Articles related to TARGETED THERAPIES

Dana Farber’s CLL Center associate director Matthew S. Davids, MD, MMSc highlights some of his key takeaways from the recent ASH meeting: Novel treatment approaches in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including large phase 3 studies, some smaller studies combining novel drugs, and long-term follow-ups of prior phase 3 studies; three reports with practice-changing implications; and a surprising finding in the ECOG 1912 study, which demonstrated an overall survival benefit for patients who received ibrutinib with rituximab.

This update of the GO29365 study shows significant survival benefit with pola + BR vs BR alone in R/R, transplant ineligible DLBCL. In the randomization arms, median progression-free survival was 9.2 vs 3.7 months and median overall survival was 12.4 vs 4.7 months for the pola + BR arm vs the BR arm. In the extension cohort, the OR rate was 41.5%, and the CR rate was 38.7%; PFS and OS were 6.6 months and 12.5 months, respectively.

Presented at SABCS 2021, the EMERALD Study of elacastrant and the PHOEBE Trial of pyrotinib showed a better than doubling of 12-month PFS with the first agent, and an improvement in both OS and PFT with the second agent. And the results of the DESTINY-Breast03 study have been called “practice changing.”

A “breakthrough therapy” designation has been granted by the FDA to CLN-081 for the treatment of a subset of non-small cell lung cancer. The designation applies to use of the agent by patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC who previously received chemotherapy and comes as a phase 1/phase 2a clinical trial is underway.

Jacob Laubach, MD, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute provides a summary of the most recent update from the GRIFFIN trial, assessing daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. After 24 months of maintenance therapy or treatment discontinuation (median follow-up of 38.6 months), the rate of stringent complete response (sCR) was 66% in the D-RVd treatment arm versus 47.4% in the RVd treatment arm. At the time of data collection, median PFS had not been reached in either arm but is trending towards favoring D-RVd versus RVd. The estimated 36-month PFS rate was 88.9% for D-RVd and 81.2% for RVd.