Bendamustine-Based Therapy Is Highly Active In Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
Authors: Treon Steven P. , Hanzis Christina , Trispsas Christina , Ioakimidis Leukothea , Patterson Christopher , Manning Robert , Sheehy Patricia 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 4700

Background:

Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell malignancy characterized by lymphoplasmacytic cell infiltration of the bone marrow and production of an IgM monoclonal protein. Despite advances in treatment, WM remains incurable and novel agents are needed for ongoing disease control. Bendamustine represents an important novel agent for the treatment of B-cell disorders whose activity in WM remains to be clarified.

Patients and Methods:

We examined the outcome of 30 previously treated patients with the clinicopathological diagnosis of WM who received bendamustine-based therapy. The median prior therapies was 2 (range 1–9), and 16 (53%) patients were refractory to their previous treatment. Baseline characteristics for all patients: Median BM involvement 60%; serum IgM 3,980 mg/dL; Hct 31.0%; serum B2M 3.5 g/L. Treatment consisted of bendamustine administered at 90 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2 as part of a 4 week cycle, along with rituximab (375 mg/m2 IV) given once on either day 1 or 2 for 24 patients. In the remainder 6 patients, severe rituximab intolerance prevented re-administration of rituximab. In these patients, bendamustine was either administered alone (n=4) or with ofatumumab (1000 mg IV) given on day 1 (n=2) following a test dose of 300 mg IV on day -7 prior to cycle 1 only. Intended therapy consisted of 4–6 cycles of treatment. Plasmapheresis was performed prior to treatment in patients exhibiting symptomatic hyperviscosity, or who had an IgM level >5,000 mg/dL and were to receive monoclonal antibodies in order to prevent a symptomatic IgM flare. Responses were assessed using modified WM consensus criteria, and patients were eligible for response assessment if they completed > 2 cycles of therapy.

Results:

21 patients completed intended therapy; 9 patients continue on treatment. The median number of treatment cycles for all patients is 4 (range 2–6). Following treatment, median serum IgM levels declined from 3,980 to 1,210 mg/dL (p<0.0001), and hematocrit rose from 31.9% to 34.7% (p=0.005) at best response. The overall and major response rates were 80% and 73%, respectively, with 3 VGPR; 19 PR; 2 MR. 6 patients were non-responders. Responders included those patients receiving bendamustine alone (4 PR), or with ofatumumab (1 PR; 1 MR). With a median follow-up of 5 months, 22/24 responders continue in response. Overall, treatment was well tolerated with grade <2 nausea and diarrhea being the most common toxicities encountered. Three patients developed superficial thrombophlebitis at the site of bendamustine infusion, warranting institution of anticoagulation in 1 patient. Prolonged myelosuppression occurred in 3 patients who received previous nucleoside analogue therapy. One patient previously treated with nucleoside analogues and cyclophosphamide developed MDS, and another patient who received previous cyclophosphamide and bortezomib based therapies transformed to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following bendamustine-based therapy.

Conclusion:

Bendamustine-based therapy is active in patients with relapsed or refractory WM and produces high response rates and durable responses both as monotherapy, and in combination with CD20 directed monoclonal antibodies. In patients previously treated with nucleoside analogues, prolonged myelosuppression may occur. Long term toxicities of bendamustine-based therapy remain to be clarified in this patient population.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.