Search

Abstract: Copanlisib, a pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor with predominant activity against the α and δ isoforms, previously demonstrated durable responses as monotherapy and improved progression-free survival (PFS) in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). CHRONOS-4 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to investigate the efficacy and safety of copanlisib in combination with standard immunochemotherapy in patients with relapsed iNHL. Patients (n = 524) were randomized (1:1) to copanlisib (60 mg IV) plus immunochemotherapy (rituximab and bendamustine [R-B] or placebo plus R-B). Copanlisib/placebo were administered with R-B (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) for ≤6 cycles and as monotherapy from cycle 7 up to 12 months. The primary study end point was PFS. Median exposure was 8.5 months (0.2-12.9) for copanlisib plus R-B and 11.4 months (0.1-12.6) for placebo plus R-B. Median PFS was 32.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-38.6) for copanlisib plus R-B and 33.3 months (95% CI, 27.8-42.8) for placebo plus R-B (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.44; P = .83). No differences between treatment arms were observed in overall survival (data not yet mature), objective response rate, and duration of response for the overall population or individual histology types. Overall, copanlisib plus R-B was associated with higher rates of serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), grade 4 and 5 TEAEs, and treatment discontinuation. A number of serious TEAEs were infections. Overall, copanlisib plus R-B did not provide clinical benefit vs placebo plus R-B and was associated with worse tolerability in patients with relapsed iNHL. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02626455., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Despite continuous improvements in the management and treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), approximately 35% of affected patients experience relapse or are refractory to frontline chemotherapy. For these patients, outcomes are far from satisfactory, and a real unmet need exists both to improve frontline treatment and to create better options for relapsed/refractory disease. Polatuzumab vedotin is an anti-CD79b antibody conjugated to the monomethyl auristatin E microtubule inhibitor. The molecule has recently been under the spotlight for the promising results of the frontline combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone in the phase III POLARIX study, demonstrating improved progression-free survival over standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone. Remarkable improvements in terms of complete response rate and overall survival have also been achieved with polatuzumab vedotin by combining the antibody with the standard rituximab and bendamustine regimen for relapsed/refractory patients. Based on the results of these studies, health authorities in several countries granted approval for polatuzumab vedotin to be used as treatment both for patients with previously untreated DLBCL and for those with relapsed/refractory DLBCL. In this review, we summarize the data of major studies recently concluded with polatuzumab vedotin, and we provide an overview of the ongoing combination trials for frontline and relapsed/refractory DLBCL, outlining reported toxicities.

Although methotrexate (MTX) is the most widely used therapy for central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the optimal regimen remains unclear. We examined the efficacy of different prophylactic regimens in 585 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and high-risk for CNS relapse, treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or R-CHOP-like regimens from 2001 to 2017, of whom 295 (50%) received prophylaxis. Intrathecal (IT) MTX was given to 253 (86%) and high-dose MTX (HD-MTX) to 42 (14%). After a median follow-up of 6.8 years, 36 of 585 patients relapsed in the CNS, of whom 14 had received prophylaxis. The CNS relapse risk at 1 year was lower for patients who received prophylaxis than patients who did not: 2% vs. 7.1%. However, the difference became less significant over time (5-year risk 5.6% vs. 7.5%), indicating prophylaxis tended to delay CNS relapse rather than prevent it. Furthermore, the CNS relapse risk was similar in patients who received IT and HD-MTX (5-year risk 5.6% vs. 5.2%). Collectively, our data indicate the benefit of MTX for CNS prophylaxis is transient, highlighting the need for more effective prophylactic regimens. In addition, our results failed to demonstrate a clinical advantage for the HD-MTX regimen.

