Explore the vast range of titles available.

We conducted a phase 1b study evaluating safety and tolerability of tafasitamab, a CD19‐targeting immunotherapy, in Japanese patients with B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B‐cell NHL (Group 1), R/R diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL; Groups 3 and 4), or untreated DLBCL (Group 5). Patients received tafasitamab starting at 12 mg/kg qw (Group 1, n = 6), tafasitamab + lenalidomide starting at 25 mg qd for ≤ 12 cycles (Group 3, n = 6), tafasitamab + parsaclisib starting at 20 mg qd (Days 1–56) then 2.5 mg qd (Group 4, n = 6), or tafasitamab + lenalidomide combined with R‐CHOP for ≤ 6 cycles (Group 5, n = 6). Primary objective was safety and tolerability of tafasitamab alone and in combination; exploratory objectives included efficacy. At data cutoff (August 31, 2023), 24 patients were treated. All patients experienced treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Two patients experienced a dose‐limiting toxicity; liver disorder (grade 4) considered related to lenalidomide (Group 3, n = 1), and febrile neutropenia (grade 3) considered related to lenalidomide and R‐CHOP (Group 5, n = 1). Most common TEAEs across groups were hematological and included neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia; most common non‐hematological TEAEs included increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, diarrhea, nausea, constipation, and infusion‐related reactions. No serious tafasitamab treatment‐related or fatal TEAEs were observed. Results suggest tafasitamab alone or in combination demonstrates a manageable safety profile in Japanese patients with B‐cell NHL. Preliminary efficacy results from the study are reported. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size, with further studies warranted to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: NCT04661007; jRCT2031200357

Background The observational MCL-004 study evaluated outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who received lenalidomide-based therapy after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. Methods The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate based on the 2007 International Working Group criteria. Results Of 58 enrolled patients (median age, 71 years; range, 50–89), 13 received lenalidomide monotherapy, 11 lenalidomide plus rituximab, and 34 lenalidomide plus other treatment. Most patients (88%) had received ≥ 3 prior therapies (median 4; range, 1–13). Median time from last dose of ibrutinib to the start of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1–21.7); 45% of patients had partial responses or better to prior ibrutinib. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were lack of efficacy (88%) and ibrutinib toxicity (9%). After a median of two cycles (range, 0–11) of lenalidomide-based treatment, 17 patients responded (8 complete responses, 9 partial responses), for a 29% overall response rate (95% confidence interval, 18–43%) and a median duration of response of 20 weeks (95% confidence interval, 2.9 to not available). Overall response rate to lenalidomide-based therapy was similar for patients with relapsed/progressive disease after previous response to ibrutinib (i.e., ≥PR) versus ibrutinib-refractory (i.e., ≤SD) patients (30 versus 32%, respectively). The most common all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events after lenalidomide-containing therapy ( n  = 58) were fatigue (38%) and cough, dizziness, dyspnea, nausea, and peripheral edema (19% each). At data cutoff, 28 patients have died, primarily due to mantle cell lymphoma. Conclusion Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity, with no unexpected toxicities, in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma who previously failed ibrutinib therapy. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02341781 . Date of registration: January 14, 2015

Background Studies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors may represent a promising strategy for boosting immune responses and improving the antitumor activity of standard therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. Aims Phase 1/2 FUSION NHL 001 was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of durvalumab, an anti‐programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) antibody, combined with standard‐of‐care therapies for lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Methods and Results The primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drugs used in combination with durvalumab (durvalumab was administered at the previously recommended dose of 1500 mg every 4 weeks) and to assess safety and tolerability. Patients were enrolled into one of four arms: durvalumab monotherapy (Arm D) or durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide ± rituximab (Arm A), ibrutinib (Arm B), or rituximab ± bendamustine (Arm C). A total of 106 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma were enrolled. All but two patients experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE); those not experiencing a TEAE were in Arm C (diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) and Arm D (DLBCL during the durvalumab monotherapy treatment period). No new safety signals were identified, and TEAEs were consistent with the respective safety profiles for each study treatment. Across the study, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23) had an overall response rate (ORR) of 59%; ORR among DLBCL patients (n = 37) was 18%. Exploratory biomarker analysis showed that response to durvalumab monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with higher interferon‐γ signature scores in patients with FL (p = .02). Conclusion Durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination is tolerable but requires close monitoring. The high rate of TEAEs during this study may reflect on the difficulty in combining durvalumab with full doses of other agents. Durvalumab alone or in combination appeared to add limited benefit to therapy.

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. 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. 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%]). 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. Celgene Corporation.

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have poor outcomes following first-line cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab (R-CHOP). Evidence shows chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade can increase antitumor efficacy. This study investigated durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, combined with R-CHOP or lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) in newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL. Patients received durvalumab 1125 mg every 21 days for 2–8 cycles + R-CHOP (non-activated B-cell [ABC] subtype) or R2-CHOP (ABC), then durvalumab consolidation (1500 mg every 28 days). Of 46 patients, 43 received R-CHOP and three R2-CHOP. All patients had the high-risk disease; 14 (30.4%) and eight (17.4%) had double- or triple-hit DLBCL, respectively. Following induction, 20/37 (54.1%) patients receiving durvalumab + R-CHOP achieved complete response (CR), and seven (18.9%) partial response (PR); 25 (67.6% [95% CI 50.2–82.0]) continued to consolidation and were progression-free at 12 months. Among efficacy-evaluable patients with double- or triple-hit DLBCL (n = 12), five achieved CR and five PR. Adverse events were generally consistent with R-CHOP. Correlative analyses did not identify conclusive biomarkers of response. Durvalumab + R-CHOP is feasible in DLBCL with no new safety signals, but the combination provided no greater benefit than R-CHOP.