Summary Background Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who fail to achieve adequate disease control with rituximab-based treatment have few treatment options and a poor prognosis. We aimed to ...assess a combination of obinutuzumab (GA101), a novel glyco-engineered type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and bendamustine in this patient population. Methods In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (GADOLIN), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically documented, CD20-positive indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma refractory to rituximab were enrolled at 83 hospital and community sites in 14 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and Central America. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a hierarchical dynamic randomisation scheme stratified by indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype, rituximab-refractory type, number of previous therapies, and geographical region, to receive induction treatment (six 28-day cycles) with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine or bendamustine monotherapy, both given intravenously. Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine dosing was obinutuzumab 1000 mg (days 1, 8, and 15, cycle 1; day 1, cycles 2–6) plus bendamustine 90 mg/m2 per day (days 1 and 2, cycles 1–6), and bendamustine monotherapy dosing was 120 mg/m2 per day (days 1 and 2, all cycles). Non-progressing patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group received obinutuzumab maintenance (1000 mg every 2 months) for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all randomised patients, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received any amount of obinutuzumab or bendamustine. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01059630 , and has stopped recruiting patients. Findings Between April 15, 2010, and Sept 1, 2014, when the study was stopped after a pre-planned interim analysis, 396 patients were randomly assigned (194 to obinutuzumab plus bendamustine and 202 to bendamustine monotherapy). After a median follow-up time of 21·9 months (IQR 12·1–31·0) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and 20·3 months (9·5–29·7) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, progression-free survival was significantly longer with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (median not reached 95% CI 22·5 months–not estimable) than with bendamustine monotherapy (14·9 months 12·8–16·6; hazard ratio 0·55 95% CI 0·40–0·74; p=0·0001). Grade 3–5 adverse events occurred in 132 (68%) of 194 patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 123 (62%) of 198 patients in the bendamustine monotherapy group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (64 33% in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group vs 52 26% in the bendamustine monotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (21 11% vs 32 16%), anaemia (15 8% vs 20 10%) and infusion-related reactions (21 11% vs 11 6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 74 patients (38%) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 65 patients (33%) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, and deaths due to adverse events occurred in 12 patients (6%) and 12 patients (6%), respectively. Three (25%) of 12 adverse event-related deaths in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and five (42%) of 12 in the bendamustine monotherapy group were treatment related. Interpretation Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance has improved efficacy over bendamustine monotherapy in rituximab-refractory patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with manageable toxicity, and is a new treatment option for patients who have relapsed after or are no longer responding to rituximab-based therapy. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Summary Background Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, showed activity in many single-group studies in relapsed or refractory mantle cell ...lymphoma. The aim of this randomised study was to examine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide versus best investigator's choice of single-agent therapy in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Methods The MCL-002 (SPRINT) study was a randomised, phase 2 study of patients with mantle cell lymphoma aged 18 years or older at 67 clinics and academic centres in 12 countries who relapsed one to three times, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, at least one measurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transplantation. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (2:1) patients in a permuted block size of six to receive lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1–21 every 28 days) until progressive disease or intolerability, or single-agent investigator's choice of either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by time from diagnosis, time from last anti-lymphoma therapy, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Individual treatment assignment between lenalidomide and investigator's choice was open label, but investigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient. Patients who progressed on investigator's choice could cross over to lenalidomide treatment. We present the prespecified primary analysis results in the intention-to-treat population for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to progressive disease or death, whichever occurred first. Patient enrolment is complete, although treatment and collection of additional time-to-event data are ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00875667. Findings Between April 30, 2009, and March 7, 2013, we enrolled 254 patients in the intention-to-treat population (170 67% were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide, 84 33% to receive investigator's choice monotherapy). Patients had a median age of 68·5 years and received a median of two previous regimens. With a median follow-up of 15·9 months (IQR 7·6–31·7), lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival compared with investigator's choice (median 8·7 months 95% CI 5·5–12·1 vs 5·2 months 95% CI 3·7–6·9) with a hazard ratio of 0·61 (95% CI 0·44–0·84; p=0·004). In the 167 patients in the lenalidomide group and 83 patients in the investigator's choice group who received at least one dose of treatment the most common grade 3–4 adverse events included neutropenia (73 44% of 167 vs 28 34% of 83) without increased risk of infection, thrombocytopenia (30 18% vs 23 28%), leucopenia (13 8% vs nine 11%), and anaemia (14 8% vs six 7%). Interpretation Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation have longer progression-free survival, with a manageable safety profile when treated with lenalidomide compared with monotherapy investigator's choice options. Funding Celgene Corporation.