ALBERT

Description: Cells in tissues communicate by secreted growth factors (GF) and other signals. An important function of cell circuits is tissue homeostasis: maintaining proper balance between the amounts of different cell types. Homeostasis requires negative feedback on the GFs, to avoid a runaway situation in which cells stimulate each other and...

Description: Introduction: Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterized by expansion of the granulocytic, erythrocytic, and megakaryocytic lineages in the bone marrow and peripheral blood, and in most cases, by the presence of a JAK2 mutation. Survival of patients with PV is decreased compared with age-matched controls, and this is mainly due to thromboembolic complications followed by progression to post-PV myelofibrosis and acute leukemia. While no curative treatment exists, cytoreductive treatment with hydroxyurea (HU) or ropeginterferon is approved in EU for first-line therapy, and ruxolitinib (RUX) is approved in EU and US for second-line therapy in patients with HU intolerance or resistance. The current futility analysis assesses the efficacy of ruxolitinib in newly-diagnosed PV treated within the Ruxo-BEAT trial. Methods: This clinical trial entitled "Ruxolitinib versus Best Available Therapy in patients with high-risk Polycythemia Vera or high-risk Essential Thrombocythemia" (Ruxo-BEAT; NCT02577926) is a multicenter, open-label, two-arm phase-IIb trial with a target population of 380 pts with PV and ET. Patients in first-line PV and in first and later lines ET are randomized in a 1:1 manner to receive either RUX or best available therapy (BAT). Crossover from BAT to RUX is possible in eligible patients after 6 months. Patients with PV in the RUX arm receive a starting dose of 10 mg bid and may increase their dose up to 20 mg bid. Primary endpoint is the rate of complete clinicohematologic response rate (CHR) at month 6 as defined by Barosi et al Blood 2009. Secondary endpoints include differences in the absence of phlebotomies, spleen size, patient-reported outcomes, and survival. This is a pre-specified futility analysis of RUX in the PV arm, after 50 PV patients had been enrolled. Of the 50 patients, 28 patients with newly-diagnosed PV were randomized into the RUX arm and were analyzed (a maximum of 6 weeks of HU, anagrelide, or interferon therapy was allowed). The PV arm would have to be closed if no favorable trend were observed for RUX for any of the following variables: (1) improvement (decrease) in the hematocrit level during 6 months of treatment, (2) improvement (decrease) of the JAK2V617F allele burden during 6 months of treatment, or (3) improvement of one of the following three symptom variables assessed by physician´s judgement or via MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) during 6 months of treatment: pruritus, night sweats, or bone pain. Differences between screening (Hct) or baseline (all other variables) and end of month 6 (all variables) were calculated using Fisher´s exact test (for physician-assessed pruritus and night sweats) or the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (all other variables). Results: 28 patients received RUX for at least 6 months. After 6 months, the mean hematocrit level decreased from 45.9+/-5.6% to 41.0+/-5.0% (mean+/-SD) (p=0.0003). The number of phlebotomies calculated per year decreased from 4.2+/-3.9% to 0.96+/-2.1 (p=0.0009). Mean JAK2V617F allele burden decreased from 50.2+/28.4% to 44.0+/-28.5% (p=0.0039). The percentage of patients, as assessed by the physician, with pruritus or night sweats decreased from 41% to 26% (trending with p=0.13), and from 30% to 11% (p=0.02), respectively. The points reported by patients themselves on the MPN-SAF survey for pruritus decreased from 2.7+/-3.0 to 1.3+/-1.5 (p=0.0095) and there was a strong trend for reduction of night sweat points (from 3.1+/-3.6 to 1.6+/-2.4; p=0.0579), while the points for bone pain remained unaltered (2.0+/-2.8 to 1.4+/-2.2; p=0.215). Conclusion: Treatment with ruxolitinib in first line PV is efficient regarding the above-mentioned endpoints. Recruitment of our trial will be ongoing. In order not to weaken the study´s statistical power, comparison of both arms was not performed. Disclosures Koschmieder: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Foundation: Research Funding; CTI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Isfort:Mundipharma: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hexal: Other: Travel reimbursement; BMS: Honoraria; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Roche: Other: Travel reimbursement; Alexion: Other: Travel reimbursement. Schafhausen:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Griesshammer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Platzbecker:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Jost:Abbvie: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: Royalty payments for the drug compound ABT-199, Research Funding; Bohringer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: Travel Support; Novartis: Research Funding. von Bubnoff:Novartis: Research Funding. Stegelmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt:Amgem: Other: travel grant; celgene: Other: travel grant; Pfizer: Other: travel grant; Gilead: Other: travel grant; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gezer:AMGEM: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brümmendorf:Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen: Employment; Janssen: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ruxolitinib as first-line treatment in newly-diagnosed PV

