Phase II Randomized, Multicenter Study of Lenalidomide Vs Best Investigator’s Choice in Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results of the MCL-002 (SPRINT) Study
Authors: Trneny Marek , Lamy Thierry , Walewski Jan , Jurczak Wojciech , Belada David , Mayer Jiri , Radford John , Alexeeva Julia , Osmanov Dzhelil , Biyukov Tsvetan , Patturajan Meera , Casadebaig Bravo Marie-Laure , Arcaini Luca 
Published: October 2019

Abstract
Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with poor outcome, especially after failure of first-line treatment. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, has shown activity in single-arm phase II studies of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The present controlled randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide vs investigator’s choice (IC) in patients with R/R MCL.
Methods: MCL-002 (SPRINT), a European multicenter, open-label, phase II study enrolled patients with up to 3 relapses or who failed prior therapy and were ineligible for intensified treatment or stem cell transplantation (NCT00875667). Oral lenalidomide was given at 25 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle until progressive disease (PD) or intolerability. The IC treatment consisted of single-agent therapy with cytarabine, rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, or chlorambucil. Patients who progressed on IC per investigator judgment were allowed to crossover to lenalidomide. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), time to first response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Response assessments were centrally reviewed using the modified IWG criteria.
Results: 254 patients with R/R MCL were randomized 2:1 to lenalidomide (n=170) or IC (n=84). Patients had median age 68.5 years, were predominantly male (73%), and had received a median of 2 prior therapies. 91% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis, with 34% high-risk MIPI, 43% high tumor burden, and 20% bulky disease at baseline. Overall, patients on the lenalidomide arm had a worse prognostic profile than the IC arm due to higher tumor burden and disease risk (&gt;5 percentage points for a number of parameters). After a median time of 2.9 months, 39 patients (46%) from the IC arm crossed over to lenalidomide due to PD. Overall, 84 patients remain on lenalidomide (15 having crossed over from IC) and 11 patients on IC without PD.
At a median follow-up time on study of 15.9 months, the risk reduction for PFS was 39% (HR=0.61 [95% CI, 0.44-0.84]; P=0.004; Table) in favor of lenalidomide (median PFS: 8.7 months lenalidomide vs 5.2 months IC). ORR was significantly improved for lenalidomide vs IC (40% vs 11%; CR/CRu 5% vs 0%). Median time to first response was 4.3 months for lenalidomide (not reached for IC). Median DOR (16.1 vs 10.4 months) and OS on mature data (27.9 vs 21.2 months) were longer for lenalidomide vs IC. Efficacy results were consistent among subgroups. Safety data in 250 patients receiving ≥1 dose showed more dose reductions in lenalidomide-treated patients (41%) vs IC (17%), due in part to a longer median duration of lenalidomide treatment vs IC, and to strict dose modification rules for lenalidomide. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (lenalidomide 44% vs IC 34% [without increased risk of infection]), thrombocytopenia (18% vs 28%), and leukopenia (8% vs 11%). Tumor flare reaction occurred in lenalidomide patients only (10%; 2% grade ≥3); 1 patient in each arm experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Invasive second primary malignancies were identified in 4% and 5% of lenalidomide and IC treated patients, respectively.
Conclusions: The MCL-002 study demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS for lenalidomide over best IC monotherapy in patients with advanced R/R MCL despite a worse prognostic profile in the lenalidomide arm at baseline. In addition, ORR and CR rates, TTR, DOR, and OS were improved for lenalidomide over IC. The DOR has been remarkably consistent in various studies with lenalidomide in MCL patients. The safety profile for lenalidomide was as expected and no new safety signals were identified. The results of this first randomized, controlled study of lenalidomide showed superior efficacy compared to IC in patients with R/R MCL with a manageable toxicity profile.
Table Efficacy of lenalidomide vs IC in R/R MCL Efficacy Lenalidomide (n=170) IC (n=84) P PFS (Lenalidomide vs IC)  Median PFS, mo (95% CI) 8.7 (5.54-12.14) 5.2 (3.67-6.95)  Sequential HR (95% CI) 0.61 (0.44-0.84)  Sequential log-rank test p-value 0.004 ORR, n (%) 68 (40) 9 (11) &lt;0.001 CR/CRu, n (%) 8 (5) 0 (0) 0.043 Median DOR, mo 16.1 10.4 0.421 Median OS, mo 27.9 21.2 0.52

Disclosures
Trneny: Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Walewski:Celgene: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Mundipharma : Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Jurczak:Celgene, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Spectrum, Takeda, Teva: Research Funding. Belada:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment. Patturajan:Celgene: Employment. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment. Arcaini:Celgene, Roche, Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.