Grade 3/ 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 51%/25.5% and 23.4%/8.5% of pts, respectively. Only 1 patient developed CTC grade 3 febrile neutropenia. Most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were infections (14%), rash (9.5%), and diarrhea (9.5%). Anaphylactic reaction grade 4 related to Ben and pulmonary embolism grade 3 occurred in 1 patient each. A cerebral insult grade 4 occurred in a patient non-compliant with the anti-thrombotic prophylaxis required per protocol. One death due to respiratory failure (considered to be unlikely related to study treatment) was reported for an 83 year old male. Conclusion BRd is a safe and efficacious regimen for 2nd line treatment of RRMM patients whose 1st-line therapy included thalidomide or bortezomib. High quality responses ( 〉 = VGPR) can be achieved in a considerable proportion (52.6%) of these pts. Our study suggests that the fraction of patients achieving VGPR or better after BRd treatment may be substantially higher than attainable with Rd alone. References 1 Wang et al. Blood, 2008, 112: 4445-51 2 Lentzsch et al. Blood, 2012, 119: 4608-13 3 Poenisch et al., Br J Haematol, 2013, 162, 202–9 Table 1 Best response after induction CR VGPR PR MR SD total (n=38) 3 17 15 1 2 prior ASCT (n=16) 2 6 7 1 0 no prior ASCT (n=22) 1 11 8 0 2 Disclosures Mey: Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Use of Bendamustine in relapsed/refractory Multiple Myekoma. To investigate the efficacy and safety of Bendamustine in combination with the standard backbone of Lenalidomide/ Dexamethasone in patients with replaced/refractory MM.. Bargetzi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Taverna:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmid:Celgene: Honoraria. Knauf:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Moos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hiendlmeyer:Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Hitz:Celgene: Research Funding. Driessen:Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.4779.4779

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 661-661

Abstract: Introduction: Most patients with FLT3-ITD-positive AML, who relapse after allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) die from their disease. Whether prophylactic FLT3-ITD inhibition with sorafenib can prevent AML relapse and improve outcome of patients in complete hematological remission (CHR) after allo-SCT is unknown and was tested in the SORMAIN trial. Methods: This randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study was done at 14 centers in Germany and Austria. Patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML, aged 18 years or older, who had undergone allogenic stem cell transplantation from a HLA-matched sibling donor, 10/10 or 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor, and who were in confirmed CHR at the time of screening between day +30 and day +100 post allo-SCT, were included. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either sorafenib (starting dose: 2 x 1 tbl. [2 x 200mg] qd, increasing every 14d to up to 2 x 2 tbl. [2 x 400mg] qd according to tolerability) or placebo (2 x 1 or 2 tbl. qd) for up to 24 months. Randomization was done centrally. In case of drug related adverse events, study medication could be interrupted, stepwise reduced to a minimum of 2 x 1 tbl. qd, temporarily withheld and recommenced at a lower dose level. FLT3-ITD diagnostics was done centrally at baseline and at time of relapse. In relapsing patients, off-label compassionate use of sorafenib was possible. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) as defined by either hematological relapse or death from any cause. The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We here report the final RFS analysis. The OS results will be unblinded only prior to the ASH meeting and will be reported there. The SORMAIN study was terminated prior to full recruitment because of slow accrual. SORMAIN was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2010-018539-16) and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000591). Results: Between October 29, 2010, and May 17, 2016, 83 patients (41 males, 42 females) were randomized and included in the primary analysis (placebo, n=40; sorafenib, n=43). Median age was 54 years (IQR 47.75 - 61.33) for the entire study population and not significantly different between sorafenib and placebo groups. With a median follow up of 41.8 months after randomization (IQR 24.1 - 42.5), median RFS was 30.9 months (lower bound of 95% CI 5.2 months) in the placebo group versus not reached in the sorafenib group, corresponding to a 2-year RFS of 53,3 % (95% CI 36.5-67.5) in the placebo versus 85.0 % (69.5-93.0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI; 0.18 -0.85; P=0.0135) (Fig. 1). Overall, sorafenib was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in both groups was acute GvHD (seven [ 17.5%] in the placebo group vs. nine [20.9%] in the sorafenib group. Conclusion: Sorafenib maintenance therapy after allo-SCT is feasible and significantly reduces the risk of relapse or death in patients with FLT3-ITD positive AML. OS results will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Burchert: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Bug:Amgen: Honoraria; Neovii: Other: Travel Grant; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Other: Travel Grant; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel Grant. Finke:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Neovii: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Stelljes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; JAZZ: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Wäsch:Pfizer: Honoraria. Lang:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Kroeger:Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schmid:Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau. Wolf:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bethge:Miltenyi Biotec GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-112614