Description: Key Points Occurrence of t-AML/MDS after Hodgkin lymphoma is a rare event correlating with the intensity of first-line chemotherapy. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation appears to improve the generally poor prognosis of patients with t-AML/MDS after Hodgkin lymphoma.

Description: Introduction: Due to substantial clinical progress over the past decades, the outcome of patients with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (HL) has improved with a long-term disease free survival of nearly 80%. Even patients with advanced-stage HL show a five year freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) of 87% and overall survival (OS) of 91% when treated with 8 cycles of BEACOPPescalated (bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbacine, prednisone). However, BEACOPPescalated has been associated with some acute and long-term treatment related mortality (TRM). We thus analysed the incidence, clinical features and risk factors for TRM of patients treated with BEACOPPescalated in the HD12 multicenter trial of the GHSG performed between 1998 and 2002. The HD12 was conducted for advanced HL patients (Stage IIB with large mediastinal mass and/or extranodal involvement, stage III/IV). All patients received 8 cycles of chemotherapy either 8x BEACOPPescalated (Arm A/B) or 4xBEACOPPescalated + 4xBEACOPPbaseline (Arm C/D) +/− 30Gy radiation on bulk and residual tumor. Results: In this study, 43 patients (3.1%) from a total of 1392 included died from TRM. 5 patients were excluded from this analysis because of various reasons (change of fist-line therapy due to toxicity, TRM in BEACOPPbaseline) 38 patients were eligible for this analysis. 30 patients (79%) had infectious complications, 6 (16%) cardiac events such as arrhythmia or heart failure, 1 patient died due to bleomycin-related toxicity and 1 case remained unclear. 25 patients (66%) were older than 50 years in contrast to the whole HD12 study population with only 17% of patients being older than 50. There was no statistical difference between those cases with treatment related mortality and the whole study population in terms of other clinical risk factors such as gender, B-symptoms, extranodal involvement, stage of disease, large mediastinal mass or elevated ESR. There was also no difference between the 4 study arms. Most events occurred during the first 4 courses of BEACOPPescalated (79%) with the majority during the first cycle (n = 12; 32%). 23/26 (89%) of patients who died during cycles 2 – 8 had prior WHO grade III/IV leucopenia or infection. Conclusion: Patient age and toxicity in previous cycles are the most obvious risk factors for TRM in patients with advanced HL undergoing BEACOPPescalated chemotherapy. In the HD12 study, the use of G-CSF was mandatory and most patients received their treatment on an outpatient basis. Thus, possible measures to reduce toxicity with this treatment include the prophylactic use of antibiotics as well as treating those with risk factors at least for the first course as inpatients.

