Purpose: To evaluate the safety, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of inotuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, in combination with the immunochemotherapeutic regimen, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP), in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Experimental Design: In part 1 (n = 16), patients received inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP on a 21-day cycle with escalating doses of cyclophosphamide first then inotuzumab ozogamicin. Part 2 (n = 10) confirmed the safety and tolerability of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), which required a dose-limiting toxicity rate of <33% in cycle 1 and <33% of patients discontinuing before cycle 3 due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Part 3 (n = 22) evaluated the preliminary efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP.

Results: The MTD was determined to be standard-dose R-CVP plus inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs in the MTD cohort (n = 38) were hematologic: neutropenia (74%), thrombocytopenia (50%), lymphopenia (42%), and leukopenia (47%). Among the 48 patients treated in the study, 13 discontinued due to AEs, most commonly thrombocytopenia (n = 10). Overall, 13 patients died, including one death due to treatment-related pneumonia secondary to neutropenia. Among patients receiving the MTD (n = 38), the overall response rate (ORR) was 84% (n = 32), including 24% (n = 9) with complete response; the ORR was 100% for patients with indolent lymphoma (n = 27) and 57% for those with aggressive histology lymphoma (n = 21).

Conclusions: Inotuzumab ozogamicin at 0.8 mg/m2 plus full dose R-CVP was associated with manageable toxicities and demonstrated a high rate of response in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell NHL. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01055496). Clin Cancer Res; 22(19); 4807–16. ©2016 AACR.

Translational Relevance

There is a need for safe and effective combination therapies that meet the challenges of treating relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Preclinical studies suggest that the different mechanisms of action of anti-CD22 mAb inotuzumab ozogamicin and anti-CD20 mAb rituximab allow for synergistic effects. Moreover, the use of inotuzumab ozogamicin with chemotherapeutics is supported by preclinical study evidence. This phase I study determined the MTD and evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin combined with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell NHL. Results suggest that inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2 given with standard-dose R-CVP demonstrated manageable safety and tolerability. Nearly all grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic, most commonly thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Antitumor activity was observed. Further studies in larger populations are required to determine whether this regimen offers an advantage over previously established regimens or whether inotuzumab ozogamicin should be combined with other agents.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is estimated to be the sixth most common newly diagnosed cancer in the United States in 2015 (1). Although mAb-based therapies have advanced the treatment of many lymphoma subtypes (particularly B-cell NHL), relapse rates are high, and many patients are refractory to therapy (2–6). Combination treatments consisting of mAbs and chemotherapeutics have successfully treated relapsed/refractory NHL; however, toxicity remains a significant limitation with these regimens (7–9). Combination therapies that are both safe and effective are needed to meet the challenges of treating relapsed/refractory NHL.

The CD22 antigen is expressed by >90% of B-cell NHLs, is rapidly internalized, and is not shed into the extracellular environment (10–13). As such, it is an ideal target for mAb-based therapy for B-cell malignancies (10, 11). Inotuzumab ozogamicin (CMC-544) is a humanized immunoglobulin G4 anti-CD22 mAb conjugated to a derivative of calicheamicin, a potent cytotoxic antibiotic (12). Upon binding to inotuzumab ozogamicin, CD22 is rapidly internalized, releasing calicheamicin, which binds to DNA and induces double-strand DNA breaks, resulting in apoptosis (14–17). In contrast, the mechanism of action of the anti-CD20 mAb, rituximab, involves activation of immune system defense mechanisms, as well as directly inducing apoptosis (18). These disparate mechanisms of action allow for the possibility of synergistic effects between inotuzumab ozogamicin and rituximab; such effects have been observed in preclinical studies (19).

Previous phase I studies of inotuzumab ozogamicin demonstrated preliminary activity and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL (20–22). In addition, inotuzumab ozogamicin plus rituximab demonstrated preliminary activity in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL without a significant increase in toxicity (22, 23). Additive antitumor activity was observed in xenograft models with inotuzumab ozogamicin in combination with chemotherapeutics, such as cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) (24). The alkylating agent–based immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of rituximab plus CVP (R-CVP) is approved for the treatment of previously untreated patients with stage III/IV follicular lymphoma in both Europe and in the United States (25). Treatment choice in relapsed patients depends on prior treatment history, type of lymphoma, and local treatment practices (26, 27). This phase I study determined the MTD and evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of inotuzumab ozogamicin given in combination with R-CVP in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell NHL.