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 112, No. 11 ( 2008-11-16), p. 344-344

Abstract: In the prospective multicenter AML 295 and 01/99 trials, we treated 825 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) up to 60 years. 719 patients had de novo disease and 106 had a secondary AML. Median age was 46 years. Patients with t(15;17) were excluded. Induction course I consisted of standard dose araC, idarubicine and etoposide (IVA-I). Patients with good response to IVA-I ( & lt;5% bone marrow blasts on day 15) continued with IVA-II on day 21 as double induction. Patients with bad response received an intensified second induction course with intermediate dose AraC (1g/m2, 8 doses) combined with mAMSA or fludarabine/idarubicine/G-CSF (FlAG-Ida). Double induction was followed by an early consolidation with intermediate dose AraC. Late consolidation was stratified according to risk factors (karyotype and response to IVA-I) and consisted of high dose AraC (3g/m2, 12 doses) + daunorubicine, autoPBSCT or an allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Overall complete remission (CR) rate was 75%. 278 patients relapsed after a median duration of first CR of 9 months. Of these 278 patients, 135 (48%) received an allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) from related (n=65) or unrelated (n=70) donors. Median time from relapse to alloSCT was 3 months. 55% of the transplanted patients had achieved a second CR as best response to salvage therapy before alloSCT. Patients who received an alloSCT after relapse were younger (median 40 vs. 50 years) and had a longer duration of first CR (10 vs. 7.5 months) than those who did not. Patients with CBF-leukemias or normal karyotype were significantly more likely to receive an alloSCT after relapse than patients with other karyotypic aberrations. Median overall survival after alloSCT was 12 months and 5-year overall survival was 30%. Results did not differ between transplants from matched related or unrelated donors. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age above the median (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3 –3.2) and best response to salvage therapy (CR vs. no CR; HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 –0.9) were the only independent prognostic factors for overall survival after alloSCT. Patients aged below 46 years who achieved a CR as best response to salvage therapy had a 5-year overall survival after alloSCT of 53% (median not reached). All other patients had a 16% 5-year overall survival (median 7 months). There was no independent prognostic effect of WBC, platelets, peripheral blasts or extramedullary disease at initial diagnosis. Also, de novo vs. secondary AML, response to induction I, karyotype (CBF vs. normal vs. others), duration of CR1 (≥6 vs. & lt;6 months) and type of consolidation did not affect outcome after alloSCT in relapse. In conclusion, alloSCT from related or unrelated donors offers cure to selected patients with relapsed AML. Age and disease status after salvage therapy are critical prognostic factors for transplantation success. Strategies to increase the number of patients eligible for an alloSCT after relapse and age adapted transplantation protocols are required.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V112.11.344.344

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2008

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 124, No. 21 ( 2014-12-06), p. 3052-3052

