Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Leukemia & Lymphoma, Informa UK Limited, Vol. 56, No. 5 ( 2015-05-04), p. 1510-1513
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1042-8194 , 1029-2403
    Language: English
    Publisher: Informa UK Limited
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2030637-4
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 120, No. 21 ( 2012-11-16), p. 2971-2971
    Abstract: Abstract 2971 Introduction: Bendamustine is a bifunctional alkylating agent approved for the treatment of several lymphoproliferative disorders. Studies have evidenced its efficacy in multiple myeloma (MM), but data so far available in this setting are scarce. We performed a retrospective analysis of Italian patients with relapsed/refractory MM, who had received bendamustine as salvage therapy within a national compassionate use program. Patients and methods: Seventy-eight patients (42 males, 36 females) were collected in 19 hematological centers. Mean age was 64.2 years (range 38–84). ISS was equally distributed, with about one third of patents being represented in single stages. Twenty-three of 43 analyzed patients had cytogenetic abnormalities, the most frequent being del13q (14 patients); t(4;14) and t(11;14) were observed in 4 and 2 patients, respectively, while t(6;14), del17p or complex karyotype occurred in single patients. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 1–10). Ninety-seven percent of patients had previously received bortezomib, 94% IMIDs, 85% melphalan, 74% cyclophosphamide, 45% anthracyclines, 26% other drugs, 33% radiotherapy. Sixty percent of patients had undergone autologous and 4% allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The last treatment before bendamustine was a bortezomib-based regimen in 31%, an IMIDs-based regimen in 42%, a combined bortezomib/IMIDs-based regimen in 9%, while 18% of patients had received other therapies. Seventy-three percent of patients were resistant to last therapy received, while 27% had relapsed. Median duration of response to last treatment received before bendamustine was 9 months (range 2–46). Median Hb value was 10.1 g/dl (range 7.6–14.9), WBC count 2.700/μl (range 550–15.200), PLT count 130.000/μl (range 6.000–410.000). Serum creatinine, calcium, beta2-microglobulin and LDH levels were increased in 12 (15%), 4 (5%), and 44 (56%) patients, respectively, while albumin levels were decreased in 27 patients (35%). The median percentage of marrow plasma cells (as evaluated in 57 cases) was 60% (range 1–100). Seventy-six percent of patients had osteolytic bone involvement and 78% extramedullary localizations, with 13% showing secondary plasma cell leukemia and 7% documented amyloidosis or proteinuria. Finally, 45% of patients presented with at least one severe comorbidity, mainly cardio-vascular, liver or pulmonary dysfunction, and diabetes. Results: A total of 236 cycles was administered (median 3, range 1–9). In 47% of patients bendamustine was variously associated to bortezomib (23%), or IMIDs (21%), or to a combination of both (3%). In 80% of patients receiving bendamustine +/− steroids, a median dose of 90 mg/sqm for two consecutive days every 28 days was employed; the median dose was 80 mg/sqm when bendamustine was combined with bortezomib, 60 mg/sqm with IMIDs (total range: 40–140 mg/sqm). The remaining patients received single, monthly doses ranging from 60 to 150 mg/sqm. According to IMWG uniform response criteria, 21 out of 73 evaluable patients achieved a response after a median time of 3 months. In particular, there were 16 PR, 1 VGPR, 1 sCR, and 3 CR; overall response rate (ORR) was, therefore, 29%. Response rate was 10% (4/39) in bendamustine single agent +/− steroids, 38% (5/13) in bendamustine + bortezomib and 62% (10/16) in bendamustine + IMIDs subgroups, respectively. Responders had received a lower number of previous treatments than non responders (median 3 vs 4). Response rate was higher in relapsed (12/21, 57%) than in resistant patients (10/57, 17%). The time to best response ranged from 1 to 8 months. After a median follow-up of 8 months, median PFS duration was 6 months, with 13 out of 21 responding patients not yet progressed. Median OS of the entire cohort was 6.2 months (7 months in responders and 4 months in non responders, range 0–27). Grade 3–4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities occurred in 56% and 15% of patients, respectively, causing three interruptions of the treatment. Conclusions: Though with the clear limits due to the high heterogeneity of treatments applied and of population analyzed, our data indicate that bendamustine may be a therapeutic option in heavily pretreated MM, suggesting a possible non cross-resistance with other agents. Its earlier use with appropriate doses and combinations might further improve the results obtained in this study. Disclosures: Musto: Mundipharma: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Bendamustine in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Fragasso:Mundipharma: Honoraria. Baldini:Mundipharma: Honoraria. Storti:Mundipharma: Honoraria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 5485-5485