Patients

Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, with a diagnosis of CD22+ B-cell NHL (Table 1). Patients were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2; total bilirubin ≤upper limit of normal (ULN; in patients without Gilbert disease); aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST and ALT) ≤2.5 × ULN; serum creatinine ≤2 × ULN and a urine protein/creatinine ratio of ≤0.5; an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 × 109/L (1,000/μL) and a platelet count ≥100 × 109/L; and ≥1 measurable disease lesion >1 cm in diameter (product diameter ≥2.25 cm2 by CT or MRI). Patients in the dose-escalation cohorts had ≥1 prior anticancer treatment, including prior rituximab and chemotherapy. Enrollment of previously untreated patients in the MTD confirmation and preliminary efficacy cohorts was permitted if they were not considered candidates for anthracycline-based therapy.

Table 1.

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics

CharacteristicsSafety population (N = 48)
Median age (range), y 63 (42–81) 
Male, n (%) 27 (56) 
Race, n (%) 
 Asian 28 (58) 
 White 20 (42) 
Histologic subtypea, n (%) 
 FL 26 (54) 
 DLBCL 17 (35) 
 MCL 4 (8) 
 SLL 1 (2) 
ECOG performance status, n (%) 
 0 35 (73) 
 1 9 (19) 
 2 4 (8) 
IPI scoreb, n (%) 
 0 
 1 5 (10) 
 2 3 (6) 
 3 8 (17) 
 4 5 (10) 
 5 1 (2) 
FLIPI scorec, n (%) 
 0 5 (10) 
 1 9 (19) 
 2 8 (17) 
 3 3 (6) 
 4 
 5 1 (2) 
Stage III/IV disease, n (%) 32 (67) 
Prior antilymphoma treatment regimens, n (%) 
 0 1 (2) 
 1 19 (40) 
 2 16 (33) 
 3 7 (15) 
 ≥4 5 (10) 
 Median (range) 2 (1–6) 
Prior radiotherapy, n (%) 14 (29) 
Prior anthracyclines, n (%) 42 (88) 
Prior aSCT, n (%) 3 (6) 
Best response to most recent prior therapy, n (%) 
 CR 20 (42) 
 PR 14 (29) 
 Stable disease 4 (8) 
 Disease progression 4 (8) 
 Unknown 5 (10) 
 Missing 1 (2) 
CharacteristicsSafety population (N = 48)
Median age (range), y 63 (42–81) 
Male, n (%) 27 (56) 
Race, n (%) 
 Asian 28 (58) 
 White 20 (42) 
Histologic subtypea, n (%) 
 FL 26 (54) 
 DLBCL 17 (35) 
 MCL 4 (8) 
 SLL 1 (2) 
ECOG performance status, n (%) 
 0 35 (73) 
 1 9 (19) 
 2 4 (8) 
IPI scoreb, n (%) 
 0 
 1 5 (10) 
 2 3 (6) 
 3 8 (17) 
 4 5 (10) 
 5 1 (2) 
FLIPI scorec, n (%) 
 0 5 (10) 
 1 9 (19) 
 2 8 (17) 
 3 3 (6) 
 4 
 5 1 (2) 
Stage III/IV disease, n (%) 32 (67) 
Prior antilymphoma treatment regimens, n (%) 
 0 1 (2) 
 1 19 (40) 
 2 16 (33) 
 3 7 (15) 
 ≥4 5 (10) 
 Median (range) 2 (1–6) 
Prior radiotherapy, n (%) 14 (29) 
Prior anthracyclines, n (%) 42 (88) 
Prior aSCT, n (%) 3 (6) 
Best response to most recent prior therapy, n (%) 
 CR 20 (42) 
 PR 14 (29) 
 Stable disease 4 (8) 
 Disease progression 4 (8) 
 Unknown 5 (10) 
 Missing 1 (2) 

Abbreviations: aSCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; FL, follicular lymphoma; FLIPI, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (for follicular lymphoma only); IPI, International Prognostic Index (for subtypes other than FL); MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; SLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma.

aDisease at screening (stage IA, n = 6; stage IIA, n = 10; stage IIIA/B, n = 12; stage IVA/B, n = 20).

bIncludes patients with all histologic subtypes, except follicular lymphoma (n = 22).

cIncludes only patients with follicular lymphoma (n = 26).