Abstract: Background: The StiL Study NHL 7-2008 investigates the role of maintenance duration with rituximab after induction with bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) for first-line treatment of advanced follicular (FL), other indolent lymphoma, or mantle cell lymphoma. Methods: Patients (pts) with FL were treated with a maximum of 6 cycles of B-R (bendamustine 90 mg/m2 [days 1+2], rituximab 375 mg/m2) administered every 28 days plus 2 additional cycles of rituximab every 4 weeks. All responding pts (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) were then eligible for rituximab maintenance treatment and a subsequent randomization: all responding pts with FL received 2 years rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m2) administered every two months. Pts with an ongoing response were then randomized 1:1 to observation (no further treatment) or to 2 more years of rituximab maintenance (i.e. B-R plus 2 years vs 4 years rituximab maintenance). Here we report on the response to B-R and tolerability and safety of B-R followed by 2 years of rituximab maintenance in pts with FL only. Patient Characteristics: To date, 612 pts (319 women and 293 men) with FL have been registered (first patient in April 2009, last patient registered July 2012). Median age was 61 years (range, 24-81); 352 (58%) pts had stage IV; median number of nodal areas was 5; bone marrow involvement was found in 322 (52%) pts; and 175 pts (28%) presented with splenomegaly. The median LDH was 210 U/l, with 197 pts (32%) having an LDH 〉 240 U/l. Median FLIPI was 3 and the median CD4 count was 491 per mm3at induction. Results: To date, 546 pts of 612 are evaluable for response and safety. The overall response rate (ORR) was 93.6% with 511 pts achieving a remission after B-R induction therapy. The CR rate was 39.6%; nine pts (1.6%) had stable disease; and 27 (4.9%) did not respond to B-R and had progressive disease. Of these 511 pts achieving remission, 291 (56.9%) received the full planned 2 years rituximab maintenance treatment, and 281 pts were then randomized to observation only (n=140) or 2 additional years of rituximab maintenance (n=141). Seventy nine pts are still undergoing treatment with the planned 2-year standard rituximab maintenance and are not yet randomized. Reasons for not receiving the full 2-year course of rituximab maintenance (n=141) included: death (n=6); relapse or progressive disease (n=50); transformation into aggressive lymphoma (n=4); infection during rituximab maintenance (n=4); infection during B-R induction (n=1); toxicity (e.g. neutropenia) (n=19); secondary malignancies during induction or during rituximab maintenance (n=3 and n=6, respectively); reactivated hepatits B (n=1); rituximab intolerance (n=3); removal of the patient from the trial by the investigator for any reason (n=16); withdrawal of patient consent during induction with B-R (n=2) and during the 2-year rituximab maintenance (n=14); non-compliance (n=2); lost to follow up (n=6); severe comorbidity (dementia) (n=1); and other reasons (n=3). No unexpected toxicity and no progressive multifocal encephalopathy were observed. To date, 35/612 pts developed 38 secondary malignancies. Conclusions: Results of this study confirm the efficacy of B-R in pts with previously untreated advanced FL. These results are in line with those of other studies such as StiL NHL 1-2003(1) or the “BRIGHT”-Study(2). Rituximab standard maintenance over 2 years for FL appears safe, with no new or unexpected toxicities. 1. Rummel et al. Lancet 2013;381:1203-10. 2. Flinn et al. Blood 2014;123:2944-52. Disclosures Off Label Use: Indication and dosage of bendamustine.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.3052.3052

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 114, No. 22 ( 2009-11-20), p. 2060-2060

Abstract: Abstract 2060 Poster Board II-37 Introduction: The Flt3-internal tandem duplication can be found in up to 30% of all acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients and confers a poor risk status characterized by an increased relapse rate and poor overall survival. Moreover, Flt3-ITD-positive AML patients relapsing after allogenic stem cell transplantation (SCT) have very limited therapeutic options. Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. Besides targeting Raf, the platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) it has also significant inhibitory activity against the Flt3 receptor tyrosine kinase, and, specifically the mutated variant of Flt3, Flt3-ITD. It has previously been shown that sorafenib monotherapy may have considerable activity in relapsed Flt3-ITD positive AML. Nevertheless, clinical experience is still limited. Here we report compassionate use experience on 18 relapsed or refractory Flt3-ITD positive AML patients treated with sorafenib monotherapy. Methods: A questionnaire was developed and sent to 28 centers in Germany in order to obtain more insight into the clinical efficacy and tolerablilty of sorafenib monotherapy in Flt3-ITD positive AML. Forms were returned from 13 centers, reporting 26 patients. Among them, eight had to be excluded from further analysis. Five of them were Flt3-ITD mutation negative and three received contemporary chemotherapy. Available patient information included age, FAB-classification, karyotype, type and response to prior therapy, sorafenib dosing, tolerability, treatment duration, and response. Results: Of the 18 patients (12 male, 6 female), five were primary refractory to induction chemotherapy and 13 received sorafenib in first (n=11) or second (n=2) relapse. Eight of 18 patients relapsed after SCT and were treated with sorafenib. One patient was treated for steadily increasing Flt3-ITD copy numbers, that is, in molecular relapse after SCT. Patients received between 200mg and 800mg sorafenib p.o. daily. The median treatment duration was 98 days (range, 16-425 days). All patients achieved a hematological response (HR) characterized by complete (n=17) or near complete peripheral blast clearance (n=2). Of the 18 patients the documented best response to sorafenib were: HR in 9 cases, bone marrow response (HR and blast reduction in marrow) in 4 cases, complete remission (normalization of peripheral blood counts and bone marrow blasts 〈 5%) in one case and complete molecular remission (molecular negativity for Flt3-ITD) in 4 patients. After a median treatment duration of 180 days (range, 82-270 days) 7 of the 18 (39%) patients developed clinical sorafenib resistance: two of eight (25%) of the SCT-group and 5 of 10 (50%) of the non-SCT group. Sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Pancytopenia or thrombocytopenia grade III and IV were the most significant side effects, observed in 13 patients. Other reported side effects such as diarrhea, exanthema were documented from the centers as being minor. Conclusion: Sorafenib monotherapy has significant clinical activity in Flt3-ITD positive relapsed and refractory AML and may be particularly effective in the context of allo-immunotherapy where 3 CMR could be seen. Disclosures: Enghofer: Bayer Schering Pharma: Employment. Off Label Use: sorafenib, used to treat Flt3-ITD positive AML patients.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V114.22.2060.2060

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2009

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 35, No. 15_suppl ( 2017-05-20), p. 7501-7501

Abstract: 7501 Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with indolent lymphomas or mantle cell lymphoma and was first published in The Lancet in 2013. The final analysis demonstrated a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the B-R group compared to the CHOP-R group, with a median PFS of 69.5 vs. 31.2 months, respectively. In the current analysis, we present updated results for overall survival (OS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), and secondary malignancies (sNPL) with a median follow-up of 113 months for patients with indolent lymphomas (excluding MCL). Methods: 447 pts with indolent lymphomas were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included OS, TTNT, and sNPL. Results: Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms; median age was 64 years. The difference in OS between the two treatment arms was not statistically significant, with 60 deaths in the B-R group vs 68 deaths with CHOP-R (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 – 1.15, p = 0.249). The estimated 10-year survival rates were 71% for B-R and 66% for CHOP-R. TTNT was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 – 0.69, p 〈 0.001). Median TTNT was not yet reached in the B-R group (95% CI 124.9 – n.y.r) vs. 56 months in the CHOP-R group (95% CI 39.1 – 82.0). Patients treated initially with B-R needed fewer second-line treatments due to disease progression compared to CHOP-R treated pts: 73 pts (34%) in the B-R group received salvage treatment compared with 106 pts (52%) in the CHOP-R group. For B-R pts, CHOP-R was used as second-line therapy 26 times (36%), whereas B-R was used for pts initially treated with CHOP-R 49 times (46%). 36 pts with sNPL were observed in the B-R group compared with 39 in the CHOP-R group, with 7 hematological malignancies in both groups to date. Conclusions: In pts with previously untreated indolent lymphomas, B-R demonstrates a PFS and TTNT benefit over CHOP-R. Clinical trial information: NCT00991211.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.7501