    Abstract: The CLL-IPI score, which combines genetic, biochemical, and clinical parameters, represents a simple worldwide model able to refine risk stratification for CLL patients. This score, developed in the era of chemo-immunotherapy, has not been gauged extensively in R/R-CLL patients treated with novel targeted agents, such as BCR and BCL2 inhibitors. Soumerai et al (Lancet Hematol 2019) assembled a novel risk model for OS in the setting of R/R-CLL receiving targeted therapies in clinical trials. This model, consisting of four accessible markers (β2M, LDH, Hb, and time from initiation of last therapy; BALL score), is able to cluster 3 groups of CLL patients with significantly different OS. This multicenter, observational retrospective study aimed to validate the proposed Soumerai (BALL) and/or CLL-IPI scores for R/R-CLL real-world patients treated with idelalisib and rituximab (IDELA-R). The primary objectives were to determine whether: i) the CLL-IPI retains its prognostic power also in R/R patients treated with IDELA-R; ii) the BALL score is of prognostic value for IDELA-treated R/R-CLL patients, and iii) the BALL score is predictive of PFS. This study, sponsored by Gilead (ISR#IN-IT-312-5339), included CLL patients collected from 12 Italian centers, who received IDELA-R (idelalisib 150 mg b.i.d. and a total of 8 rituximab infusions intravenously) outside clinical trials as salvage therapy with available data for the calculation of the CLL-IPI and BALL scores at the time of treatment start. OS was estimated for all subgroups of both scores. Additionally, risk-specific PFS was assessed. Kaplan-Meier curve, log-rank test, and Cox regression analyses were performed. The prognostic accuracy of the predictive model was assessed by Harrell's C-index. Overall, 120 CLL patients were included in this analysis. The majority of patients were Binet stage B and C (94.2%). The median age was 75 years and 83 cases (69.2%) were male. The median number of previous therapies was 3 (range 1-9) Baseline patient features are listed in Table 1. After a median follow-up of 1.6 years (1 month to 5.8 years), 33 patients had died and 39 experienced an event (death or progression). CLL-IPI scoring (115/120 evaluable cases) indicated that 6 patients (5.2%) were classified as low-risk, 24 (20.9%) as intermediate-risk, 58 (50.4%) as high-risk, and 27 (23.5%) as very high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the CLL-IPI score did not allow prediction of significant differences in OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 75% (HR=1), with an intermediate-risk of 68% (HR=2.9, 95%CI 0.37-23.3, P=0.3), high-risk of 83% (HR=1.58, 95%CI 0.2-12.5, P=0.66), and very high-risk of 63% (HR=5.9, 95%CI 0.78-45.2, P=0.86). Next, we tested a modified CLL-IPI by assigning a more balanced score to the original CLL-IPI variables (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), partially overlapping previous results. Specifically, modified CLL-IPI high-risk group showed a significantly different OS as compared with intermediate- and low-risk groups. However, differently from the original report no difference was observed between low- and intermediate-risk). According to the BALL score (120/120 evaluable cases), 33 patients (27.5%) were classified as low-risk, 68 (56.7%) as intermediate-risk, and 19 (15.8%) as high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the BALL score predicted significant differences in terms of OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 92% (HR=1), intermediate-risk of 76% (HR=5.47, 95%CI 1.3-23.7, P=0.023), and high-risk of 54% (HR=15.1, 95%CI 3.4-67, P 〈 0.0001) (Figure 1). Harrell's C-statistic was 0.68 (P 〈 0.001) for predicting OS. To note, BALL score failed to significantly stratify patients in terms of PFS. As for Soumerai et al (Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), the original CLL-IPI score did not retain discriminative power in term of OS in R/R-CLL patients receiving IDELA-R. The modified CLL-IPI failed to stratify low- and intermediate-risk groups, likely due to the number of cases analysed in the current cohort and the heterogeneous IDELA-containing regimens included in the Soumerai study (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019). The CLL-IPI was designed for CLL patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy. Herein, we confirm the prognostic power of the BALL score in this real-world series for OS, while losing the predictive impact of patient outcomes in terms of PFS. Disclosures Mauro: Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Varettoni:ABBVIE: Other: travel expenses; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: travel expenses. Rossi:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages