Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sonali M. Smith, MD FASCOElwood V. Jensen Professor of MedicineChief, Section of Hematology/Oncology
Co-Leader Cancer Service Line
2020 Year in Review: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
and Hodgkin lymphoma
Overview: Five parts • Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (high-risk, relapsed/refractory)
– Shifting role of CAR-T – Management options for non-transplant/non-CAR-T patients
• Hodgkin lymphoma
– Frontline management for advanced stage disease – Post-transplant consolidation – Relapsed/refractory disease
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
HIGH-RISK OR R/R DLBCL
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Many subsets of DLBCL are not cured with R-CHOP
Curability
High IPIElderlyNon-GC phenotypeDouble hit lymphomaDual protein overexpression
R-CHOP
Low IPILow stageGC phenotype
Time to move beyond R-CHOP for
all
Key challenges: • Increase number of patients
cured with 1L treatment
• Improve options for patients 2L+
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Crump M, et al. Blood. 2017;130:1800-1808
Expected survival for R/R DLBCL Treated with Salvage Chemotherapy
Patients unable to undergo autologous stem cell transplant have median survivals < 1 year
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Adapted from van der Steegan et al. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2015
CD19 Directed CAR T Cell Products in Clinical Development
Axi-cel Tisa-cel Liso-cel
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Liso-cel (TRANSCEND NHL-001)
Duration of Response Progression-free survivalOverall Survival
Key patient features: 269 of 344 pts received product42% over age 65y 67% chemo-refractory 7 pts with secondary CNSL
Abramson JS et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 19;396(10254):839-852 Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Liso-cel vs Axi-celand Tisagenlecleucel in R/R Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Is there a “best-in-class” CAR-T product?
Cartron G et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 2116 Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Liso-cel vs. Axi-cel and Liso-cel vs. Tisa-cel
Cartron G et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 2116
• Pairwise matching-adjusted comparison study with matching and then adjustment of ZUMA-1, TRANSCEND, JULIET
• Better safety and comparable efficacy: liso-cel versus axi-cel• Better efficacy and comparable safety: liso-cel versus tisa-cel
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Multivariate analyses of JULIET trial:
• high levels of pre-infusion LDH associated with NRs at month 3 as well as worse PFS and OS
• Pre-infusion Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia
• analyses suggest that a subset of pts with aggressive disease at infusion and/or pts with severe CRS/NE had poorer outcomes in the JULIET trial
Can we identify non-responders vs. responders?
Westin JR et al. ASH 2019; Abstract 4103.Schuster SJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380(1):45-56
JULIET Trial
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Interim Analysis of ZUMA-12 Trial of Axi-cel as First-Line Therapy for Patients with High-Risk Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Moving CAR T-cell therapy earlier: high-risk DLBCL
Neelapu SS et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 405
Med f/u 9.5m
Are CAR-T cells “better” if utilized earlier?
• Higher frequency of CCR7+CD45RA+ T-cells
• Greater CAR-T cell expansion
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Impact of CAR-T in high-risk and R/R DLBCL Impact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm• There soon will be three anti-CD19 CAR-T products available: axi-cel, liso-cel, and tisa-cel, with
an approximately 30-40% rate of durable remissions in 3L DLBCL
• Liso-cel appears to have more favorable toxicity profile
• Identifying predictors of response/non-response is key
Implications for Future Research• If toxicity can be minimized, is outpatient CAR-T coming soon? Can CAR-T be safely delivered
in the community?
• Early identification of chemoresistance may allow CAR-T to be utilized earlier in the treatment paradigm
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
OPTIONS FOR NON-CAR-T/NON-TRANSPLANT CANDIDATES
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Selinexor: oral XPO1 inhibitor
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
SADAL: phase 2 trial of selinexor monotherapy in R/R DLBCL
Patient characteristics: N=127 with med age 67y45% of pts > 70y72% refractory to last regimen
Results: ORR 28%CR 12%Med DR 9.3m
--med DR for CR pts 23m--med DR for PR pts 4.4m
No impact of COO
Kalakonda N et al. Lancet Haematol 2020;7(7):e511-22. Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Tafasitamab MOA
Salles et al. ICML 2019. #124.Hortonet al., 2008; Awanet al., 2010; Richter et al., 2013; MorphoSys data on file; Wu et al., 2008; Lapalombella et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2013, Wiernik et al., 2008; Witzig et al., 2011; Czuczman et al., 2017; Jurczak et al, 2018
L-MIND trial: phase 2 trial of tafa-len x 12 cycles in R/R DLBCL
Tafasitamab
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
L-MIND Results: very long response duration for CR pts
Salles G et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jul;21(7):978-988
PFS All responders
OS All pts
PFS All pts
DR
Patient characteristics: N=81 with med age 72y50% of pts 2L42% R-ref, 44% ref
Results: ORR 60%, CR 43% Med DR 22m but NR for CR pts
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
ASH 2020: Advent of Bispecifics in Lymphoma • CD20 x CD3
• REGN1979 — Bannerji ASH 2020 #400• Mosunetuzumab — Olszewski ASH 2020 #401• Epcoritamab — Hutchings ASH 2020 #402• Glofitamab — Hutchings ASH 2020 #403
• CD19 x CD3• MB-CART2019.1 — Borchman ASH 2020 #404
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Expanding options for non-CAR-T/non-transplant patientswith R/R DLBCL Impact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm• There are now three new approved non-CAR-T regimens for R/R DLBCL • There are no data on sequencing
• Responses seem durable
Implications for Future Research• Bispecifics are coming soon! • Patient selection for “aggressive” vs. “non-aggressive” treatment is needed
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
HODGKIN LYMPHOMA
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Snapshot of frontline standard treatment approach prior to targeted agents
RAPID NEJM 2015CALGB 50604 Blood 2018
IA, IIA
IIB, IIX
III, IV
Non-PET adapted
PET-adapted
Non-PET adapted
PET-adapted
ABVD2 + IFRT 20GyABVD4-6
ABVD6Stanford VescBEACOPP
RATHL NEJM 2016S0816 JCO 2016
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Evolution of care: two “new” targets
http://pleiad.umdnj.edu/~dweiss/hd_types/hdImmuno_img.html
T h e n e w e ngl a nd j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
n engl j med 372;4 nejm.org january 22, 2015318
light the importance of the PD-1 immune eva-sion pathway and the genetically defined sensi-tivity to PD-1 blockade in this disease.
Supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, by grants from the Na-tional Institutes of Health (U54CA163125 and P01AI056299, to Dr. Freeman; and R01CA161026, to Dr. Shipp), and by a grant from the Miller Fund (to Dr. Shipp).
Dr. Ansell reports receiving grant support from Seattle Genet-ics, Celldex Therapeutics, Millennium, Idera, and Regeneron; Dr. Lesokhin, receiving consulting fees and grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Halwani, receiving grant support from Seattle Genetics, Millennium, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, AbbVie, Genentech, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Freeman, receiving royalties from patents related to PD-1, PD-L1, and PD-L2 pathways (US 6808710, US 6936704, US 7038013, US7101550, US 7432059,
chr9:5,270,000PDL1 PDL2
chr9:5,700,000
100 kb
PDL1/2 Gain PDL1/2 Amplification
RP11-599H20 RP11-635N21
A
D
B
C
PD-L
2/pS
TAT3
PD-L
1/PA
X5
CEP9PD-L1PD-L2
12345678910
Cytogenetic Alterations
NuclearpSTAT3
EBERIHC-positiveHRS cells
Patient No.