Key exclusion criteria included the following: >3 previous chemotherapy regimens containing ≥2 cytotoxic agents; treatment with anti-CD22 antibodies, radioimmunotherapy or autologous transplant within 6 months of the first dose of study drugs; chemotherapy, cancer-immunosuppressive therapy, radiotherapy, growth factors (except for erythropoietin), or investigational agents within 28 days of first dose of study drugs. Also excluded were candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant; patients with a Fridericia corrected QT interval >470 msec at screening, symptomatic central nervous system disease, or a history of veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome or chronic liver disease.

Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to study-related activities. The study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01055496) was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Institutional Review Boards and/or independent ethics committees at each participating center reviewed and approved the study protocol.

Study design and drug administration

This open-label study was conducted at 12 centers in seven countries; patients were enrolled from March 2010 to February 2012. The study ascertained the safety, tolerability, and MTD (primary objective), as well as the preliminary efficacy and pharmacokinetics (secondary objectives) of inotuzumab ozogamicin given in combination with R-CVP in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell NHL. The study consisted of 3 parts: MTD determination (part 1), MTD confirmation (part 2), and MTD expansion (part 3). Patients received rituximab 375 mg/m2 i.v., cyclophosphamide 375 to 750 mg/m2 i.v., and vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 (2 mg maximum) i.v. on day 1 plus prednisone 40 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5, as well as inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 or 1.3 mg/m2 i.v. on day 2 of each 21-day cycle (±2 days). Treatment continued for a maximum of 6 cycles unless there was evidence of progressive disease (PD) or prolonged or excessive toxicity; dose escalation was based on a toxicity assessment during cycle 1.

In part 1, dose escalation of cyclophosphamide (3 levels) or inotuzumab ozogamicin (2 levels) using a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the MTD (Supplementary Text and Supplementary Table S1). Initially, only the dose of cyclophosphamide was increased. Because the full dose of cyclophosphamide was tolerated, inotuzumab ozogamicin was increased to 1.3 mg/m2. Ten additional patients were enrolled in part 2 to confirm the safety and tolerability of the MTD (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 and inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2). Cohorts and treatment schedules are shown in Fig. 1. An additional 22 patients were enrolled in part 3. The preliminary safety and antitumor activity of inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP at the MTD was further examined in both parts 2 and 3.

Figure 1.

Patient disposition. C, cyclophosphamide; FL, follicular lymphoma; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; P, prednisone; R, rituximab; SLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma; V, vincristine. Shading indicates the dose level further evaluated as the MTD. *, All patients received inotuzumab ozogamicin on day 2, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and vincristine on day 1, and prednisone on days 1 to 5. †, One patient was not evaluable for DLTs due to incorrect inotuzumab ozogamicin dose administered during cycle 1.

Figure 1.

Patient disposition. C, cyclophosphamide; FL, follicular lymphoma; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; P, prednisone; R, rituximab; SLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma; V, vincristine. Shading indicates the dose level further evaluated as the MTD. *, All patients received inotuzumab ozogamicin on day 2, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and vincristine on day 1, and prednisone on days 1 to 5. †, One patient was not evaluable for DLTs due to incorrect inotuzumab ozogamicin dose administered during cycle 1.

Close modal

Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic analyses

Safety assessments included physical examination, vital signs, electrocardiograms, laboratory test measurements, and adverse event (AE) reporting. AEs were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 and were monitored for ≥4 to 6 weeks after last dose (end-of-treatment visit). All treatment-related AEs were monitored until resolved, return to baseline, or stable condition. Disease assessments were performed until PD, initiation of a new anticancer therapy, or death; follow-up for survival continued for up to 2 years from the first dose of study drug.

