Post on 06-Mar-2018
transcript
MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH PERIPHERAL T-CELL LYMPHOMAS
DR. STEFANO LUMINARIASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MEDICAL ONCOLOGYUNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA
HEMATOLOGY, AZ. OSP. SANTA MARIA NUOVA REGGIO EMILIA,ITALY
Lyfe Forum of excellence 2016
What's new in Lymphoyd neoplasia?
IOSI course,
Bellinzona, 29-31 January 2016
F. D’amore et al. Ann Oncol (2015) 26 (suppl 5):v108-v115.
Peripheral T-cell lymphomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†
Peripheral T-cell Lymphomas
• Account for 10 to 15% of all NHL
• Differences in geographic distribution (AILT in Europe, NK in ASIA, alk- ALCL in South America)
• Clinically and biologically heterogeneous group of disorders
• Classification relies on
– Morphology/Immunophenotype/genetic (ALK)
– Clinical /anatomical presentation
Mature T-/NK-cells Neoplasm
Cutaneous
Mycosis Fungoides(MF)
Trasformed MF
Sézary Syndrome
Primay CutaneousCD30+ T-Cell Disorders
Primary CutaneousGamma/Delta TCL
Extranodal
NK/TCL Nasal Type
Entheropaty-associated TCL
Hepatosplenic TCL
SubcutaneousPanniculitis-like TCL
Nodal
Peripheral TCL NOS
Anaplastic Large CellLymphoma (ALK+/-)
Angioimmuno-blasticTCL
Leukemic
Adult T-cell LeukemiaLymnpoma
Aggressive NK-cellLeukemia
T-cell ProlymphocyticLeukemia
T-cell Large Granular Lymphocytic Leukemia
Grouping Aggressive Indolent
Adapted fromc Rodriguez et al, Crit Rev Onc Hematol, 2008
PTCL SUBTYPES
v
Adapted fromc O'Connor et al Clin Can Res 2014
International T-Cell Lymphoma Project: OS in PTCL
PTCL Subtypes
Alk+ ALCL Alk- ALCL PTCL-NOS AITL NK/TCL ATLL
5-yr OS, % 70 49 32 32 42 14
Majority of patients (> 85%) received an anthracycline-containing regimen
Vose J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4124-4130.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
100
80
60
40
20P < .001
Ove
rall
Su
rviv
al (%
) Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK+
Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-
All natural killer/T-Cell lymphomas
Peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise
specified
Angioimmunoblastic lymphoma
Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Yrs
Mak V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1970-1976.
Survival After First Relapse or Progression
of PTCL: Histologic Subtypes P
atie
nts
, %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time (years)
0 5 10 15 20
PTCL-NOS
ALCL
AITL
P = .971
Pa
tie
nts
. %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time (years)
0 5 10 15 20
PTCL-NOS
ALCL
AITL
P = .962
Progression-free Survival Overall Survival
Risk assessment in PTCL
Schmitz N et al. Blood 2010 Vose et al JCO; 2008
Variable IPI PIT IPTCLP mPIT AITL KPI EPI(*)
Age > 60 X X X X X X
ECOG ≥ 1 X X X X X
LDH (abn. values) X X X X X
Stage III-IV X X X X
ENS > 2 X X X
BM+ X
Plts < 150K X X
KI-67 ≥ 80% X
Anemia (M<13, F<11g/dl)
X
Serum IgA (>400 mg/dl) X
B symptoms X X
Regional Lymph nodes X
PTCL subset All PTCL-U PTCL-U PTCL-U AITL NK-TCL EATL(*)
Prognostic models in PTCL: clinical variables
Modified from: Gutierrez-Garcia: Ann Oncol. 2011; 22: 397–404
(*)de Baaij LR, Clin Can res 2015
Peripheral T-cell lymphomas in a large US multicenter cohort: prognostication in the modern era including impact of frontline therapy (N=341)
J. S. Abramson, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014 Nov; 25(11): 2211–2217
This analysis identifies early-stage disease and initial treatment response as dominant prognostic factors in PTCL.