PDL1/2Gain
PDL1/2Amplification
PD-L2PD-L1Polysomy9p
++++++++––
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
–––++++++–
––––––++++
–––––+––––
Figure 2. Genetic and Immunohistochemical Analyses of PDL1 and PDL2 Loci, PD-L1 and PD-L2 Protein Expression, and Epstein–Barr Virus Status in Patients with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
Shown are the results of analyses of the PDL1 and PDL2 loci and PD-L1 and PD-L2 protein expression in Reed–Sternberg cells. Panel A shows the location and color labeling of bacterial artificial chromosome clones used for the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for PDL1 (red) and PDL2 (green) on chromosome 9p24.1. Representative images obtained from patients show a copy-number gain in PDL1 and PDL2 (Panel B, left), with six green–red (yellow over-lap) signals (signifying a fusion signal), as compared with three centromeric signals (aqua), or PDL1 and PDL2 amplification (Panel B, right), with more than three times as many green–red (yellow overlap) sig-nals as centromeric signals (aqua). In Panel C, the ex-pression of PD-L1 (upper row) and PD-L2 (lower row) is indicated by brown staining in Reed–Sternberg cells obtained from the same patients as in Panel B. Arrows indicate malignant cells. PD-L1 is evaluated in con-junction with PAX5 to identify PAX5-positive cells (shown in red in the upper row). PD-L2 is assessed in association with phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (pSTAT3), which reflects Janus kinase–STAT activation (shown in red in the lower row). The scale bars represent 50 µm. Panel D shows PD-L1 and PD-L2 protein expression and status with respect to Epstein–Barr virus–encoded messen-ger RNA (EBER) in study patients who could be evalu-ated. All the patients who were included in the analy-sis had structural bases for increased copy numbers in PDL1 and PDL2 on chromosome 9p24.1, including ex-tra copies of 9p (polysomy 9p), copy gain in PDL1 or PDL2, or amplification in PDL1 or PDL2 (Table S2 and Fig. S2 in the Supplementary Appendix). Epstein–Barr virus status was evaluated by means of a FISH assay. HRS denotes Hodgkin’s Reed–Sternberg, and IHC im-munohistochemical.
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org at University of Chicago Library on August 16, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Ansell et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 22;372(4):311-9; Younes et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 20;30(18):2183-9; J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;35(19):2125-2132
Nivolumab in Relapsed or Refr actory Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
n engl j med 372;4 nejm.org january 22, 2015 317
of 87% and a rate of progression-free survival of 86% at 24 weeks. Adverse events were mainly of grade 1 or 2. The rate of adverse events was sim-ilar to that in trials of nivolumab in patients with solid tumors.4 Given the limited therapeutic op-tions for patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma whose disease progresses after autologous stem-cell transplantation21-23 and the relatively short-lived responses to brentuximab after relapse,24 nivolumab-mediated PD-1 blockade may repre-sent a promising targeted treatment for these patients.
The frequent chromosome 9p24.1 amplifica-tion and associated PD-1 ligand overexpression in Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the pronounced but ineffective inflammatory response seen in in-volved lymph nodes provided a compelling ratio-nale for evaluating the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients with relapsed or refractory disease. In this study, all the patients with available tu-mor specimens had concurrent gain of the PDL1 and PDL2 loci, increased expression of the PD-1 ligands, and evidence of active JAK-STAT signal-ing. In this group of patients, the incidence of a copy-number gain in PDL1 and PDL2 was higher than in previously reported series of patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin’s lymphoma,14,25 suggesting that this disease-specific genetic al-teration may have adverse prognostic signifi-cance. The low rate of EBV positivity (1 of 10 patients) that was observed is consistent with the low predominance of EBV in Hodgkin’s lym-phoma of the nodular-sclerosis type.26
In available biopsy samples obtained from the patients, tumor-infiltrating T cells largely ex-pressed low levels of PD-1 on standard immuno-histochemical analysis. Previous studies have suggested that PD-1 blockade selectively en-hances the function of CD8+ T cells that have low or intermediate, rather than high, levels of PD-1 expression.27 The levels of PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating T cells were significantly less predic-tive of response to nivolumab therapy than was PD-L1 expression on solid tumors in recent clinical trials,6 findings that are consistent with our results.
The frequent clinical responses to nivolumab therapy in heavily pretreated patients with re-lapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma and genetic alterations of the PD-1 ligand loci high-
Patient No.20
1819
1716
1413
11
15
12
10
89
76
43
1
5
2
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
Weeks
Cha
nge
(%)
10
−10
0
−20
−30
−50
−60
−80
−40
−70
−90
−100Individual Patient Data (N=23)
B Change in Tumor Burden
A Response Characteristics
ASCT failure andbrentuximab failure
No ASCT and brentuximab failure
No brentuximab
StableDisease
CompleteResponsePartial Response
First complete responseFirst partial responseTherapy durationTransplantationOngoing response
Figure 1. Response Characteristics and Changes in Tumor Burden in Patients with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Receiving Nivolumab.
