Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in ALL. Hagop Kantarjian M.D. May 2016 Bologna, Italy

Similar documents
Acute Leukemia From Precision Medicine to ImmunoRx

Targeting CD20 and CD22 in B-cell ALL Daniel J. DeAngelo, MD, PhD

Immunotherapies in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia. Professor David Ritchie Royal Melbourne Hospital

Update in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Richard M, Stone, M.D.

The use of novel monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Blinatumomab or Inotuzumab Which to use? Max S.Topp M.D. Universitätsklinikum Würzburg Germany

Inotuzumab ozogamicin for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 2 Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, South San Francisco

Best of ASH: Acute leukemia. Frédéric Baron

Current Strategies for Relapsed/Refractory ALL in AYAs and Adults: Where We Are Now

Management of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Risk-adapted therapy of AML in younger adults. Sergio Amadori Tor Vergata University Hospital Rome

Acute Myeloid Leukemia: State of the Art in 2018

Meet-the-Expert: AML Treating older patients with AML

Hunger SP, Mullighan CG. N Engl J Med 2015;373:

Novel and Targeted Rxs in Acute Leukemia Hagop Kantarjian October 2016

Bendamustine, Bortezomib and Rituximab in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Indolent and Mantle-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Who should get what for upfront therapy for MCL? Kami Maddocks, MD The James Cancer Hospital The Ohio State University

TREATMENT UPDATES IN ACUTE LEUKEMIA. Shannon McCurdy, MD University of Pennsylvania

ANCO 2015: Treatment advances in acute leukemia

Can ALL be managed without chemotherapy/transplant? (Position: NO) D.Hoelzer J.W.Goethe University Frankfurt

BESPONSA (inotuzumab ozogamicin)

Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 2 Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, South San Francisco

Acute Myeloid and Lymphoid Leukemias

Summary of Key AML Abstracts Presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) June 22-25, 2017 Madrid, Spain

Disclosures for Palumbo Antonio, MD

Addition of Rituximab to Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with CLL: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

Bendamustine is Effective Therapy in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory, Indolent B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Summary. Table 1 Blinatumomab administration, as per European marketing authorisation

FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA: US vs. Europe: different approach on first relapse setting?

The case for maintenance rituximab in FL

Dr Shankara Paneesha. ASH Highlights Department of Haematology & Stem cell Transplantation

Adult ALL: NILG experience

Idelalisib in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Role of consolidation therapy in Multiple Myeloma. Pieter Sonneveld. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam The Netherlands

Bendamustine for Hodgkin lymphoma. Alison Moskowitz, MD Assistant Attending Memorial Sloan Kettering, Lymphoma Service

Advances in ALL ( )

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus Standard Therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Acute Myeloid Leukemia

2 Workshop Nazionale SIES Ematologia Traslazionale Nuovi Farmaci e Strategie Terapeutiche nelle LMA

Background CPX-351. Lancet J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl): Abstract 7035.

Personalized Therapy in Adult Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia: Path to the Cure. Elias Jabbour M.D

Molecularly Targeted Therapies - Strategies of the AMLSG

ACUTE LEUKEMIA. Zwi N. Berneman University of Antwerp & Antwerp University Hospital. 16th Post-ASH Meeting Zaventem, 10 January 2014

Clinical Overview: MRD in CLL. Dr. Matthias Ritgen UKSH, Medizinische Klinik II, Campus Kiel

Abstract 861. Stein AS, Topp MS, Kantarjian H, Gökbuget N, Bargou R, Litzow M, Rambaldi A, Ribera J-M, Zhang A, Zimmerman Z, Forman SJ

What are the hurdles to using cell of origin in classification to treat DLBCL?

The case against maintenance rituximab in Follicular lymphoma. Jonathan W. Friedberg M.D., M.M.Sc.

Chemotherapy-based approaches are the optimal second-line therapy prior to stem cell transplant in relapsed HL

CARs vs. BiTE in ALL. David L Porter, MD Jodi Fisher Horowitz Professor University of Pennsylvania Health System Abramson Cancer Center

Oncology Highlights: Leukemia & Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Frontline Induc.on Therapy in 2017 Alan K Burne+

Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Update in Diego Villa, MD MPH FRCPC Medical Oncologist BC Cancer Agency

POST ICML Indolent lymphomas relapse treatment

BENDAMUSTINE + RITUXIMAB IN CLL

MRD Negativity as an Outcome in CLL: Ongoing Challenges with Del 17p Patients

New concepts in the management of elderly patients with AML

GLSG/OSHO Study Group. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe

Mantle Cell Lymphoma. A schizophrenic disease

Mantle cell lymphoma An update on management

Kevin Kelly, MD, Phd Acute Myeloid and Lymphoid Leukemias

Leukemia. Andre C. Schuh. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Toronto

15 th Annual Miami Cancer Meeting

New Evidence reports on presentations given at EHA/ICML Bendamustine in the Treatment of Lymphoproliferative Disorders

Objectives. I do not have anything to disclose.

Disclosure. Study was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics No financial relationships to disclose Other disclosures:

Standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not eligible for a transplant

Efficacy of Bendamustine and rituximab in a real-world patient population

What is the best second-line approach to induce remission prior to stem cell transplant? Single agent brentuximab vedotin

Dr. A. Van Hoof Hematology A.Z. St.Jan, Brugge. ASH 2012 Atlanta

Mantle Cell Lymphoma New scenario and concepts in front-line treatment for young pa:ents

Philadelphia-positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Updates in Multiple Myeloma: 12 months in 10 minutes

R/R DLBCL Treatment Landscape

Georg Hopfinger 3. Med.Abt and LBI for Leukemiaresearch and Haematology Hanusch Krankenhaus,Vienna, Austria

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Ryan Mattison, MD University of Wisconsin March 2, 2010

AML in elderly. D.Selleslag AZ Sint-Jan Brugge, Belgium 14 December 2013

RADIOIMMUNOTHERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF NON- HODGKIN S LYMPHOMA

CAR-T cell therapy pros and cons

Highlights from EHA Mieloma Multiplo

AML:Transplant or ChemoTherapy?

Multiple Myeloma Updates 2007

The Evolving Treatment Landscape in AML

LAL Ph+ dell adulto. Sabina Chiare+, MD, PhD Divisione di Ematologia Sapienza Università di Roma

Hematologic Malignancies: Top Ten Advances Impacting Clinical Practice

Open questions in the treatment of Follicular Lymphoma. Prof. Michele Ghielmini Head Medical Oncology Dept Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland

ANCO Hematological Malignancies Update: The year in review. Midostaurin Vyxeos Gemtuzumab ozogamicin Enasidenib. The year in preview

Antibodies are a standard part of first relapse management in multiple myeloma (MM): Yes

pan-canadian Oncology Drug Review Initial Economic Guidance Report Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (Besponsa) for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia May 3, 2018

Early Chemotherapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Contemporary and Future Approaches in CML. Emory Meeting; Sea Island August 2014 Hagop Kantarjian, M.D.

New Targets and Treatments for Follicular Lymphoma

Treatment of elderly multiple myeloma patients

Objectives. Emily Whitehead 10/11/2018. Chimeric Antigen Recepetor T-Cells (CAR-T) CAR-T Therapy: The Past, The Present, and The Future

Options in Mantle Cell Lymphoma Therapy

MANTLE CELL LYMPHOMA

Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma: nobody knows what to do...

CAR-T Therapy: The Past, The Present, and The Future. Nilay Shah, MD Michael Chargualaf, PharmD, BCOP WVU Medicine Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center

Leucemia Mieloide Acuta Terapie Innovative. Adriano Venditti Ematologia Universita Tor Vergata, Roma

Transcription:

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in ALL Hagop Kantarjian M.D. May 2016 Bologna, Italy

Immuno Oncology in ALL Monoclonals + cytotoxic agents e.g.inotuzumab Bispecific monoclonals (CD3 + CD19) e.g.blinatumomab Modified expanded Tcells CART cells

Monoclonal Antibodies in ALL Bi-specific MoAb (CD19 & CD3) Jabbour E. Blood 125: 4010; 2015

Monoclonal Antibodies in ALL Rituximab established role in Burkitt and pre B CD20-positive ALL in combination with chemorx Inotuzumab anti-cd22 + calicheamicin Epratuzumab anti-cd22 Blinatumomab CD19 + CD3 Alemtuzumab anti-cd52 SAR3419 anti CD19 + mytansin SNG19A anti-cd19 + auristatin Anti-CD22 + auristatin 4