ASCT vs CTOnly CR pts
ASCT vs CTAll pts
• N=130 (110 with baseline PET; 105 Pet+ at baseline)
• romidepsin at a dose of 14 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles
• With FDG-PET– 3/16 CR PR
– 9/14 PR/SD CR
S. Horwitz et al. Ann Oncol. 2015 Apr; 26(4): 774–779.
Utility of 18fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for prognosis and response assessments in a phase 2 study of romidepsin in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma
Progression Free Survival
MODENA March 20-21, 2014
Comparison with retrospective IPTCLPPTCL-NOS
13
Weisenburger et al, 2011
5-yr OS Weisenburger et al 32%T-Cell Project 35%% (95% CI 29-42)
Weisenburger et al (N=340)
T-Cell Project (N=347)
Meta-analysis of Frontline Anthracycline-
Based Therapy for PTCL: OS
PTCL Subgroup Study, Yr 5-Yr OS Rate 95% CI 5-Yr OS Rate and 95% CI
AITL Pautier et al, 1999
Savage et al, 2004
Sonnen et al, 2005
Vose et al, 2008
AITL summary estimate Fixed
Random
0.360
0.360
0.280
0.320
0.321
0.321
0.217-0.534
0.134-0.672
0.155-0.451
0.264-0.381
0.272-0.375
0.272-0.375
ALCL Gisselbrecht et al, 1998
Savage et al, 2004
Sonnen et al, 2005
ALCL summary estimate Fixed
Random
0.640
0.430
0.610
0.573
0.565
0.512-0.751
0.275-0.600
0.394-0.790
0.479-0.662
0.428-0.692
Alk-neg ALCL Vose et al, 2008
Alk-neg ALCL summary estimate Fixed
Random
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.377-0.604
0.377-0.604
0.377-0.604
ETTL Savages et al, 2004
Vose et al, 2008
ETTL summary estimate Fixed
Random
0.220
0.200
0.203
0.203
0.055-0.577
0.118-0.318
0.125-0.312
0.125-0.312
Non-ALCL PTCL Gisselbrecht et al, 1998
Rudiger et al, 2002
0.350
0.260
0.291-0.414
0.182-0.357
PTCL-NOS Savage et al, 2004
Sonnen et al, 2005
Vose et al, 2008
0.350
0.450
0.320
0.269-0.440
0.338-0.567
0.273-0.371
PTCL combined Karakas et al, 1996
Kim et al, 2002
Reiser et al, 2002
0.480
0.526
0.550
0.303-0.663
0.415-0.633
0.429-0.665
0% 50% 100%
Induction therapy in PTCL
What's wrong with CHOP in PTCL?
Not evidence based!!
Used for all subtypes.
Activity of doxorubicin not confirmed
Vose et al JCO; 2008
PTCL-NOS AILT
EFS: age < 60 y, LDH ≤ UNL
Schmitz N et al. Blood 2010
Moving away from CHOP in PTCLThe german experience with CHOEP
CHOEP
CHOP
EFS: ALK +, age < 60 y, LDH ≤ UNL
Integrated management algorithm (according to, e.g. risk factors, stage and histological subtype) in the (A) front-line and (B) relapsed/refractory setting.
F. d'Amore et al. Ann Oncol 2015;26:v108-v115
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
…although the role of anthracyclines in PTCL is still debated, anthracycline void
regimens have, so far, failed to demonstrate their superiority to
CHOP/CHOEP.(2015 ESMO guidelines statetment)
Evidence for BMT is PTCL 1st line
Prospective PTCL restricted studies
Encouraging results!!... However…Not randomized. Some are very small series; Tx rate varies from 41 to 74%.
~ 20 % relapse within the first year after ASCT, + ~10% by 2years post ASCTCHOP was not used!!
CHOEP14 x 6 + BEAM-ASCT
D’Amore F et al. J Clin Oncol 2012
XIII ICML Abs 74. D'Amore et al. The 10-year OS, and PFS for the whole ITTP were 41%, and 38%ALK- ALCL and female had the best outcome
What does reallymake BMT effective?
• High dose chemotherapy itself
• Patient selection (risk groups)
• How the patients gets to BMT
– Quality of response (CR vs < CR; FDG PET?)
– Quantity of responding patients (Tx rate)
Integrated management algorithm (according to, e.g. risk factors, stage and histological subtype) in the (A) front-line and (B) relapsed/refractory setting.