Panel A shows the response onset and duration for the 20 study patients who had a response to treatment with nivolumab. The color of each bar in-dicates whether previous autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) or brentuximab therapy had failed in that patient. The length of the bar shows the time until the patient had a complete response or a partial response, along with the duration of the response. Six patients elected to discontinue the study in order to undergo stem-cell transplantation after having a re-sponse to nivolumab. Eleven patients continued to have a response at the time of this writing (indicated by an arrowhead). Panel B shows the per-centage reduction in tumor burden from baseline in all 23 study patients. Two patients met the criteria for a complete response without having a 100% decrease in tumor burden. One patient with a partial response had a 99% decrease in tumor burden but had positive results on positron-emission tomography.
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org at University of Chicago Library on August 15, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
patients (55%) experienced adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Be-sides peripheral sensory neuropathy (8%), the majority of grade 3 orhigher adverse events were laboratory abnormalities including neu-tropenia (20%), thrombocytopenia (8%), and anemia (6%). No casesof febrile neutropenia were observed. There were no deaths within 30days from the last drug administration, and no deaths were attributedto the study drug.
Twenty patients had adverse events that led to treatment discon-tinuation; the most common of these were peripheral sensory neurop-athy in six patients and peripheral motor neuropathy in three patients.Doses of brentuximab vedotin were delayed because of adverse eventsin 47% of patients. Overall, 8% of doses were delayed. The mostcommon events leading to dose delays were neutropenia (16%) andperipheral sensory neuropathy (13%). Doses of brentuximab ve-
dotin were prospectively reduced from 1.8 to 1.2 mg/kg in 11patients; 10 of the 11 patients received a dose reduction because ofperipheral neuropathy, and the other patient had a dose reductionbecause of grade 4 thrombocytopenia.
Fifty-six patients experienced peripheral neuropathy events (asidentified by Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activi-ties Query) of any grade; 20% of patients had peripheral neuropathy
Tum
or S
ize
(% c
hang
e fr
om b
asel
ine)
-100
-50
0
50
100
Individual Patients (n = 98)
Best Clinical Response per IRFComplete responsePartial responseStable diseaseProgressive disease
Fig 1. Maximum percent reduction in thesum of the product of diameters in indi-vidual patients (n ! 98) per Cheson et al.12
Tumor size reductions were observed in96 (94%) of 102 patients. Four patientswere not included in the analysis; threepatients had no measurable lesions perindependent review facility (IRF), and onepatient had no postbaseline scans.
Table 2. Key Response Results
Parameter
No. ofPatients
(N ! 102) %
Objective response 76 75Complete remission 35 34Partial remission 41 40
Stable disease 22 22Progressive disease 3 3Not evaluable 1 1Duration of objective response, months
Median 6.795% CI 3.6 to 14.8
Duration of response for patients with completeremission, months (n ! 35)
Median 20.595% CI 10.8 to NE
Progression-free survival, monthsMedian 5.695% CI 5.0 to 9.0
Overall survival, monthsMedian 22.495% CI 21.7 to NE
Abbreviation: NE, not estimable.
A
ITT patients 102 28 22.4n Events
Median(months)
B
ITT patients 102 69 5.6n Events
Median(months)
0
Ove
rall
Surv
ival
(%)
Time (months)
100908070605040302010
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
102 (0)No. at risk (events)
)82(0)11(68)6(19)3(69)1(101 14 (26)59 (19)78 (18)
0
Prog
ress
ion-
Free
Sur
viva
l (%
)
Time (months)
100
908070605040302010
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
102 (0)No. at risk (events)
)96(0)36(72)75(63)15(34)91(08 5 (67)18 (66)23 (65)
Fig 2. Secondary end points of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival(B). ITT, intent to treat.
