All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.
The lym Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the lym Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The lym and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Lymphoma & CLL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AbbVie, BeOne Medicines, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, and Sobi, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lilly, and Pfizer. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lym content recommended for you
Test your knowledge! Take our quick quiz before and after you read this article to find out if you improved your knowledge. Results help us to improve content and continually provide open-access education.
Question 1 of 2
In a phase II study evaluating bortezomib monotherapy followed by DA-EPOCH-R plus bortezomib induction, and subsequent bortezomib maintenance vs observation, investigators sought to identify the prognostic value of ctDNA encoding immunoglobulin receptor sequences. Which of the following clinical characteristics was not associated with elevated baseline ctDNA in this study?
A
B
C
D
The treatment and management approaches to mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) vary considerably between patients due to disease heterogeneity. Herein lies a need for suitable predictive biomarkers to allow for personalized clinical management in the MCL setting. High-risk subgroups can be identified using tissue-based assays and genetic evaluation; however, more precise tools are required to further optimize treatment personalization.
Generally, patients undergo induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) and subsequent rituximab maintenance, but high relapse rates persist, highlighting that this approach is not effective nor suitable for all patients. The addition of bortezomib to rituximab and CAP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone; VR-CAP), has demonstrated improved survival and response rates over R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients who don’t proceed to auto-SCT. Taken together, this suggests that certain patients with MCL have disease sensitivity to bortezomib, whilst others do not.
Detection of chromosomal translocation t(11;14) by polymerase chain reaction as a marker of measurable residual disease (MRD) has been associated with clinical outcomes in patients with MCL undergoing auto-SCT. However, there remains little data around the value of MRD as a prognostic indicator for induction therapy.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be detected using next-generation sequencing and studies have reported its prognostic value in patients with DLBCL, but there are speculations that this will translate to the MCL setting. Lakhotia, et al., reported on a phase II study (NCT00114738) investigating bortezomib monotherapy with subsequent bortezomib and DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) induction in patients with treatment-naïve MCL. The study sought to evaluate the value of bortezomib maintenance vs observation in patients who achieved a partial response to initial therapy, with a focus on the significance of ctDNA dynamics as a predictor of clinical outcomes.
In total, 53 patients aged ≥18 years with ECOG Performance Status ≤3 and acceptable organ function were identified and enrolled (Figure 1). Patients were excluded if they had human immunodeficiency virus, central nervous system involvement, peripheral neuropathy ≥Grade 2, or were pregnant.
Figure 1. Consort diagram*
CNS, central nervous system; DA-EPOCH-R, dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; MCL, mantle-cell lymphoma; PD, progressive disease.
*Adapted from Lakhotia, et al.1
Patients underwent treatment with bortezomib monotherapy followed by DA-EPOCH-R plus bortezomib induction, and either bortezomib maintenance or observation in three distinct treatment categories as shown in Figure 2.
ctDNA encoding immunoglobulin receptor sequences was assessed using next-generation sequencing on patient serum samples and evaluated as markers of MRD (Figure 2). The study sought to determine the association, if any, between the presence and quantity of serum ctDNA and patient outcomes to therapy in the frontline MCL setting.
Figure 2. Treatment schema *
DA-EPOCH-R, dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; IV, intravenous; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response.
*Adapted from Lakhotia, et al.1
†Research samples including serum for ctDNA were collected at protocol-defined timepoints including pretreatment, after the bortezomib window, after cycles one and two of induction therapy, at the end of induction, and at each follow-up visit.