Response and progression status were assessed using a modification of the International Working Group Criteria (28). Efficacy endpoints included the overall (objective) response [OR; complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR)], progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR). Tumor responses were evaluated using objective measurements of tumor masses from MRI and CT scans, clinical information, B-symptoms, laboratory assessments, and biochemical markers of disease activity. Tumor site and measurements were determined at screening, every 9 weeks during the active period (or earlier if there was evidence of tumor response or progression), at the end-of-treatment visit, and then every 12 to 24 weeks until disease progression or new anticancer therapy or death for up to 2 years after the first dose of study drug.

Determination of pharmacokinetics included measurements of inotuzumab ozogamicin, total calicheamicin (conjugated plus unconjugated forms), and unconjugated calicheamicin concentrations in serum, which were collected during cycle 1 at 0 hour (predose), and during cycle 3 at 0 (predose), 1, 3, 24, and 144 hours after inotuzumab ozogamicin treatment. Serum samples to detect anti-inotuzumab ozogamicin and anti-rituximab antibodies were also obtained 24 hours predose during cycles 1, 4, and at the end of treatment. All analyses were performed using appropriately validated ELISA. For pharmacokinetic measures, analytes were quantified with limits of quantitation of 52.2, 5, and 1.25 ng/mL for inotuzumab ozogamicin, total calicheamicin, and unconjugated calicheamicin, respectively.

Statistical analysis

This preliminary study enrolled a limited number of subjects primarily to assess safety. The sample size was determined by clinical rather than statistical considerations. An analysis was performed for the 10 patients in the MTD confirmation cohort, and the decision to proceed to part 3 was based on information available from the unlocked database at the time of this analysis. Continuation of the study to part 3 required a CR or PR in ≥2 patients, <33% of patients experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and <33% unable to receive ≥3 cycles due to a drug-related toxicity. Outcomes are reported on the basis of final data for all treated patients. PFS, OS, and DOR distributions were summarized using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Patients

Forty-eight patients (indolent, n = 27; aggressive, n = 21) were enrolled in the study (Fig. 1); baseline patient demographics and disease characteristics are presented in Table 1. Patients had follicular lymphoma (54%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 35%), mantle cell lymphoma (8%), or small lymphocytic leukemia (2%) at screening and had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1–6). All patients received prior anticancer therapy that included rituximab except for one patient enrolled in part 3. Eight patients (indolent, n = 3; aggressive, n = 5) had refractory disease at baseline (best response to most recent prior therapy was stable or progressive disease).

All patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment and most (52% total; 50% at the MTD) completed all six treatment cycles with a median (range) of six (1–6) cycles completed (one patient did not receive vincristine during the last two treatment cycles). Reasons for discontinuing treatment included AEs [n = 13 (27%)], PD [n = 9 (19%)], patient request [n = 2 (4%)], and death [n = 2 (4%)].

MTD determination and confirmation

In part 1 (dose escalation), the MTD was determined to be inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2 given on day 2 with standard-dose R-CVP (rituximab 375 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, and vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 all on day 1, and prednisone 40 mg/m2 on days 1–5) intravenously every 21 days (29). DLTs observed among the 16 patients treated in part 1 are summarized in Fig. 1. No DLTs were reported with inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2 at the lower doses of cyclophosphamide (levels 1 and 2; n = 3 each). One of six patients at dose level 3 experienced a DLT (grade 4 neutropenia requiring G-CSF); two of four patients reported DLTs at dose level 4 (one patient had grade 4 neutropenia requiring G-CSF; one had grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 2 acute hepatitis lasting ≥7 days).

The MTD was confirmed in part 2. Two of 10 patients had DLTs including grade 3 increase in ALT (recovered after 8 days) and AST (recovered after 6 days) in one patient, and grade 4 neutropenia requiring G-CSF. One patient discontinued treatment due to AEs (grade 2 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 neutropenia, both treatment related) prior to cycle 3. Seven of 10 patients received ≥3 cycles of study treatment, and ≥5 patients had at least a PR as a best overall response; therefore, investigators were instructed to proceed to part 3.