Younes et al
2186 © 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Downloaded from ascopubs.org by University of Chicago Library on August 15, 2019 from 205.208.116.024Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
A
–100–80–60–40–20
020406080
100
Chan
ge F
rom
Bas
elin
e (%
)
No. at risk
No. at risk
Patie
nts
in R
espo
nse
(%)
Time (months)
102030405060708090
100110
0 3 6 9 12 15
145 89 31 1 0 0
C
–100–80–60–40–20
020406080
100
Chan
ge F
rom
Bas
elin
e (%
)
No. at risk
No. at risk
Time (months)
102030405060708090
100110
0 3 6 9 12 15
52 31 9 0 0 0
Patie
nts
in R
espo
nse
(%)
B
–100–80–60–40–20
0
20406080
100
Chan
ge F
rom
Bas
elin
e (%
)
Time (months)
102030405060708090
100110
0 3 6 9 12 15
51 34 13 1 0 0
Patie
nts
in R
espo
nse
(%)
D
–100–80–60–40–20
020406080
100
Chan
ge F
rom
Bas
elin
e (%
)
Time (months)
102030405060708090
100110
0 3 6 9 12 15
42 24 9 0 0 0
Patie
nts
in R
espo
nse
(%)
Fig 2. Decrease from baseline in tumorburden (left) and Kaplan-Meier estimates ofobjective response duration (right) on thebasis of central review in patients withresponse. (A) All cohorts; (B) cohort 1; (C)cohort 2; (D) cohort 3.
jco.org © 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology 2129
Pembrolizumab for Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma
Downloaded from ascopubs.org by University of Chicago Library on August 15, 2019 from 205.208.116.024Copyright © 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
BV FDA-app 2011 Nivo FDA-app 2016Pembro FDA-app 2011
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Integration of targeted agents into frontlinemanagement of advanced stage cHL: ECHELON-1
TimeA+AVD
(95% CI)ABVD
(95% CI)2-year 82.1
(78.7–85.0)77.2
(73.7–80.4)
Median follow-up (range): 24.9 months (0.0–49.3)
CategoryA+AVDN=117
ABVDN=146
Progression 90 102
Death 18 22
Modified progressionChemotherapyRadiotherapy
972
22157
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
664670
640644
623626
606613
544522
530496
516476
496459
474439
447415
350328
334308
311294
200179
187168
174153
9978
8568
7762
2716
2413
2112
61
41
41
00
00
Time from randomization (months)
Prob
abili
ty o
f mod
ified
PFS
No. of patients at risk:A+AVDABVD
HR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60–0.98)Log-rank test p-value: 0.035
A+AVDABVD
CensoredCensored
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
Modified PFS estimates
Number of events
Connors et al. NEJM online 2017; slide courtesy of Alex Herrera Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
ASH 2020: 5-year follow up of ECHELON-1
Auth
or
Conc
lusio
ns
Strauss DJ et al. Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy for Patients with Previously Untreated, Stage III/IV Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: 5-Year Update of the ECHELON-1 Study.
ASH 2020; Abstract 2973. PosterCourtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
BV-AVD in frontline advanced stage cHLImpact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm
• BV-AVD is a well-tolerated and effective option
• Avoids bleomycin AND avoids need for interim PET
Implications for Future Research
• Is this ”the” or “a” new standard of care?
– Will 5-year outcomes translate to a higher cure rate? • BV-AVD is the control arm in S1826 US Intergroup trial compared to nivo-AVD
(NCT03907488)
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
What about older patients with cHL?
Part A: BV monotherapyPart B: BV (1.8mg/kg) + DTIC Part C: BV + benda (70mg/m2)Part D: BV + nivo
Closed due to excess toxicity
Yasenchak CA et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 471
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
BV-based frontline treatment in older patients with cHL: BV + DTIC and BV-nivo promising
Part B: BV (1.8mg/kg) + DTIC
Part D: BV + nivo
Med f/u 63mMed PFS 46m
Med f/u 26m
Yasenchak CA et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 471
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
BV plus nivo in TN older patients with cHL• Phase II trial BV plus nivo q21d x 8 cycles
Med f/u 21.2m
Cheson BD et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Nov;7(11):e808-e815 Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Results:CMR 65% Med PFS 18m
BV plus nivo in TN older patients with cHL
Toxicity: One-third needed dose adjustments 48% peripheral neuropathy (11% grade 3) 1 death from cardiac arrest
Cheson BD et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Nov;7(11):e808-e815
A ”negative” phase 2 trial?