Patient baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics by maintenance approach*
BM, bone marrow; GI, gastrointestinal; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MIPI, mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index; PB, peripheral blood. |
||||
Characteristic, % (unless otherwise stated) |
All |
Bortezomib |
Observation |
Not randomized |
---|---|---|---|---|
Median age (range), years |
59 (41–75) |
54 (42–73) |
58 (43–72) |
63 (46–76) |
Male |
77 |
86 |
81 |
70 |
MIPI risk |
|
|
|
|
Low |
47 |
57 |
50 |
39 |
Intermediate |
36 |
36 |
44 |
30 |
High |
17 |
7 |
6 |
30 |
Elevated LDH |
40 |
36 |
38 |
43 |
Non-nodal disease |
13 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
Extranodal |
|
|
|
|
PB |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
BM |
96 |
100 |
94 |
96 |
GI |
77 |
78 |
88 |
68 |
Histological subtype |
|
|
|
|
Blastoid |
13 |
7 |
12 |
17 |
Classic |
87 |
93 |
88 |
83 |
Ki-67 status |
|
|
|
|
<10% |
27 |
18 |
25 |
33 |
10–29% |
52 |
64 |
42 |
52 |
≥30% |
20 |
18 |
33 |
14 |
Missing |
9 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
Table 2. Survival outcomes in patients receiving bortezomib maintenance vs observation/not randomized*
OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival. |
||
Treatment |
PFS (95% CI), years |
OS (95% CI), years |
---|---|---|
All patients (N = 53) |
2.4 (1.6–2.9) |
10.9 (6.9–NE) |
Randomized patients (n = 30) |
|
|
Bortezomib maintenance (n = 14) |
2.3 (1–4.1) |
10.9 years (3.4–NE) |
Observation (n = 16) |
2.6 (1.6–7.6) |
NR |
p value |
0.39 |
0.32 |
Not randomized or observation (n = 34) |
2.8 (1.7–3.9) |
13.8 (7.4–13.8) |
p value† |
0.58 |
0.42 |
Table 3. ctDNA level by clinical presentation*
MIPI, mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index. *Data from Lakhotia, et al.1 |
|
Clinical observation |
Median ctDNA concentration, lymphoma molecules per mL |
---|---|
Histology |
|
Blastoid |
4392.2 |
Classical |
427.5 |
p value |
0.0025 |
MIPI risk group |
|
Low |
143.1 |
Intermediate |
1419.1 |
High |
6518.9 |
p value |
0.0094 (global) |
Ki67 |
|
Ki67 <10% |
77.5 |
Ki67 10–29% |
453.1 |
Ki67 ≥30% |
1529.1 |
p value |
0.33 |
Extra-nodal involvement |
|
Non-nodal disease |
6076.5 |
Nodal disease |
540.0 |
p value |
0.04 |
Figure 3. ctDNA levels at different timepoints of induction therapy*
ctDNA, circulating tumor deoxyribose nucleic acid.
*Data from Lakhotia, et al.1
Survival outcomes were superior in patients with undetectable vs detectable ctDNA at different stages of induction therapy (Table 4).
Table 4. PFS and OS by presence of ctDNA at different points of induction therapy*
ctDNA, circulating tumor deoxyribose nucleic acid; NE, not estimated; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival. |
||
Therapeutic landmark |
PFS (95% CI), years |
OS (95% CI), years |
---|---|---|
First cycle of induction |
|
|
Detectable ctDNA |
1.7 (1.2–2.5) |
7.6 (5.8–2.4) |
No detectable ctDNA |
7.3 (2.9–NE) |
13.8 (5.5–13.8) |
p value |
0.002 |
0.07 |
First two cycles of induction |
|
|
Detectable ctDNA |
1.8 (1.2–2.9) |
7.4 (5.1–10.9) |
No detectable ctDNA |
2.7 (1.7–8.1) |
13.8 (5.8–NE) |
p value |
0.005 |
0.03 |
End of induction |
|
|
Detectable ctDNA |
1.5 (0.4–2.0) |
3.9 (0.4–NE) |
No detectable ctDNA |
2.6 (1.7–3.9) |
12.4 (7.6–NE) |
p value |
0.003 |
0.02 |
In patients with both low-risk MIPI scores and low (<10%) Ki-67 proliferation index, undetectable ctDNA after one and two cycles of induction therapy was associated with longer PFS compared to patients with detectable ctDNA. This did not translate to patients with intermediate-/high-risk MIPI scores/Ki67 indices.
In patients with previously untreated MCL, bortezomib maintenance did not offer improved survival outcomes over observation in patients who received prior treatment with bortezomib monotherapy followed by DA-EPOCH-R and bortezomib induction. Peripheral blood was used to identify tumor-specific clonotypes through ctDNA analysis in patients with MCL, and pre-treatment ctDNA was prognostic in this study. Throughout treatment, early clearance of ctDNA was associated with superior survival and clinical outcomes in patients with previously untreated MCL.
The author notes the following limitations with the study presented and methods used:
References
Your opinion matters
Which of the following would most increase your confidence in referring patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma for CAR T-cell therapy?