Explore the vast range of titles available.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor. ARIEL2 is an international, multicentre, two-part, phase 2, open-label study done at 49 hospitals and cancer centres in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In ARIEL2 Part 1, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma were classified into one of three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups on the basis of tumour mutational analysis: BRCA mutant (deleterious germline or somatic), BRCA wild-type and LOH high (LOH high group), or BRCA wild-type and LOH low (LOH low group). We prespecified a cutoff of 14% or more genomic LOH for LOH high. Patients began treatment with oral rucaparib at 600 mg twice per day for continuous 28 day cycles until disease progression or any other reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. All patients treated with at least one dose of rucaparib were included in the safety analyses and all treated patients who were classified were included in the primary endpoint analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891344. Enrolment into ARIEL2 Part 1 is complete, although an extension (Part 2) is ongoing. 256 patients were screened and 206 were enrolled between Oct 30, 2013, and Dec 19, 2014. At the data cutoff date (Jan 18, 2016), 204 patients had received rucaparib, with 28 patients remaining in the study. 192 patients could be classified into one of the three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups: BRCA mutant (n=40), LOH high (n=82), or LOH low (n=70). Tumours from 12 patients were established as BRCA wild-type, but could not be classified for LOH, because of insufficient neoplastic nuclei in the sample. The median duration of treatment for the 204 patients was 5·7 months (IQR 2·8–10·1). 24 patients in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 56 patients in the LOH high subgroup, and 59 patients in the LOH low subgroup had disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival after rucaparib treatment was 12·8 months (95% CI 9·0–14·7) in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 5·7 months (5·3–7·6) in the LOH high subgroup, and 5·2 months (3·6–5·5) in the LOH low subgroup. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BRCA mutant (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·16–0·44, p<0·0001) and LOH high (0·62, 0·42–0·90, p=0·011) subgroups compared with the LOH low subgroup. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (45 [22%] patients), and elevations in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (25 [12%]). Common serious adverse events included small intestinal obstruction (10 [5%] of 204 patients), malignant neoplasm progression (10 [5%]), and anaemia (nine [4%]). Three patients died during the study (two because of disease progression and one because of sepsis and disease progression). No treatment-related deaths occurred. In patients with BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and LOH high platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinomas treated with rucaparib, progression-free survival was longer than in patients with BRCA wild-type LOH low carcinomas. Our results suggest that assessment of tumour LOH can be used to identify patients with BRCA wild-type platinum-sensitive ovarian cancers who might benefit from rucaparib. These results extend the potential usefulness of PARP inhibitors in the treatment setting beyond BRCA mutant tumours. Clovis Oncology, US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Stand Up To Cancer—Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance—National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant, and V Foundation Translational Award.

Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6–11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1–7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39–0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have a dismal prognosis and few treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. Responses to second-line treatment are uncommon. We assessed nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, for safety and activity in patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed or recurred despite previous treatment with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. In this multicentre, phase 2, single-arm study, patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced urothelial carcinoma, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0 or 1, and available tumour samples for biomarker analysis received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour PD-L1 expression (≥5% and ≥1%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02387996, and is completed. Follow-up is still ongoing. Between March 9, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, 270 patients from 63 sites in 11 countries received nivolumab, and 265 were evaluated for activity. Median follow-up for overall survival was 7·00 months (IQR 2·96–8·77). Confirmed objective response was achieved in 52 (19·6%, 95% CI 15·0–24·9) of 265 patients. Confirmed objective response was achieved in 23 (28·4%, 95% CI 18·9–39·5) of the 81 patients with PD-L1 expression of 5% or greater, 29 (23·8%, 95% CI 16·5–32·3) of the 122 patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, and 23 (16·1%, 95% CI 10·5–23·1) of the 143 patients with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48 (18%) of 270 patients—most commonly grade 3 fatigue and diarrhoea, which each occurred in five patients. Three deaths were attributed to treatment (pneumonitis, acute respiratory failure, and cardiovascular failure). Nivolumab monotherapy provided meaningful clinical benefit, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, and was associated with an acceptable safety profile in previously treated patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCA) is a rare malignancy associated with infection by human papillomavirus (HPV). No consensus treatment approach exists for the treatment of metastatic disease. Because intratumoral HPV oncoproteins upregulate immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-1 to evade immune-mediated cytotoxicity, we did a trial of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab for patients with metastatic SCCA. We did this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial at ten academic centres in the USA. We enrolled patients with treatment-refractory metastatic SCCA, who were given nivolumab every 2 weeks (3 mg/kg). The primary endpoint was response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of data cutoff, the study was ongoing, with patients continuing to receive treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02314169. We screened 39 patients, of whom 37 were enrolled and received at least one dose of nivolumab. Among the 37 patients, nine (24% [95% CI 15–33]) had responses. There were two complete responses and seven partial responses. Grade 3 adverse events were anaemia (n=2), fatigue (n=1), rash (n=1), and hypothyroidism (n=1). No serious adverse events were reported. To our knowledge, this is the first completed phase 2 trial of immunotherapy for SCCA. Nivolumab is well tolerated and effective as a monotherapy for patients with metastatic SCCA. Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be a promising approach for patients with this orphan disease. National Cancer Institute/Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, the HPV and Anal Cancer Foundation, the E B Anal Cancer Fund, The University of Texas MD Anderson Moon Shots Program, and an anonymous philanthropic donor.