F. d'Amore et al. Ann Oncol 2015;26:v108-v115
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Phase II Trial of Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Followed by Allo-
SCT in PTCL
• Relapsed/refractory
PTCL/AITL/ALCL
• N = 17 (8 prev ASCT)
• Median age: 41 yrs
(range: 23-60)
• Time from diagnosis: 5-8 mos
to 5 yrs
• Median follow-up: 28 mos
• Nonrelapse mortality at 2 yrs:
6%, later updated to: 12%
• 2/4 patient responses to DLI
Corradini P, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2172-2176.
PFS: 64%
OS: 80%P
FS
(%
)
100
75
50
25
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mos
OS
(%
)
100
75
50
25
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mos
XIII ICML Abs 033 N. Schmitz, et al Ph III AUTO vs ALLO 1st line: no significant differences in survival for pts randomized to autoSCT or alloSCT. Most importantly, >30% of pts randomized to ASCT or alloSCT did not make it to transplantation mostly because of early lymphoma progression. DSMC decided to prematurely stop patient accrual.
Strategies to improve outcome of PTCL patients
• New old drugs– L-asparaginase (SMILE rx in ENK/TL). Yamaguchi JCO 2011
– Bendamustine (BENTLY trial in R/R PTCL). Damaj JCO 2013.
– Pralatrexate (PROPEL Trial) O'Connor JCO 2011.
• Target therapies
– Monoclonal antibodies– Alemtuzumab, Brentuximab vedotin, Mogamulizumab (anti CCR4)
– Histone deacetilase Inh.– Romidepsin, Vorinostat, Belinostat
– Tyrosine kinase inh.– IPI-145, Crizotinib, Sorafenib
– Miscellaneous– Lenalidomide, alisertib, anti PD1
Prospective Trial: First-line Alemtuzumab+ CHOP in PTCL (N = 24)
• IPI score
– 0-1: 33%
– 2-3: 58%
– 4-5: 8%
• CR: 71%
– PTCL-U: 50%
– AITL: 100%
• Grade 4 infection: 17%
– Sepsis, aspergillosis, JC virus, PCP
Gallamini A, et al. Blood. 2007;110:2316-2323.
Failure-Free Survival2 yrs: 48%
2-Yr OS: 53%C
um
ula
tive
Pro
po
rtio
n
Surv
ivin
g
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Yrs From Diagnosis0 1 2
*Censored observations
* ***** ** * **
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rop
ort
ion
Su
rviv
ing
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Yrs From Diagnosis
0 1 2
*Censored observations
***** **
** **
3
**
CHOP-
14
HDT
The ACT trial after the dose/age amendment
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
HDT
R
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
A30 - CHOP-14
CHOP-
14
R
18 yrs
60 yrs
80 yrs
CHOP-
14
CHOP-
14
D’Amore F: Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 2012 120: Abstract 57
Pro B et al. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:2190–6.
Reprinted with permission. © 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Phase II Study of Brentuximab Vedotin in Patients with R/R sALCLMaximum tumour reduction by IRF
(data cut off: Jan 2011)
Ch
an
ge f
rom
baselin
e in
tum
ou
r siz
e (
%)
*One patient did not have a post-baseline assessment
Subgroup
ALK-negative (n=42) ORR / CR, % 88 / 52
ALK-positive (n=16) ORR / CR, % 81 / 69
Combination treatment
• Patients: 26 patients received combined treatment
– 23/26 (88%) received all 6 cycles
– 21 patients had maintenance treatment with brentuximab vedotin
– Median DOT (including maintenance): 13 (range, 3-16)
• Safety
• MTD: 1.8 mg/kg (DLT = Gr 3 rash)
• SAEs occurring in >1 pt: febrile neutropenia (31%), pyrexia (8%) and cardiac failure (8%)
Median observation time: 21.4 months
• Estimated 1-yr PFS 71% (95% CI 49, 85)
• Estimated 1-yr OS 88% (95% CI 68, 96)
SGN35-011: Phase 1 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin plus multi-agent chemotherapy in ALCL and CD30-positive mature T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas - Response
Fanale M et al. JCO 2014
• Clinical Response
Sequential treatment• Patients: 13 patients received sequential treatment:
– All completed initial 2 cycles of brentuximab vedotin
– 11/13 completed subsequent 6 cycles of CHOP
– 12/13 patients had maintenance treatment with brentuximab vedotin
• Safety
• Febrile neutropenia was the only SAE occurring in more than 1 patient (2 patients)
Median observation time: 23.8 months
• Estimated 1-yr PFS 77% (95% CI 44, 92)
• Estimated 1-yr OS 85% (95% CI 51, 96)
SGN35-011: Phase 1 study of frontline brentuximab vedotin plus multi-agent chemotherapy in ALCL and CD30-positive mature T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas - Response
• Clinical Response
Fanale M et al. JCO 2014
Brentuximab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Mature
T-/NK-Cell Lymphomas
Horwitz et al, Blood 2014
N= 35; BV at 1,8 mg/Kg q3w until toxicity or PG
Brentuximab Vedotin in Relapsed or
Refractory Mature T-/NK-Cell Lymphomas
Horwitz et al, Blood 2014
Response to BV is not predicted by level of CD30 expression
Epigenome as a target in PTCL
"Epigenetics are the processes that ensure that the right genes are expressed at the right time, in the right quantity and in the right place"
Adapted fromc O'Connor et al Clin Can Res 2014
Epigenome as a target in PTCL
- Mutations in epigenetic genes are present in PTCL-NOS, and AITL (TET2, IDH2, and DNMT3A)
- Epigenetic therapy is active in PTCL throughHDAC inhibition. Three approved drugs
- Vorinostat: CTCL Duvic et al. Blood 2007
- Belinostat: CTCL and PTCL Foss et al. BJH 2014
- Romidepsin: CTCL and PTCL Coiffier et al. JCO 2012
- HDAC inibition has a more complex MoA thansimply altering gene transcription (proliferation, angiogenesis,…)
Adapted fromc O'Connor et al Clin Can Res 2014
Study Schema
Eligibility (n = 131)Confirmed PTCLFailed at least one prior systemic therapyMeasurable diseasePrimary endpoint: Complete response by Independent Review Committee
Romidepsin 14 mg/m2 IV over 4 hoursDays 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle x 6 cyclesResponding patients could continue to receive treatment beyond 6 cycles at discretion of patient and investigator
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 114.
1 8 15 22 1
Week 1Cycle 1
Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1Cycle 2
Romidepsin Romidepsin Romidepsin Romidepsin
Romidepsin Response and PFS
in R/R PTCL
Coiffier B et al. JCO 2012;30:631-636
©2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
OR rate 26%CR rate 13%
Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)
At least one TEAE
Nausea
Infection
Fatigue
Vomiting
Thrombocytopenia
Diarrhea
Pyrexia
Neutropenia
Constipation
Anorexia
Anemia
Dysgeusia
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage(%)
Overall
≥ Grade 3
Coiffier B et al. J Clin Oncol 2012
Ro-CHOP Phase III Study
Phase I/II trial Pts ≥18 yrs ≤ 65 yrs
Phase I : Romidepsin 8, 10,
12, 14 mg/sqm; starting
with 12 mg/sqm
Phase II: Romidepsin at
MTD*romidepsin provided free by
Celgene
Ro-CHOEP21 x 3
Response Evaluation
<PR CR or PR
Ro-CHOEP21 x 3
PR CR PD or SD
ALLO - SCT AUTO - SCT Other treatments (investigators’ choice)
Other treatments
(investigators’
choice)
For PR
start donor search
DHAP – Stem Cell Harvest
Follow-up
Response Evaluation
Clinical Activity of IPI-145 in Patients With B-Cell
and T-Cell Lymphomas
*15 iNHL patients treated at ≤ 25 mg twice daily.
• Responses occurred early with 20 of 21 responses by first assessment
(~ 2 mos)
Population
Patients, n Best Observed Response, n (%) Median Time to Response, Mos
(Range)Treated/Evaluable
ORR CR PR SD PD
iNHL 26/19* 13 (68) 3 (16) 10 (53) 4 (21) 2 (11) 1.8 (1.7-4.1)
MCL 9/6 4 (67) 1 (17) 3 (50) 1 (17) 1 (17) 1.8 (1.6-1.9)
T-cell 17/9 3 (33) 1 (11) 2 (22) 2 (22) 4 (44) 1.9 (1.7-2.7)
HL 3/3 1 (33) 1 (33) 0 1 (33) 1 (33) 1.7
aNHL 13/10 0 0 0 4 (40) 6 (60) N/A
Horwitz S, et al. ASCO 2013. Abstract 8518.