Connors JM et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Nov;7(11):e776-e777 Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Treatment of older patients with treatment-naïve cHLImpact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm
• Promising use of targeted agents in frontline setting that avoids bleomycin and reduces use of cytotoxic agents
• BV-benda is too toxic in older patients
Implications for Future Research
• There remains an unmet need for a less toxic treatment of older patients with cHL
• Should BV-nivo be further pursued?
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Treatment approach for relapsed cHL
Monotherapy with: Brentuximab vedotinNivolumabPembrolizumab
R/R #1
ASCT elig
ASCT inelig
SalvageCR, PR
ASCT BV consol
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
5-year follow up of post-ASCT BV (AETHERA TRIAL)
published.3 Briefly, eligible BV-naive patients with HL must haveundergone auto-HSCT before randomization and have been athigh risk of relapse after auto-HSCT based on having eitherrelapsed or progressive HL that occurred ,12 months from theend of frontline therapy; a history of refractory HL, defined asprogression during or failure to achieve a complete remissionafter frontline therapy; or extranodal involvement at the time
of pre–auto-HSCT relapse. As previously reported,3 patientsprovided written informed consent in accordance with theDeclaration of Helsinki, and the study was approved by theinstitutional review board at each study site.
A total of 329 patients were randomized to receive 1.8 mg/kg ofBV or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 16 cycles starting 30
0
0 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
Patie
nts f
ree
of p
rogr
essio
n or
dea
th, %
Months
70
80
90
100A
B
8 12 16 20 24 28
N Events Median PFS, months HR (95% CI)
32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88
0
0 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
Patie
nts f
ree
of p
rogr
essio
n or
dea
th, %
Months
70
80
90
100
8 12
136N Events Median PFS (95% Cl) Stratified HR (95% Cl)
8414483
56 ------36
86 9.7 (6.1-15.8)(3.3-11.9)6.363PBO + BSC ≥ 3 risk factors
BV + BSC ≥ 2 risk factors 0.424 (0.302-0.596)0.390 (0.255-0.596)BV + BSC ≥ 3 risk factors
16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88
BV + BSC164165
9366
15.8 0.521 (0.379-0.717)--
No. at risk (events)
No. at risk (events ≥ 2 risk factors)
Placebo + BSC
BV + BSC
Placebo+BSC 164 (0) 113 (48) 92 (67) 83 (76) 77 (81) 72 (85) 66 (88) 64 (90) 62 (90) 61 (90) 59 (90) 58 (91) 58 (91) 55 (92) 54 (93) 52 (93) 44 (93) 32 (93) 27 (93) 17 (93) 2 (93) 1 (93) 0 (93)
136 (0) 85 (48) 68 (63) 59 (72) 53 (77) 50 (80) 45 (83) 44 (84) 43 (84) 42 (84) 41 (84) 40 (85) 40 (85) 38 (86) 38 (86) 36 (86) 30 (86) 23 (86) 20 (86) 11 (86) 1 (86) 0 (86) 0 (86)
144 (0) 130 (11)117 (23)107 (31) 98 (39) 91 (45) 90 (46) 87 (49) 86 (50) 85 (51) 81 (54) 78 (54) 75 (55) 74 (55) 73 (55) 70 (55) 59 (56) 42 (56) 38 (56) 23 (56) 6 (56) 2 (56) 0 (56)
165 (0) 149 (12)133 (27)122 (36)112 (45)104 (52)100 (55) 97 (58) 96 (59) 94 (61) 90 (64) 87 (64) 84 (65) 83 (65) 82 (65) 78 (65) 66 (66) 47 (66) 43 (66) 26 (66) 7 (66) 3 (66) 0 (66)
Placebo+BSC
No. at risk (events ≥ 3 risk factors)
84 (0) 49 (34) 36 (45) 29 (52) 24 (57) 22 (59) 20 (61) 19 (62) 18 (62) 18 (62) 17 (62) 17 (62) 17 (62) 15 (63) 15 (63) 14 (63) 11 (63) 9 (63) 9 (63) 6 (63) 0 (63) 0 (63) 0 (63)
82 (0) 73 (7) 63 (17) 56 (24) 49 (30) 46 (32) 46 (32) 44 (34) 44 (34) 44 (34) 42 (36) 42 (36) 41 (36) 40 (36) 39 (36) 38 (36) 31 (36) 26 (36) 24 (36) 15 (36) 3 (36) 1 (36) 0 (36) BV+BSC
BV+BSC
PBO + BSC ≥ 2 risk factors
PBO + BSC
Figure 1. Five-year PFS. PFS at 5 years per investigator (A) and in patients with $2 or $3 risk factors (B). BSC, best supportive care; PBO, placebo.