In the pivotal RESPONSE study, ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, was superior to best available therapy at controlling haematocrit and improving splenomegaly and symptoms in patients with polycythaemia vera with splenomegaly who were inadequately controlled with hydroxyurea. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in controlling disease in patients with polycythaemia vera without splenomegaly who need second-line therapy. RESPONSE-2 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study assessing ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in patients with polycythaemia vera done in 48 hospitals or clinics across 12 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with polycythaemia vera, no palpable splenomegaly, and hydroxyurea resistance or intolerance were stratified by their hydroxyurea therapy status (resistance vs intolerance) and randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive response technology provider using a validated system to receive either oral ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily or investigator-selected best available therapy (hydroxyurea [at the maximum tolerated dose], interferon or pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, approved immunomodulators, or no cytoreductive treatment). Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment; however, the study sponsor was masked to treatment assignment until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving haematocrit control at week 28. Analyses were done according to an intention-to-treat principle, including data from all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02038036) and is ongoing but not recruiting patients. Between March 25, 2014, and Feb 11, 2015, of 173 patients assessed for eligibility, 74 patients were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib and 75 to receive best available therapy. At randomisation, best available therapy included hydroxyurea (37 [49%] of 75 in the best available therapy group), interferon or pegylated interferon (ten [13%] of 75), pipobroman (five [7%] of 75), lenalidomide (one [1%] of 75), no treatment (21 [28%] of 75), and other (one [1%] of 75). Haematocrit control was achieved in 46 (62%) of 74 ruxolitinib-treated patients versus 14 (19%) of 75 patients who received best available therapy (odds ratio 7·28 [95% CI 3·43–15·45]; p<0·0001). The most frequent haematological adverse events of any grade were anaemia (ten [14%] of 74 in the ruxolitinib group vs two [3%] of 75 in the best available therapy group) and thrombocytopenia (two [3%] vs six [8%]). No cases of grade 3–4 anaemia or thrombocytopenia occurred with ruxolitinib; one patient (1%) reported grade 3–4 anaemia and three patients (4%) reported grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in the group receiving best available therapy. Frequent grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events were hypertension (five [7%] of 74 vs three [4%] of 75) and pruritus (0 of 74 vs two [3%] of 75). Serious adverse events occurring in more than 2% of patients in either group, irrespective of cause, included thrombocytopenia (none in the ruxolitinib group vs two [3%] of 75 in the best available therapy group) and angina pectoris (two [3%] of 74 in the ruxolitinib group vs none in the best available therapy group). Two deaths occurred, both in the best available therapy group. RESPONSE-2 met its primary endpoint. The findings of this study indicate that ruxolitinib could be considered a standard of care for second-line therapy in this post-hydroxyurea patient population. Novartis.

Inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) is a promising approach to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Pictilisib is an oral inhibitor of multiple PI3K isoforms. The aim of this study is to establish if addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant can improve progression-free survival in oestrogen receptor-positive, endocrine-resistant breast cancer. In this two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant or metastatic setting, from 123 medical centres across 21 countries. Part 1 included patients with or without PIK3CA mutations, whereas part 2 included only patients with PIK3CA mutations. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in part 1 and 2:1 in part 2) via a computer-generated hierarchical randomisation algorithm to daily oral pictilisib (340 mg in part 1 and 260 mg in part 2) or placebo starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1 and day 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles in both groups. In part 1, we stratified patients by presence or absence of PIK3CA mutation, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, and measurable or non-measurable disease. In part 2, we stratified patients by previous aromatase inhibitor treatment for advanced or metastatic disease or relapse during or within 6 months of an aromatase inhibitor treatment in the adjuvant setting and measurable or non-measurable disease. All patients and those administering treatment and assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population for both parts 1 and 2 and also separately in patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumours in part 1. Tumour assessment (physical examination and imaging scans) was investigator-assessed and done at screening and after 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, and 32 weeks of treatment from day 1 of cycle 1 and every 12 weeks thereafter. We assessed safety in as-treated patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01437566. In part 1, between Sept 27, 2011, and Jan 11, 2013, we randomly allocated 168 patients to the pictilisib (89 [53%]) or placebo (79 [47%]) group. In part 2, between March 18, 2013, and Jan 2, 2014, we randomly allocated 61 patients to the pictilisib (41 [67%]) or placebo (20 [33%]) group. In part 1, we found no difference in median progression-free survival between the pictilisib (6·6 months [95% CI 3·9–9·8]) and placebo (5·1 months [3·6–7·3]) group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·52–1·06]; p=0·096). We also found no difference when patients were analysed according to presence (pictilisib 6·5 months [95% CI 3·7–9·8] vs placebo 5·1 months [2·6–10·4]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·42–1·28]; p=0·268) or absence (5·8 months [3·6–11·1] vs 3·6 months [2·8–7·3]; HR 0·72 [0·42–1·23]; p=0·23) of PIK3CA mutation. In part 2, we also found no difference in progression-free survival between groups (5·4 months [95% CI 3·8–8·3] vs 10·0 months [3·6–13·0]; HR 1·07 [95% CI 0·53–2·18]; p=0·84). In part 1, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 54 (61%) of 89 patients in the pictilisib group and 22 (28%) of 79 in the placebo group. 19 serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in 14 (16%) of 89 patients. Only one (1%) of 79 patients reported treatment-related serious adverse events in the placebo group. In part 2, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 15 (36%) of 42 patients in the pictilisib group and seven (37%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in two (5%) of 42 patients. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in one (5%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. Although addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant did not significantly improve progression-free survival, dosing of pictilisib was limited by toxicity, potentially limiting its efficacy. For future assessment of PI3K inhibition as an approach to overcome resistance to hormonal therapy, inhibitors with greater selectivity than that of pictilisib might be needed to improve tolerability and potentially increase efficacy. No further investigation of pictilisib in this setting is ongoing. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1–21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2–13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6–4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9–2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39–0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Celgene Corporation.

Selective BCL2 inhibition with venetoclax has substantial activity in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Combination therapy with rituximab enhanced activity in preclinical models. The aim of this study was to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity of venetoclax in combination with rituximab. Adult patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (according to the 2008 Modified International Workshop on CLL guidelines) or small lymphocytic lymphoma were eligible for this phase 1b, dose-escalation trial. The primary outcomes were to assess the safety profile, to determine the maximum tolerated dose, and to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of venetoclax when given in combination with rituximab. Secondary outcomes were to assess the pharmacokinetic profile and analyse efficacy, including overall response, duration of response, and time to tumour progression. Minimal residual disease was a protocol-specified exploratory objective. Central review of the endpoints was not done. Venetoclax was dosed daily using a stepwise escalation to target doses (200–600 mg) and then monthly rituximab commenced (375 mg/m2 in month 1 and 500 mg/m2 in months 2–6). Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events version 4.0. Protocol-guided drug cessation was allowed for patients who achieved complete response (including complete response with incomplete marrow recovery) or negative bone marrow minimal residual disease. Analyses were done per protocol for all patients who commenced drug and included all patients who received at least one dose of venetoclax. Data were pooled across dose cohorts. Patients are still receiving therapy and follow-up is ongoing. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682616. Between Aug 6, 2012, and May 28, 2014, we enrolled 49 patients. Common grade 1–2 toxicities included upper respiratory tract infections (in 28 [57%] of 49 patients), diarrhoea (27 [55%]), and nausea (25 [51%]). Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 37 (76%) of 49 patients; most common were neutropenia (26 [53%]), thrombocytopenia (eight [16%]), anaemia (seven [14%]), febrile neutropenia (six [12%]), and leucopenia (six [12%]). The most common serious adverse events were pyrexia (six [12%]), febrile neutropenia (five [10%]), lower respiratory tract infection, and pneumonia (each three [6%]). Clinical tumour lysis syndrome occurred in two patients (resulting in one death) who initiated venetoclax at 50 mg. After enhancing tumour lysis syndrome prophylaxis measures and commencing venetoclax at 20 mg, clinical tumour lysis syndrome did not occur. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified; the recommended phase 2 dose of venetoclax in combination with rituximab was 400 mg. Overall, 42 (86%) of 49 patients achieved a response, including a complete response in 25 (51%) of 49 patients. 2 year estimates for progression-free survival and ongoing response were 82% (95% CI 66–91) and 89% (95% CI 72–96), respectively. Negative marrow minimal residual disease was attained in 20 (80%) of 25 complete responders and 28 (57%) of 49 patients overall. 13 responders ceased all therapy; among these all 11 minimal residual disease-negative responders remain progression-free off therapy. Two with minimal residual disease-positive complete response progressed after 24 months off therapy and re-attained response after re-initiation of venetoclax. A substantial proportion of patients achieved an overall response with the combination of venetoclax and rituximab including 25 (51%) of 49 patients who achieved a complete response and 28 (57%) of 49 patients who achieved negative marrow minimal residual disease with acceptable safety. The depth and durability of responses observed with the combination offers an attractive potential treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and could allow some patients to maintain response after discontinuing therapy, a strategy that warrants further investigation in randomised studies. AbbVie Inc and Genentech Inc.