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2017

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5

In: Prenatal Diagnosis, Wiley, Vol. 27, No. 4 ( 2007-04), p. 356-361

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0197-3851 , 1097-0223

URL: Issue

URL: Journal

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1002/pd.v27:4

DOI: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0223

DOI: 10.1002/pd.1676

Language: English

Publisher: Wiley

Publication Date: 2007

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1491217-X

In: Oncology, S. Karger AG, Vol. 65, No. 4 ( 2003), p. 306-310

Abstract: 〈 i 〉 Background: 〈 /i 〉 Extranodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) is a relatively common type of lymphoma. Owing to its B cell lineage, it appears to be a potential target for treatment with the CD20 antibody rituximab. We present an analysis of our experience with rituximab for treatment of patients with advanced MALT lymphoma. 〈 i 〉 Patients and Methods: 〈 /i 〉 A retrospective analysis of patients with histologically verified MALT lymphoma undergoing treatment with rituximab was done. After reassessment of histological samples for the presence of MALT lymphoma, patients were evaluated as regards date of diagnosis, prior therapy for MALT lymphoma, sites of involvement upon treatment with rituximab, clinical response in terms of complete remission (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease as well as symptomatic response, duration of response and survival. 〈 i 〉 Results: 〈 /i 〉 A total of 9 patients with advanced MALT lymphoma undergoing therapy with single-agent rituximab were identified. All patients received treatment at a dose of 375 mg/m 〈 sup 〉 2 〈 /sup 〉 once weekly ×4. One patient each had relapsed after chemotherapy and radiation, respectively, while none of the other 7 patients had received prior cytotoxic treatment or radiation. Three patients achieved a CR, 2 patients had PR for 6 and 14 months, while the remaining patients had SD between 8 and 18+ months. One patient died of progressive disease in spite of the initiation of chemotherapy and 1 patient succumbed to a cardiovascular event while having been in ongoing PR for 11 months. The other 7 patients are currently alive with disease 10–27 months after initiation of therapy. Follow-up biopsies for histological assessment were available in 5 patients with gastric lymphoma. In 1 patient with SD, however, persistence of CD20-positive cells within lymphoepithelial lesions was noted in spite of almost complete depletion of B lymphocytes from the normal gastric mucosa, suggesting either recirculation of MALT lymphoma cells to these lesions or defining lymphoepithelial lesions as a sanctuary site from rituximab penetration. 〈 i 〉 Conclusion: 〈 /i 〉 Rituximab had only moderate activity in terms of inducing objective responses in our unselected and heterogeneous cohort of patients with disseminated MALT lymphoma. Long-term disease stabilization, however, along with a symptomatic benefit was seen in all patients. Our data nevertheless indicate that rituximab might not optimally penetrate into the gastric mucosa in all patients.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0030-2414 , 1423-0232

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1159/000074641

Language: English

Publisher: S. Karger AG

Publication Date: 2003

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1483096-6

detail.hit.zdb_id: 250101-6

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 20, No. 1 ( 2002-01-01), p. 165-172

Abstract: PURPOSE: Irinotecan and oxaliplatin are two new agents with promising activity in advanced colorectal cancer. Based on preclinical and clinical evidence that both drugs act synergistically, a randomized phase II study was initiated to investigate the therapeutic potential and tolerance of this combination in the front-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-two patients with previously untreated, measurable disease were randomized to receive biweekly oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 plus irinotecan 175 mg/m 2 or raltitrexed 3 mg/m 2 given on day 1 every 3 weeks. Upon development of progressive disease, second-line treatment with the opposite arm was effected. RESULTS: Patients allocated to oxaliplatin/irinotecan had a significantly better radiologically confirmed response rate (43.5% v 19.6%; P = .0025) and longer progression-free survival (median, 7.1 v 5.0 months; P = .0033). Improvement in overall survival, however, did not reach the level of significance (median, 16.0 v 16.5 months; P = .3943). The response rate after cross-over was 33.3% (eight of 24) for assessable patients treated with oxaliplatin/irinotecan compared with 14.2% (three of 21) for those treated with second-line raltitrexed. Oxaliplatin/irinotecan caused more hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities, necessitating dose reductions in 10 of the first 20 patients. After adjustment of the irinotecan starting dose from 175 to 150 mg/m 2 , tolerance of treatment was acceptable; the most commonly encountered events (all grades) were neutropenia (81%), alopecia (65%), nausea/emesis (62%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (62%), and diarrhea (46%). CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin/irinotecan seems beneficial as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with an acceptable toxicity profile at the reduced irinotecan dose level. Its promising therapeutic potential is supported by the high response activity noted in the raltitrexed control arm after cross-over, which may also explain the lack of a difference in overall survival.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.165

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Publication Date: 2002

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5