Description: Introduction: Despite the improvements and knowledge brought by clinical trials to cancer treatment, it remained unclear how beneficial participation in a clinical trial with Therapy Optimisation Protocol (TOP) is for patients (pts) with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) in relation to pts treated outside of trials. In the TOPiCS project, trial participants (TOP) were compared with non-trial pts (non-TOP). Methods: In the population-based survey NLL, which aimed to register all incident HL-cases 356 pts were recorded in six counties of northern Germany with a first diagnosis of HL in 1988–1998. Data on staging, therapy, adverse events and survival were collected. The dataset was additionally screened for patients fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical trials of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG). A total of 328 pts were documented of whom 198 pts (60%) met the inclusion criteria of the GHSG. Of these, 125 pts (63%) have not been recruited into GHSG trials (non-TOP pts). They were compared retrospectively with 4963 TOP pts randomised nation-wide between 1988–1998 in the GHSG trials HD4-HD9. Endpoints were Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) which considered progression, relapse and death of any cause as events. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Cox regression analysis was used for multivariable modelling of risk of death or progression and included 118 non-TOP pts and 4958 TOP pts. Results: The demographic parameters were not well balanced between the two groups: TOP pts were younger, had more often advanced stage and diagnosis in the later study generation than the non-TOP pts. The median observation time for OS was 7 yrs for the TOP group and 10 yrs for the non-TOP group. The 5-yrs OS for TOP pts is 89% (95%–CI [88–90]) and for non-TOP 89% (95%-CI [82–94])(p=0.63). The 5-year PFS for TOP pts is 79% (95%–CI [78–80]) and for non-TOP pts 68% (95%–CI [59–76])(p

Description: Background: In patients with early unfavorable stage HL, generally defined as stage I and II patients with mediastinal bulk, elevated ESR, 3 3 involved nodal regions, older age or extranodal involvement, progression-free-survival (PFS) is low compared to patients with early favorable or advanced stages disease. This indicates suboptimal treatment strategies and clinical heterogeneity within the group of patients with early unfavorable stage HL. An international collaborative study was initiated to identify factors that may predict for poor prognosis in this patient group. Methods: Medline and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (n〉100 patients per study arm) in early stage HL patients with one or more risk factors receiving 4–6 cycles of ABVD or similar chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Individual patient data were collected and risk factors for PFS (including disease progression, relapse or death) identified using multivariate analysis (linear stepwise proportional hazards) stratified by study. Results: Six studies were identified; data from 4,490 adult patients enrolled between 08/1982 and 01/2003 were available for analysis. The median follow up was 64 months; 663 patients experienced an event leading to an overall 5-year PFS rate of 85% (95% CI 83%–88%). Six factors were significantly (P

Description: Introduction Secondary malignant neoplasms (SMN) are a major late effect of treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Single trials have inadequate power to detect differences in SMN rates, while the many large-scale cohort-based studies of SMN after HL suffer from non-randomised, potentially biased comparisons of treatment strategies. The consequences of choice of first-line treatment for SMN risk remain unclear. We performed a Cochrane systematic review addressing this question based on our previous such review in 2000-2004. Material and methods Individual patient data (IPD) were collected from randomised controlled trials testing 5 currently relevant experimental strategies: avoidance of additional radiotherapy (RT) after chemotherapy (CT); reduction of RT field; reduction of RT dose; use of fewer CT cycles; intensification of CT regimen. All trials employed modern ABVD-like regimens and limited radiation fields, and recruited at least 50 patients per treatment group. Incidence of SMN, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analysed. Due to small numbers of events, SMN was analysed using Peto’s method. Results and Discussion Data from 16 of the 21 eligible trials were obtained, including 9498 patients. These trials recruited between 1984 and 2007 and randomised between 100 and 1351 patients each. Standard chemotherapy was predominantly ABVD, followed by COPP/ABVD and MOPP/ABV. Most frequent intensified chemotherapies were escalated BEACOPP and Stanford V. For each study question, key information and resulting odds ratios are shown in the table. Avoidance of additional RT significantly reduced the SMN risk (Peto odds ratio 0.433, 95% confidence interval (0.28; 0.82), p=0.010). Intensified chemotherapy regimens were associated with a consistent slightly higher risk but the effect was not significant. Other study questions showed no marked effects on SMN risk. Regarding solid tumors, follow-up is still too short: an update after 5 to 10 years is necessary. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.