Potent oral inhibitor of PI3K-δ and PI3K-γ isoforms
Targeting ALK tyrosine kinase: crizotinib
• Crizotinib (PF-02341066) is an
ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor that
has demonstrated activity in lung
cancers1,2
• In two case studies of patients
with relapsed ALCL, both patients
showed complete regression at 1
month; this persisted to 6 months
in one patient2
• Pilot study3 on 11 pts with RR
ALCL ALK+
• ORR in 10 of 11 (90.9%; 95% CI
58.7% to 99.8%)
• CR in 9 cases, 4 ongoing
• Safe toxicity profile
Images obtained before and after crizotinib
therapy in a patient with ALK-positive ALCL2
1. Kwak EL, et al. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1693–703.
2. Gambacorti-Passerini C, et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:775–6.
3. Gambacorti-Passerini C, et al. INCI 2014
Images obtained before and after
crizotinib therapy in a patient with ALK-
positive ALCL2
Presentation at the 57th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition on December 6, 2015.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
AAK, Aurora A kinase; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; ORR overall response rate; PTCL, peripheral T-cell lymphoma; R/R, relapsed/refractory
1. Vose JM, et al. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4124–30
2. Gallop-Evans E. Future Oncol 2015;11:2515–24
3. Niu H, et al. Front Oncol 2015;5:189
4. Nikonova AS, et al. Cell Mol Life Sci 2013;70:661–87
5. Zullo KM, et al. CCR 2015; 21 (18); 4097–4109
6. Friedberg JW, et al. J Clin Oncol 2014 ;32:44–50
7. Barr PM, et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2399–404
Alisertib:
Preclinical
findings:
Phase 2 data:
Investigational, oral, selective inhibitor of Aurora A kinase, a
key mitotic regulator overexpressed or amplified in various
cancers2–4
Antitumor activity of alisertib as a single agent and
synergistic partner in combination therapies5
Support antitumor activity and favorable tolerability for
single-agent alisertib in R/R NHL and PTCL6,7
– ORR of 27% in R/R NHL and 30% in R/R PTCL subtypes
Presentation at the 57th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition on December 6, 2015.
LUMIERE STUDY DESIGN
*Stratified by:
• Nodal vs extranodal disease
• IPI score (0/1/2 vs 3/4/5)
• Region (North America + EU vs Rest of World)†Crossover to alisertib after comparator arm was not permitted.
BID, twice daily; CR, complete response; DOR, duration of response; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; ECT, enteric-coated
tablet; IPI, International Prognostic Index; IRC, independent review committee; IV, intravenous; IWG, International Working Group; OS, overall survival; PFS,
progression-free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; WHO, World Health Organisation
Arm A: Alisertib
• 50 mg BID ECT
• Days 1–7; 21-day cycles
Gemcitabine (currently not approved for
use in hematologic malignancy)
• 1000 mg/m2 via IV over 30 minutes
• Days 1, 8, and 15; 28-day cycles
Romidepsin• 14 mg/m2 via IV infusion over 4 hours
• Days 1, 8, and 15; 28-day cycles
Arm B: Single-agent comparator
(investigator choice) †
Primary:
• ORR (CR+PR)
• PFS (IRC)
Secondary:
• OS (key)
• CR rate
• DOR
• Safety
Treatment
until disease
progression
or unacceptable
toxicity
(Patients
achieving ≥SD
could continue
treatment for
up to 2 years)
Eligibility
• Age ≥18 years
• R/R PTCL (WHO criteria)
after ≥1 prior conventional
systemic cytotoxic therapy
• Measurable disease
(2007 IWG criteria)
• Tumor biopsy for central
review
• ECOG PS 0–2
• No prior treatment with
study drugs
Pralatrexate• 30 mg/m2 via IV push (3–5 minutes)
• Once weekly for 6 weeks; 7-week cycles
• Vitamin B12 + folic acid supplements
Ra
nd
om
iza
tio
n 1
:1*
Presentation at the 57th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition on December 6, 2015.