Safety and tolerability

Among 38 patients treated at the MTD, the most common treatment-related AEs of any grade were hematologic abnormalities, fatigue, liver enzyme abnormalities, and gastrointestinal toxicities; hematologic abnormalities accounted for most grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (Table 2). Twenty-one patients treated at the MTD had reported platelet laboratory values corresponding to grade ≥3 decreased platelets, 18 of whom recovered to grade ≤1 while on study after a median of 14 (range, 6–474) days. Twenty-seven patients treated at the MTD had reported neutrophil laboratory values corresponding to grade ≥3 neutrophil count decreased, all of whom recovered to grade ≤1 after a median of 9 (3–181) days. Three patients receiving the MTD experienced treatment-related QT prolongation (grade 1, n = 1; grade 2, n = 2).

Table 2.

Treatment-related AEsa

Patients receiving MTD (n = 38)Total (N = 48)
AE, n (%)All gradesGrade ≥3All gradesGrade ≥3
Any AE 38 (100) 32 (84) 48 (100) 40 (83) 
Blood and lymphatic system disorders 33 (87) 30 (79) 43 (90) 38 (79) 
 Thrombocytopenia 31 (82) 19 (50) 40 (83) 23 (48) 
 Neutropenia 28 (74) 28 (74) 37 (77) 35 (73) 
 Leukopenia 23 (61) 18 (47) 31 (65) 21 (44) 
 Lymphopenia 19 (50) 16 (42) 28 (58) 22 (46) 
 Anemia 7 (18) 9 (19) 
Gastrointestinal disorders 28 (74) 2 (5) 37 (77) 2 (4) 
 Constipation 16 (42) 23 (48) 
 Nausea 18 (47) 1 (3) 21 (44) 1 (2) 
 Vomiting 9 (24) 9 (19) 
 Stomatitis 4 (11) 5 (10) 
 Abdominal discomfort 4 (11) 4 (8) 
 Diarrhea 4 (11) 4 (8) 
General disorders and admin. site conditions 26 (68) 1 (3) 32 (67) 1 (2) 
 Fatigue 19 (50) 1 (3) 22 (46) 1 (2) 
 Malaise 6 (16) 8 (17) 
 Pyrexia 6 (16) 8 (17) 
Nervous system disorders 23 (61) 0 30 (63) 0 
 Peripheral neuropathy 8 (21) 11 (23) 
 Hypoesthesia 8 (21) 10 (21) 
 Dysgeusia 5 (13) 8 (17) 
Investigations 22 (58) 2 (5) 29 (60) 3 (6) 
 AST increased 14 (37) 1 (3) 19 (40) 2 (4) 
 ALT increased 12 (32) 2 (5) 16 (33) 3 (6) 
 AP increased 8 (21) 12 (25) 
 LDH increased 3 (8) 6 (13) 
Hepatobiliary disorders 16 (42) 1 (3) 22 (46) 2 (4) 
 Hyperbilirubinemia 13 (34) 1 (3) 18 (38) 2 (4) 
 Liver disorder 7 (18) 10 (21) 
Metabolism and nutrition disorders 16 (42) 1 (3) 22 (46) 1 (2) 
 Decreased appetite 9 (24) 13 (27) 
 Hyperglycemia 5 (13) 8 (17) 
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders 10 (26) 0 15 (31) 0 
 Alopecia 9 (24) 12 (25) 
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 8 (21) 0 12 (25) 0 
 Arthralgia 3 (8) 5 (10) 
Immune system disorders 7 (18) 0 8 (17) 0 
 Drug hypersensitivity 4 (11) 5 (10) 
Psychiatric disorders 5 (13) 0 5 (10) 0 
 Insomnia 4 (11) 4 (8) 
Patients receiving MTD (n = 38)Total (N = 48)
AE, n (%)All gradesGrade ≥3All gradesGrade ≥3
Any AE 38 (100) 32 (84) 48 (100) 40 (83) 
Blood and lymphatic system disorders 33 (87) 30 (79) 43 (90) 38 (79) 
 Thrombocytopenia 31 (82) 19 (50) 40 (83) 23 (48) 
 Neutropenia 28 (74) 28 (74) 37 (77) 35 (73) 
 Leukopenia 23 (61) 18 (47) 31 (65) 21 (44) 
 Lymphopenia 19 (50) 16 (42) 28 (58) 22 (46) 
 Anemia 7 (18) 9 (19) 
Gastrointestinal disorders 28 (74) 2 (5) 37 (77) 2 (4) 
 Constipation 16 (42) 23 (48) 
 Nausea 18 (47) 1 (3) 21 (44) 1 (2) 
 Vomiting 9 (24) 9 (19) 
 Stomatitis 4 (11) 5 (10) 
 Abdominal discomfort 4 (11) 4 (8) 
 Diarrhea 4 (11) 4 (8) 
General disorders and admin. site conditions 26 (68) 1 (3) 32 (67) 1 (2) 
 Fatigue 19 (50) 1 (3) 22 (46) 1 (2) 
 Malaise 6 (16) 8 (17) 
 Pyrexia 6 (16) 8 (17) 
Nervous system disorders 23 (61) 0 30 (63) 0 
 Peripheral neuropathy 8 (21) 11 (23) 
 Hypoesthesia 8 (21) 10 (21) 
 Dysgeusia 5 (13) 8 (17) 
Investigations 22 (58) 2 (5) 29 (60) 3 (6) 
 AST increased 14 (37) 1 (3) 19 (40) 2 (4) 
 ALT increased 12 (32) 2 (5) 16 (33) 3 (6) 
 AP increased 8 (21) 12 (25) 
 LDH increased 3 (8) 6 (13) 
Hepatobiliary disorders 16 (42) 1 (3) 22 (46) 2 (4) 
 Hyperbilirubinemia 13 (34) 1 (3) 18 (38) 2 (4) 
 Liver disorder 7 (18) 10 (21) 
Metabolism and nutrition disorders 16 (42) 1 (3) 22 (46) 1 (2) 
 Decreased appetite 9 (24) 13 (27) 
 Hyperglycemia 5 (13) 8 (17) 
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders 10 (26) 0 15 (31) 0 
 Alopecia 9 (24) 12 (25) 
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 8 (21) 0 12 (25) 0 
 Arthralgia 3 (8) 5 (10) 
Immune system disorders 7 (18) 0 8 (17) 0 
 Drug hypersensitivity 4 (11) 5 (10) 
Psychiatric disorders 5 (13) 0 5 (10) 0 
 Insomnia 4 (11) 4 (8) 