In POLLUX, daratumumab (D) plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Updated efficacy and safety after >3 years of follow-up are presented. Patients (N = 569) with ≥1 prior line received Rd (lenalidomide, 25 mg, on Days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone, 40 mg, weekly) ± daratumumab at the approved dosing schedule. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing. After 44.3 months median follow-up, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population (median 44.5 vs 17.5 months; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35–0.55; P < 0.0001) and in patient subgroups. D-Rd demonstrated higher ORR (92.9 vs 76.4%; P < 0.0001) and deeper responses, including complete response or better (56.6 vs 23.2%; P < 0.0001) and MRD negativity (10–5; 30.4 vs 5.3%; P < 0.0001). Median time to next therapy was prolonged with D-Rd (50.6 vs 23.1 months; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31–0.50; P < 0.0001). Median PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2) was not reached with D-Rd versus 31.7 months with Rd (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.68; P < 0.0001). No new safety concerns were reported. These data support using D-Rd in patients with RRMM after first relapse.

Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who fail to achieve adequate disease control with rituximab-based treatment have few treatment options and a poor prognosis. We aimed to assess a combination of obinutuzumab (GA101), a novel glyco-engineered type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, and bendamustine in this patient population. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (GADOLIN), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically documented, CD20-positive indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma refractory to rituximab were enrolled at 83 hospital and community sites in 14 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and Central America. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a hierarchical dynamic randomisation scheme stratified by indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype, rituximab-refractory type, number of previous therapies, and geographical region, to receive induction treatment (six 28-day cycles) with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine or bendamustine monotherapy, both given intravenously. Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine dosing was obinutuzumab 1000 mg (days 1, 8, and 15, cycle 1; day 1, cycles 2–6) plus bendamustine 90 mg/m2 per day (days 1 and 2, cycles 1–6), and bendamustine monotherapy dosing was 120 mg/m2 per day (days 1 and 2, all cycles). Non-progressing patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group received obinutuzumab maintenance (1000 mg every 2 months) for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all randomised patients, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received any amount of obinutuzumab or bendamustine. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01059630, and has stopped recruiting patients. Between April 15, 2010, and Sept 1, 2014, when the study was stopped after a pre-planned interim analysis, 396 patients were randomly assigned (194 to obinutuzumab plus bendamustine and 202 to bendamustine monotherapy). After a median follow-up time of 21·9 months (IQR 12·1–31·0) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and 20·3 months (9·5–29·7) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, progression-free survival was significantly longer with obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (median not reached [95% CI 22·5 months–not estimable]) than with bendamustine monotherapy (14·9 months [12·8–16·6]; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·40–0·74]; p=0·0001). Grade 3–5 adverse events occurred in 132 (68%) of 194 patients in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 123 (62%) of 198 patients in the bendamustine monotherapy group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (64 [33%] in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group vs 52 [26%] in the bendamustine monotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (21 [11%] vs 32 [16%]), anaemia (15 [8%] vs 20 [10%]) and infusion-related reactions (21 [11%] vs 11 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 74 patients (38%) in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and in 65 patients (33%) in the bendamustine monotherapy group, and deaths due to adverse events occurred in 12 patients (6%) and 12 patients (6%), respectively. Three (25%) of 12 adverse event-related deaths in the obinutuzumab plus bendamustine group and five (42%) of 12 in the bendamustine monotherapy group were treatment related. Obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance has improved efficacy over bendamustine monotherapy in rituximab-refractory patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with manageable toxicity, and is a new treatment option for patients who have relapsed after or are no longer responding to rituximab-based therapy. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.