BEST OVERALL RESPONSE RATE*
*Response-evaluable population, excluding tMF
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PD, progressive disease; tMF, transformed mycosis fungoides
35%
46%
19%
28%
17% 18%
30%
20%
Response, n (%)
Comparator
Alisertib (n=96) All (n=85) Pralatrexate (n=45) Gemcitabine (n=22) Romidepsin (n=18)
ORR (CR + PR) 34 (35) 39 (46) 20 (44) 8 (36) 11 (61)
CR 18 (19) 24 (28) 13 (29) 5 (23) 6 (33)
PR 16 (17) 15 (18) 7 (16) 3 (14) 5 (28)
SD 29 (30) 17 (20) 11 (24) 3 (14) 3 (17)
PD 33 (34) 29 (34) 14 (31) 11 (50) 4 (22)
ORR (Alisertib vs Comparator): 35% vs 46%
Odds Ratio 0.65 (95% CI: 0.36, 1.18) p=0.077
ORR CR PR SD ORR CR PR SD
Alisertib Comparator
Presentation at the 57th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition on December 6, 2015.
PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL BY IRC (ITT)
Alisertib vs Comparator:
Median PFS 115 vs 104 days
HR 0.87 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.16)
p=0.177
Su
rviv
al p
rob
ab
ility
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 960
Survival time (days)
133
138
65
84
35
46
26
33
20
23
10
15
9
12
4
6
4
5
3
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
Censored
PFS is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of first documentation of PD or death due to any cause,
whichever occurs first.
Lenalidomide in T-Cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
• Phase II multicenter study for relapsed/refractory T-cell
lymphomas
– 39 eligible patients (14 PTCL-NOS, 9 AITL, 10 ALCL)
– Schedule: lenalidomide 25 mg on Days 1-21 every 28 days
• ORR: 26% (10/39); 3 CRs
– Responses in PTCL, AITL, and ALCL patients
• Median PFS: 4 mos (1 to 50+)
• Median OS: 12 mos ( 1 to 69+)
• Most common grade 3/4 AEs: thrombocytopenia (21%), pain
NOS (21%) and neutropenia (13%)
Toumishey E, et al. Cancer 2014.
PhI/II Combination with romidepsin: ORR 53% (10/19; CR 2, PR 8),Abs #16 @ICML N. Mehta-Shah et al. From MSKCC
The PD-1 immune checkpoint pathway may be co-opted by
tumors to evade immune attack.
Nivolumab is a fully human anti-PD1 IgG4 mAb which can
restore anti-tumor immune activity.
Nivolumab displays clinical activity across a number of solid
tumors; PD-L1 expression enriches for responders.
Background
MHC
PD-L1
PD-1PD-L2
T cell
Tumor cellNivolumab
T-cellreceptor
Topalian, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014, McDermott, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015
+
Wilcox et al, Blood 2009
Pre-clinical rationale for PD-1/PD-L1 blockade
PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (15%) or infiltrating macrophages (41%)
T cell lymphomas
Tumor Type#
ptsORR CR PR SD
Hodgkin Lymphoma 23 20 (87) 6 (26) 14 (61) 3 (13)
B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 31 8 (26) 3 (10) 5 (16) 16 (52)
Diffuse Large B-Cell 11 4 (36) 2 (18) 2 (18) 3 (27)
Follicular 10 4 (40) 1 (10) 3 (30) 6 (60)
Mantle Cell 4 0 0 0 3 (75)
Primary Mediastinal B-Cell 2 0 0 0 2 (100)
Other B-NHL (SLL n=3, MZL n=1) 4 0 0 0 2 (50)
T-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma 23 4 (17) 0 4 (17) 10 (43)
CTCL/MF 13 2 (15) 0 2 (15) 9 (69)
Peripheral T-Cell 5 2 (40) 0 2 (40) 0
Other T-NHL 5 0 0 0 1 (20)
Multiple Myeloma 27 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 17 (63)
Best Response
Integrated management algorithm (according to, e.g. risk factors, stage and histological subtype) in the (A) front-line and (B) relapsed/refractory setting.
F. d'Amore et al. Ann Oncol 2015;26:v108-v115
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Peripheral T- cell Lymphoma
Conclusions
• PTCL is one of the most difficult lymphoma to diagnose and to treat
• Current approach is not based on evidences at all
• The "One therapy fits all" approach doesn't work in PCTL
• There are already data suggesting that a "personalized" approach in PTCL might work
• We need to enroll pts in clinical trials to learnmore about new drugs and therapies