Inotuzumab ozogamicin Advani et al. JCO 2010

Inotuzumab in ALL: Schedule Monthly: Cycle 1 Cycle 2 up to 8 cycles 1.8mg/m 2 1.8mg/m 2 D1 D8 D15 D22 D29 D8 D15 D22 Weekly: Cycle 1 Cycle 2 up to 8 cycles 0.8mg/m 2 0.8mg/m 2 0.5mg/m 2 0.5mg/m 2 0.5mg/m 2 0.5mg/m 2 D1 D8 D15 D22 D29 D8 D15 D22 Kantarjian, Lancet Oncology 13: 403;2012, Kantarjian, Cancer. 119: 2728-2736; 2013

Inotuzumab in ALL. Response Response No. (%) Monthly, N=49 Weekly, N=40 Overall, N=90 CR 9 (18) 8 (20) 17 (19) CRp 14 (29) 13 (32) 27 (30) CRi (marrow CR) 5 (10) 3 ( 7) 8 (9) Resistant 19 (39) 15 (37) 34 (38) Death < 4 wks 2 (4) 2 (5) 4 (4) OR 28 (57) 24 (59) 52 (58) Median CRD 5-6 mos;median survival 5-7.3 mos Better results in S1-S2 Kantarjian, Cancer. 119: 2728-2736; 2013

O Brien, Blood 120: abst 671;2012 Inotuzumab in ALL. Efficacy Comparison % Resp. to MDACC Data Base for CR/CRp Overall N=89 % ORR Inotuzumab Monthly N=49 Weekly N=40 Chemo n=292 P Overall 47 47 48 29 <0.001 S1 61 69 53 40 0.03 S2 44 38 60 16 <0.001 S3 37 42 33 16 0.02

Inotuzumab-Survival By Salvage Kantarjian. Cancer. (2013) 119: 2728-2736.

Reference Inotuzumab Experience Rx MDACC 49 1.8mg/m 2 D1 MDACC 41 Advani 35 DeAngelo 218 total 109 Ino MDACC 24 Ino dose-schedule ALL Status Comment 0.8mg/m 2 D1 0.5mg/m 2 D8, 15 0.8mg/m 2 D1 0.5mg/m 2 D8, 15 0.8mg/m 2 D1 0.5mg/m 2 D8, 15 1.8mg/m 2 C1D3 1.3mg/m 2 D3 during Cycles 2-4 Relapsed, refractory Relapse, refractory Relapsed, refractor (Salvage 2 or greater) Relapsed, refractory (Salvage 1 or 2 only) Relapsed, refractory *Rituximab 375mg/m 2 CR/CRp/ CRi (%) Overall Response (%) 18/ 29/ 10 57 Monotherapy 20/ 32/ 7 59 Monotherapy 31.4/ NR/ 12 65.7 Monotherapy (COMPARED to SOC) 36/ NR/ 45 81 Mini-hyperCVD-R 46/ 25/ 4 75 MDACC 33 1.8mg/m 2 C1D3 1.3mg/m 2 D3 during Cycles 2-4 New Dx Mini-hyperCVD-R 80/ 17/ NR 97 1. Kantarjian l, Cancer. (2013) 119: 2728-2736. 2. Advani l abstract 2255. (ASH 2014) 3. DeAngelo Haematologica. (2015) 100:S1 abstract LB2073 (EHA 2015) 4. Jabbour. J Clin Oncol 32:5s, (2014) suppl; abstr 7019 (ASCO 2014) 5. Jabbour. Haematologica. (2015) 100:S1 abstract S114 (EHA 2015)

Inotuzumab Ozogamycin in ALL Salvage 2 35 pts Rx with ino 1.8 mg/m 2 ORR 24/35 = 69% - 10 CR + 14 CRi MRD negative in 18/24 = 75% Post Rx SCT 8/35 (23%) Median survival 6.4 mos VOD 3 (2 post allo SCT) Advani. Blood 124: abst ; 2014

Inotuzumab vs Chemo Rx in ALL Salvage Phase 3 study; 326 pts randomized; 117 sites in 19 countries (INO-VATE ALL; NCT01564784) Relapsed/refractory CD22+ ALL Due for salvage 1 or 2 therapy Ph or Ph+ 1:1 Randomization (N=326) Stratifications: Duration of 1st remission 12 vs <12 mo Salvage 2 vs 1 Aged 55 y vs <55 y Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) Starting dose 1.8 mg/m 2 /cycle 0.8 mg/m 2 on day 1; 0.5 mg/m 2 on days 8 and 15 of a 21 28 day cycle ( 6 cycles) Standard of Care (SOC) FLAG or Ara-C plus mitoxantrone or HIDAC 4 cycles InO dose was reduced to 1.5 mg/m 2 /cycle once the patient achieved CR/CRi EHA 2015