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Malignant cells of classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are characterised by genetic alterations at the 9p24.1 locus, leading to overexpression of PD-1 ligands and evasion of immune ...surveillance. In a phase 1b study, nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, produced a high response in patients with relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Methods In this ongoing, single-arm phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who had failed to respond to autologous stem-cell transplantation and had either relapsed after or failed to respond to brentuximab vedotin, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, were enrolled from 34 hospitals and academic centres across Europe and North America. Patients were given nivolumab intravenously over 60 min at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. The primary endpoint was objective response following a prespecified minimum follow-up period of 6 months, assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC). All patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02181738. Findings Among 80 treated patients recruited between Aug 26, 2014, and Feb 20, 2015, the median number of previous therapies was four (IQR 4–7). At a median follow-up of 8·9 months (IQR 7·8–9·9), 53 (66·3%, 95% CI 54·8–76·4) of 80 patients achieved an IRRC-assessed objective response. The most common drug-related adverse events (those that occurred in ≥15% of patients) included fatigue (20 25% patients), infusion-related reaction (16 20%), and rash (13 16%). The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (four 5% patients) and increased lipase concentrations (four 5%). The most common serious adverse event (any grade) was pyrexia (three 4% patients). Three patients died during the study; none of these deaths were judged to be treatment related. Interpretation Nivolumab resulted in frequent responses with an acceptable safety profile in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who progressed after autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Therefore, nivolumab might be a new treatment option for a patient population with a high unmet need. Ongoing follow-up will help to assess the durability of response. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab is the standard therapy for physically fit patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. This ...international phase 3 study compared the efficacy and tolerance of the standard therapy with a potentially less toxic combination consisting of bendamustine and rituximab. Methods Treatment-naive fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (aged 33–81 years) without del(17p) were enrolled after undergoing a central screening process. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation list using randomly permuted blocks with a block size of eight and were stratified according to participating country and Binet stage. Patients were allocated to receive six cycles of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 per day) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 per day) for the first 3 days or to intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m2 per day) for the first 2 days of each cycle. Rituximab 375 mg/m2 was given intravenously in both groups on day 0 of cycle 1 and subsequently was given at 500 mg/m2 during the next five cycles on day 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with the objective to assess non-inferiority of bendamustine and rituximab to the standard therapy. We aimed to show that the 2-year progression-free survival with bendamustine and rituximab was not 67·5% or less with a corresponding non-inferiority margin of 1·388 for the hazard ratio (HR) based on the 90·4% CI. The final analysis was done by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT%2000769522. Findings 688 patients were recruited between Oct 2, 2008, and July 11, 2011, of which 564 patients who met inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. 561 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 282 patients in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and 279 in the bendamustine and rituximab group. After a median observation time of 37·1 months (IQR 31·0–45·5) median progression-free survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 34·9–45·3) with bendamustine and rituximab and 55·2 months (95% CI not evaluable) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 1·643, 90·4% CI 1·308–2·064). As the upper limit of the 90·4% CI was greater than 1·388 the null hypothesis for the corresponding non-inferiority hypothesis was not rejected. Severe neutropenia and infections were more frequently observed with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (235 84% of 279 vs 164 59% of 278, and 109 39% vs 69 25%, respectively) during the study. The increased frequency of infectious complications with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab was more pronounced in patients older than 65 years. Interpretation The combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab remains the standard front-line therapy in fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, but bendamustine and rituximab is associated with less toxic effects. Funding Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The MInT study was the first to show improved 3-year outcomes with the addition of rituximab to a CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)-like regimen in ...young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. Extended follow-up was needed to establish long-term effects. Methods In the randomised open-label MInT study, patients from 18 countries (aged 18–60 years with none or one risk factor according to the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index IPI, stage II–IV disease or stage I disease with bulk) were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of a CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab. Bulky and extranodal sites received additional radiotherapy. Randomisation was done centrally with a computer-based tool and was stratified by centre, bulky disease, age-adjusted IPI, and chemotherapy regimen by use of a modified minimisation algorithm that incorporated a stochastic component. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analyses were by intention to treat. This observational study is a follow-up of the MInT trial, which was stopped in 2003, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00400907. Findings The intention-to-treat population included 410 patients assigned to chemotherapy alone and 413 assigned to chemotherapy plus rituximab. After a median follow-up of 72 months (range 0·03–119), 6-year event-free survival was 55·8% (95% CI 50·4–60·9; 166 events) for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone and 74·3% (69·3–78·6; 98 events) for those assigned to chemotherapy plus rituximab (difference between groups 18·5%, 11·5–25·4, log-rank p<0·0001). Multivariable analyses showed that event-free survival was affected by treatment group, presence of bulky disease, and age-adjusted IPI and that overall survival was affected by treatment group and presence of bulky disease only. After chemotherapy and rituximab, a favourable subgroup (IPI=0, no bulk) could be defined from a less favourable subgroup (IPI=1 or bulk, or both; event-free survival 84·3% 95% CI 74·2–90·7 vs 71·0% 65·1–76·1, log-rank p=0·005). 