BEAM (carmustine [bis-chloroethylnitrosourea (BCNU)]-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan) chemotherapy is the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in lymphomas. Owing to BCNU shortages, many centers switched to fotemustine-substituted BEAM (FEAM), lacking proof of equivalence. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 18 Italian centers to compare the safety and efficacy of BEAM and FEAM regimens for ASCT in lymphomas performed from 2008 to 2015. We enrolled 1038 patients (BEAM = 607, FEAM = 431), of which 27% had Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), 14% indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and 59% aggressive NHL. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, stage, B-symptoms, extranodal involvement, previous treatments, response before ASCT, and overall conditioning intensity were well balanced between BEAM and FEAM; notable exceptions were median ASCT year (BEAM = 2011 versus FEAM = 2013, P < .001), Sorror score ≥3 (BEAM = 15% versus FEAM = 10%, P = .017), and radiotherapy use (BEAM = 18% versus FEAM = 10%, P < .001). FEAM conditioning resulted in higher rates of gastrointestinal and infectious toxicities, including severe oral mucositis grade ≥3 (BEAM = 31% versus FEAM = 44%, P < .001), and sepsis from Gram-negative bacteria (mean isolates/patient: BEAM = .1 versus FEAM = .19, P < .001). Response status at day 100 post-ASCT (overall response: BEAM = 91% versus FEAM = 88%, P = .42), 2-year overall survival (83.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5% to 86.1%) and progression-free survival (70.3%; 95% CI, 67.4% to 73.1%) were not different in the two groups. Mortality from infection was higher in the FEAM group (subhazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.88; P = .04). BEAM and FEAM do not appear different in terms of survival and disease control. However, due to concerns of higher toxicity, fotemustine substitution in BEAM does not seem justified, if not for easier supply., (Copyright © 2018 The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the past decade we have seen significant changes in the biological characterization and strategies for treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). MCL is heterogeneous a disease, and so are the people that have it; although guidelines are appropriate, therapeutic approaches must be individualized based on a variety of factors. In this review, we summarize data on the range of therapeutic options, from observation in patients with slowly progressive low-tumor-burden MCL, to bendamustine-based regimens in typical MCL, to high-dose cytarabine-based regimens in young, fit patients. The management of previously treated MCL is evolving with the availability of new agents and more changes are expected. Several recent and ongoing clinical trials have the potential to provide new options for patients and are discussed as future directions. Additionally, prognostic tools, measurement of minimal residual disease, and assessment of toxicity are already common research tools and may soon impact therapeutic strategies as a standard of care. Indeed, there has never been a time that management of MCL was as complicated while the promise for real improvements in outcomes is so great., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the advent of new treatment strategies, many patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) relapse or die of the disease. Prospective clinical trials have demonstrated that lenalidomide is an effective and safe treatment option, especially for non-germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) DLBCL. However, routine clinical data are lacking, which is why we provide the results of the so-far largest relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL real-life analysis., Methods: We retrospectively assessed 123 R/R DLBCL patients who received either 15 or 25 mg/day of lenalidomide from January 2006 to January 2015., Results: During a median follow-up period of 4.5 years, complete remission was achieved in 32% and a partial remission in 33% non-GCB patients compared with 0% and 3% in the GCB group (p < .001 and .001, respectively), with median response durations of 15 and 5 months, respectively (p < .001). Lenalidomide at 25 mg was superior to 15 mg in terms of response (complete remission 21% and partial remission 23% vs. 0% and 8%; p = .007 and .05) and median response duration (10 vs. 4 months; p = .03). Toxicity was limited and reversible. Median progression-free survival differed between non-GCB and GCB patients (37 vs. 30 months; p < .001) and between the two dosages (24 vs. 34 months; p = .002). However, overall survival was similar between the subgroups (38-42 months)., Conclusion: We provide evidence that lenalidomide is a valid treatment option for R/R DLBCL, with limited and reversible toxicity, and is more efficient in non-GCB DLBCL and at higher doses., Implications for Practice: Despite the advent of new treatment strategies, many patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) relapse or die of the disease; hence, novel therapeutic approaches are urgently needed. This study confirms that lenalidomide is a valid and well-tolerated treatment option for relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Superior outcomes were observed in non-germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL, probably because of inhibition of the nuclear factor-κB pathway. Similarly, high drug doses resulted in greater clinical benefits. Overall, lenalidomide is a suitable therapeutic option for R/R DLBCL, especially in non-GCB DLBCL, and 25 mg/day dosing should be preferred., Competing Interests: of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (©AlphaMed Press.)