Ino vs. Chemo Rx. Endpoints Primary endpoints Split-α design used for 2 primary endpoints (1-sided α=0.0125) 1. CR/CRi --Based on first 218 patients randomized 2. Overall survival (OS)-- assessed in all 326 randomized patients after 248 events Key secondary endpoints MRD-negativity in CR/CRi (<0.01% by FCM) Safety Duration of remission Progression-free survival Stem cell transplant (SCT) rate

Invo vs. Chemo Rx. Study Group Population InO SOC Total Definition ITT 141 138 279 All randomized patients up to October 2, 2014 ITT218 109 109 218 The first 218 patients randomized Primary population for final CR/CRi analysis 13 patients randomized to SOC refused to start treatment All randomized patients Safety Enrollment 139 completed: 120 259 326 who patients received --January 1 dose 4, 2015 Second interim analysis of OS (for futility and efficacy)-- February 20, 2015

Ino vs. Chemo Rx. Study Group Characteristic InO (n=109) SOC (n=109) Median (range) age, y 47 (18 78) 47 (18-79) Men, n (%) 61 (56) 73 (67) ECOG PS, n (%) 0 43 (39) 45 (41) 1 50 (46) 53 (49) 2 15 (14) 10 (9) Salvage, n (%) 1 73 (67) 69 (63) 2 35 (32) 39 (36) CRD1 at baseline, n (%) <12 months 62 (57) 71 (65) 12 month 47 (43) 38 (35) CR to most recent prior Rx, n (%) 78 (72) 74 (68)

Ino vs Chemo Rx. Study Group (2) Characteristic InO (n=109) SOC (n=109) Median WBC count 3.5 (0 47.4) 3.8 (0.1 51.0) Median peripheral blasts 0.2 (0 42.7) 0.4 (0 31.5) No circulating peripheral blasts, n (%) 42 (39) 48 (44) CD22 expression on ALL blasts, n (%) <90% 24 (22) 24 (22) 90% 74 (68) 63 (58) Missing 11 (10) 22 (20) Karyotype, n (%) Normal 27 (25) 23 (21) Ph+ 14 (13) 18 (17) t(4;11) 3 (3) 6 (6) Other abnormalities 49 (45) 46 (42) Unknown/missing 16 (15) 16 (15)

Ino vs Chemo Rx in ALL Salvage. Response InO SOC N 109 96 1-Sided P Value CR/CRi,% 81 33 <0.0001 CR 36 20 0.0056 CRi 45 13 <0.0001 MRD-negativity among responders CR/CRi, % 78 28 <0.0001 EHA. 2015

Ino vs. Chemo Rx. CR/CRi by Stratification Factors CR/CRi, % InO (n=109) SOC (n=96) 1-Sided P value In favor of InO -100 1020304050607080 CR/CRi Rate Difference (%) % Rate Difference (97.5% CI) All patients 80.7 33.3 <0.0001 47.4 (34 61) Duration of 1 st Remission <12 mo 77.5 27.0 <0.0001 50.5 (34 67) 12 mo 86.8 45.5 0.0001 41.4 (18 64) Salvage 1 87.7 31.3 <0.0001 56.3 (41 72) Salvage 2 66.7 37.9 0.01 28.7 (2 56) Age <55 80.3 36.1 <0.0001 44.2 (27 62) Age 55 81.4 28.6 <0.0001 52.8 (31 75)

Ino vs. Chemo Rx. CR/CRi by Baseline InO (n=109) CR/CRi a SOC (n=96) 1-Sided P Value Characteristic Peripheral blasts, n (%) 1000 61/74 (82) 27/72 (38) <0.0001 >1000 26/34 (77) 5/23 (22) <0.0001 CD22 expression, b n (%) <90 19/24 (79) 6/22 (25) 0.0002 90 61/74 (82) 23/58 (40) <0.0001 Karyotype, n (%) Normal 19/20 (95) 6/16 (38) 0.0003 Ph+ 11/14 (79) 8/15 (53) 0.1498 t(4;11) 1/3 (33) 2/5 (40) 0.8214 Other abnormalities 42/49 (86) 12/42 (29) <0.0001 Previous SCT, n (%) Factors Yes 13/17 (77) 6/19 (32) 0.0085 No 75/92 (82) 26/77 (34) <0.0001