18 (4·4%, 95% CI 2·6–6·9) second malignancies occurred in the chemotherapy-alone group and 16 (3·9%, 2·2–6·2) in the chemotherapy and rituximab group (Fisher's exact p=0·730). Interpretation Rituximab added to six cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy improved long-term outcomes for young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. The definition of two prognostic subgroups allows a more refined therapeutic approach to these patients than does assessment by IPI alone. Funding Hoffmann–La Roche.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Mantle-cell lymphoma is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Both ibrutinib and temsirolimus have shown single-agent activity in patients with relapsed or ...refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. We undertook a phase 3 study to assess the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib versus temsirolimus in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. Methods This randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma confirmed by central pathology in 21 countries who had received one or more rituximab-containing treatments. Patients were stratified by previous therapy and simplified mantle-cell lymphoma international prognostic index score, and were randomly assigned with a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive daily oral ibrutinib 560 mg or intravenous temsirolimus (175 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1; 75 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of subsequent 21-day cycles). Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by a masked independent review committee with the primary hypothesis that ibrutinib compared with temsirolimus significantly improves progression-free survival. The analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01646021 ) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT (number 2012-000601-74). Findings Between Dec 10, 2012, and Nov 26, 2013, 280 patients were randomised to ibrutinib (n=139) or temsirolimus (n=141). Primary efficacy analysis showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (p<0·0001) for patients treated with ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (hazard ratio 0·43 95% CI 0·32–0·58; median progression-free survival 14·6 months 95% CI 10·4–not estimable vs 6·2 months 4·2–7·9, respectively). Ibrutinib was better tolerated than temsirolimus, with grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events reported for 94 (68%) versus 121 (87%) patients, and fewer discontinuations of study medication due to adverse events for ibrutinib versus temsirolimus (9 6% vs 36 26%). Interpretation Ibrutinib treatment resulted in significant improvement in progression-free survival and better tolerability versus temsirolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. These data lend further support to the positive benefit–risk ratio for ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory mantle-cell lymphoma. Funding Janssen Research & Development, LLC.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Part one of the two-part SAWYER study predicted that subcutaneous rituximab 1600 mg would achieve trough serum concentrations that were non-inferior to those achieved with intravenous rituximab 500 ...mg/m(2) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. In part two of the study, we aimed to confirm the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab, and investigate its safety and efficacy.
We did this phase 1b, open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority study at 68 centres in 19 countries in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. Patients aged 18 years or older with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were randomly assigned, via an interactive voice-response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of ten), to receive subcutaneous rituximab 1600 mg or intravenous rituximab 500 mg/m(2) plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide every 4 weeks for up to six cycles. In cycle one, all patients received intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m(2). Randomisation was stratified by Binet stage and fludarabine and cyclophosphamide administration route (oral vs intravenous). Study investigators and patients were not masked to group allocation, but allocation was concealed from the statistician, clinical scientist, and clinical pharmacologist. The primary endpoint was trough serum concentration at cycle five, with a non-inferiority margin of 0·8 for the adjusted geometric mean ratio of the subcutaneous to the intravenous dose. We did the primary analysis in patients in the intention-to-treat population with complete pharmacokinetic data (pharmacokinetic population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01292603, and is ongoing, although the treatment stage is now complete.
Between Aug 20, 2012, and June 17, 2013, we randomly assigned 176 patients to receive subcutaneous rituximab (n=88) or intravenous rituximab (n=88); 134 (76%) patients comprised the pharmacokinetic population. As of May 7, 2014, median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 11·9-16·0) for patients in the subcutaneous group and 14·1 months (11·6-16·5) for patients in the intravenous group. At cycle five, the geometric mean trough serum concentration in patients given subcutaneous rituximab was non-inferior to that in patients given intravenous rituximab (97·5 μg/mL vs 61·5 μg/mL), with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 1·53 (90% CI 1·27-1·85). In the safety analysis, the proportion of patients reporting adverse events was similar between the subcutaneous and intravenous groups (all grades: 82 96% of 85 patients and 81 91% of 89 patients; serious adverse events: 25 29% and 29 33% patients; grade ≥3: 59 69% and 63 71% patients, respectively). The most common adverse event of grade 3 or higher was neutropenia (48 56% patients in the subcutaneous group and 46 52% patients in the intravenous group); the most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (n=9 11% and n=4 4%, respectively). We recorded administration-related reactions in 37 (44%) patients given subcutaneous rituximab and 40 (45%) patients given the intravenous dose, with differences between administration routes for injection-site erythema (n=10 12% and n=0, respectively) and nausea (n=2 2% and n=11 12%, respectively). More patients reported local cutaneous reactions after subcutaneous rituximab (n=36 42%) than after intravenous rituximab (n=2 2%); most of these reactions were grade 1 or 2.
When combined with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, subcutaneous rituximab 1600 mg achieved trough serum concentrations that were pharmacokinetically non-inferior to those achieved with intravenous rituximab 500 mg/m(2), with a similar safety and efficacy profile between the two groups. Treatment with subcutaneous rituximab should allow patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to receive clinical benefit from the drug via a more convenient delivery method than the intravenous route, and might also be used in combination regimens with approved and emerging oral regimens.
F Hoffmann-La Roche.