The optimal first-line treatment for advanced low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphomas (LG-NHL) is still highly debated. Recently, the StiL and the BRIGHT trials showed that the combination of rituximab and bendamustine (R-B) is non-inferior to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) with a better toxicity profile. Utilizing a retrospective analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. From November 1995 to January 2014, 263 LG-NHL patients treated with either R-B or R-CHOP were retrospectively assessed in seven European cancer centers. Ninety patients were treated with R-B and 173 with R-CHOP. Overall response rate was 94 and 92 % for the R-B and the R-CHOP group, respectively. The percentage of complete response was similar for both groups (63 vs. 66 % with R-B and R-CHOP, respectively; p = 0.8). R-B was better tolerated and less toxic than R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 6.8 and 5.9 years for the R-CHOP and the R-B group, respectively. Overall, no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) (108 vs. 110 months; p = 0.1) was observed in the R-B group compared to the R-CHOP cohort. Nevertheless, R-B significantly prolonged PFS in FL patients (152 and 132 months in the R-B and R-CHOP group, respectively; p = 0.05). However, this result was not verified in multivariate analysis probably due to the limits of the present study. We confirm that the R-B regimen administered in patients with LG-NHL is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option than R-CHOP in clinical practice.

Aggressive double- and triple-hit (DH/TH) diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) feature activation of Hsp90 stress pathways. Herein, we show that Hsp90 controls posttranscriptional dynamics of key messenger RNA (mRNA) species including those encoding BCL6, MYC, and BCL2. Using a proteomics approach, we found that Hsp90 binds to and maintains activity of eIF4E. eIF4E drives nuclear export and translation of BCL6, MYC, and BCL2 mRNA. eIF4E RNA-immunoprecipitation sequencing in DLBCL suggests that nuclear eIF4E controls an extended program that includes B-cell receptor signaling, cellular metabolism, and epigenetic regulation. Accordingly, eIF4E was required for survival of DLBCL including the most aggressive subtypes, DH/TH lymphomas. Indeed, eIF4E inhibition induces tumor regression in cell line and patient-derived tumorgrafts of TH-DLBCL, even in the presence of elevated Hsp90 activity. Targeting Hsp90 is typically limited by counterregulatory elevation of Hsp70B, which induces resistance to Hsp90 inhibitors. Surprisingly, we identify Hsp70 mRNA as an eIF4E target. In this way, eIF4E inhibition can overcome drug resistance to Hsp90 inhibitors. Accordingly, rational combinatorial inhibition of eIF4E and Hsp90 inhibitors resulted in cooperative antilymphoma activity in DH/TH DLBCL in vitro and in vivo., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

According to the European Society for Medical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on Waldenström macroglobulinemia, bendamustine (B) may be considered a suitable therapeutic option. To address the role of B in combination with rituximab (BR), we analyzed the outcome of 71 patients with relapsed/refractory disease, median age 72 years, treated with R 375 mg/m(2) day 1 and B days 1 and 2 (dosage ranging from 50 to 90 mg/m(2)). Patients had previously received a median number of 2 lines of treatment (range 1-5). Overall and major response rates were 80.2% and 74.6%. Major toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenia occurring in 13% of courses. There was no significant association between baseline features or patients' characteristics and response achievement. Median progression-free survival was not reached after a median follow-up of 19 months (range 3-54). None of the patients developed aggressive lymphoma or secondary myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia. BR was found to be an active and well-tolerated salvage regimen leading to rapid disease control.