2640 blood® 20 DECEMBER 2018 | VOLUME 132, NUMBER 25 MOSKOWITZ et al
For personal use only. on August 17, 2019. at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARY www.bloodjournal.orgFrom
Moskowitz et al. Blood. 2018 Dec 20;132(25):2639-2642.
16 doses of BV 1.8mg/kg q21d post-ASCT
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Is there a shorter, less toxic post-transplant option?
Treatment: 30-75 days post AHCT
1.8mg/kg BV and 3mg/kg nivo q21d x 8 doses
Primary endpoint 18m PFS
Patients: N=59Med age 30 (18-72y) 32% primary refractory disease 39% EN disease 51% prior BV42% prior PD-1 inhibitors
Herrera AF et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 472
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Post-autologous stem cell transplant BV + nivo
Only 49% completed both agentsMost common AEs were neuropathy, neutropenia27% had immune-related AE’s requiring steroids
19m PFS is 92% (med f/u is 18m)
Herrera AF et al. ASH 2020; Abstract 472
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Post-transplant BV + nivoImpact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm
• Shorter consolidation is appealing
• Intolerance rate seems high
Implications for Future Research
• Role of post-transplant consolidation will need to be refined
• What if patients receive BV and/or nivo in 1st and 2nd line settings?
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
KEYNOTE-204: Pembro vs. BV in R/R cHL
Kuruvilla J et al. ASCO 2020; Abstract 8005. Oral, HoDZinzani P et al. EHA 2020; Abstract LB2600. Late Breaking
Kuruvilla J et al.. ASH 2020; Abstract 1158. Poster
• Med PFS 13.2 vs. 8.3m favoring pembro
• Most pts BV-naive
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Exploratory analysis of pembro vs. BV in R/R cHL by line of therapy (KEYNOTE-204)
Percent pts over 65y: 1L: 36-44% 2L+: 10-12%
Kuruvilla J et al. ASCO 2020; Abstract 8005. Oral, HoDZinzani P et al. EHA 2020; Abstract LB2600. Late Breaking
Kuruvilla J et al.. ASH 2020; Abstract 1158. Poster
allo-SCT.
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Combination targeted therapy in R/R cHLSequential phase I trial with multiple groups
(all 21d cycles)
Ipilimumab (1mg/kg or 3mg/kg) + BV 1.8mg/kg
Nivolumab 3mg/kg + BV (1.2mg/kg or 1.8mg/kg)
Ipilimumab (1mg/kg) + nivolumab (3mg/kg) + BV (1.2mg/kg or 1.8mg/kg)
Diefenbach CS et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Sep;7(9):e660-e670. Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Combination targeted therapy in R/R cHL
Grade 3-4 AE’s seen in all groupsslightly higher in Ipi-groups (43% ipi vs. 50% in triplet vs. 16% in nivo groups)
Grade 5 toxicity 2 deaths from pneumonitis (nivo group and triplet group)
Houot R, Merryman RW, Morschhauser F.. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Sep;7(9):e629-e630 Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Targeted therapy in R/R cHLImpact on Patient Care and Treatment Algorithm
• Monotherapy with pembrolizumab has improved PFS compared to monotherapy with brentuximab vedotin
• Doublet and triplet therapy with immunotherapy has activity (but also toxicity)
Implications for Future Research
• Unclear impact of these agents if frontline standard of care changes
• There are no data on sequencing
• Combination regimens need further investigation regarding PFS and durability of response
Courtesty of Sonali M Smith, MD
Thank you