Probability of Retaining Remission Ino vs Chemo Rx in ALL Salvage. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 CRD 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Months Patients At Risk, n InO 85 59 34 14 9 5 3 0 SOC 31 13 8 4 1 0 0 0 EHA. 2015 Median (95% CI) Duration of Remission InO (n=85) 4.6 (3.9 5.4) mo SOC (n=31) 3.1 (1.4 4.9) mo Hazard Ratio (95% CI) 0.55 (0.31 0.96); 1-sided P=0.0169

Ino vs. Chemo Rx. Hepatotoxicity AEs Patients with all causality hepatobiliary TEAEs,n (%) InO (n=139) SOC (n=120) Hyperbilirubinemia 21 (15) 12 (10) VOD/SOS 15 (11) 1 (1) In the InO arm, 10 patients had VOD/SOS after poststudy SCT, while 5 had VOD/SOS during Rx (2 with and 3 without pre-study SCT) Median (range) time to VOD/SOS after SCT in the InO arm 16 (3 39) days Multivariate analysis-- dual alkylator conditioning (yes vs no) was the only significant covariate of VOD/SOS (P=0.039)

Rx of Elderly ALL Author/ Age No. CR rate OS Group/Study of pts (%) Kantarjian 2000 >60 44 79 17% (at 5 yrs) MD Anderson Annino 2002 50-60 121 68 15% (at 8 yrs) GIMEMA 0208 Larson 2005 >60 129 57 12% (at 3 yrs) CALGB Sancho 2007 56-67 33 58 39% (at 5 yrs) PETHEMA ALL96 Pullarkat 2008 50-65 43 63 23% (at 5 yrs) SWOG 9400 Hunault-Berger 2010 55-77 31 90 35% (at 2 yrs) GRAALL Gökbuget 2012 55-85 268 76 23% (at 5 yrs) GMALL Sive 2012 55-64 100 70 19% (at 8 yrs) UK NCRI

MiniHCVD-INO in ALL. Design Intensive phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D3 D3 D3 D3 Maintenance phase 36 months MiniHCVD Mini-MTX-cytarabine POMP Maintenance Inotuzumab Inotuzumab First 6 pts 7 to 34 35 and beyond First cycle (mg/m 2 ) 1.3 1.8 1.3 C2-4 (mg/m 2 ) 0.8 1.3 1.0

Combination therapy Mini-hyper-CVD + Inotuzumab Dose reduced HyperCVD for 8 courses Cyclophosphamide 50% dose reduction Dexamethasone 50% dose reduction No anthracycline Methotrexate 75% dose reduction Cytarabine 0.5 g/m2 x 4 doses Inotuzumab on day 3 (first 4 courses) 1.8 mg/m2 course 1 1.3 mg/m2 courses 2-4 Rituximab days 2 and 8 (first 4 courses) Intrathecal chemotherapy days 2 and 8 (first 4 courses) POMP maintenance for 3 years Jain. Blood 122: abst 1432; 2013

MiniHCVD-INO in ALL. Response (N=35) Response N (%) CR 28 28/35 (80) CRp 6 6/35 (17) ORR 34 34/35 (97) No response 1 1/35 (3) Early death 0 0 Three patients were enrolled with CR

MiniHCVD-INO in ALL. Outcome 2-yr CRD and OS rates 81% and 64%, respectively

MiniHCVD-INO vs HCVAD in ALL. Overall Survival

MiniHCVD-INO in R/R ALL. Response (N=52) Response N (%) CR 27 53 CRp 10 19 CRi 3 6 ORR 40 77 MRD negativity at response 13/35 37 Overall 33/40 82 No response 5 10 Early death 7 14 Sasaki. Blood. 2015; 126: Abst # 3721

MiniHCVD-INO in R/R ALL. Survival 2-yr PFS and OS rates 60% and 32%, respectively Sasaki. Blood. 2015; 126: Abst # 3721

MiniHCVD-INO in R/R ALL. Survival Sasaki. Blood. 2015; 126: Abst # 3721

MiniHCVD-INO vs INO in R/R ALL. Survival Sasaki. Blood. 2015; 126: Abst # 3721