NOTE: Other grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs experienced by patients treated at the MTD were febrile neutropenia (n = 2), pneumococcal pneumonia and urosepsis (n = 1; same patient), leukocytosis, pneumonia, sepsis, infective arthritis, enteritis, and hyponatremia (all n = 1).

Abbreviations: Admin., administration; AP, alkaline phosphatase; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase.

aTreatment-related AEs occurring on or after the first dose date until 56 days after the last dose in ≥10% of patients treated at the MTD or in total are shown under the relevant Medical Dictionary for Regulated Activities System Organ Class (in bold) and preferred terms.

A total of 13 patients permanently discontinued treatment due to AEs, 11 of whom were treated at the MTD (Supplementary Table S2). AEs leading to discontinuation of treatment at the MTD were thrombocytopenia or delayed (>28 days) recovery from thrombocytopenia [n = 9 (grade 2, n = 6; grade 3, n = 1; grade 4, n = 2)], grade 3 neutropenia (n = 1; together with grade 2 thrombocytopenia), grade 2 ALT increased that prevented redosing for >28 days (n = 1), as well as grade 1 alkaline phosphatase and ALT increased (n = 1; patient had no subsequent laboratory assessments).

Six patients treated at the MTD (eight patients total) had AEs leading to dose reductions, including neutropenia (n = 2), leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, ALT increased, AST increased, weight decreased, and fatigue (n = 1 each; Supplementary Table S2). AEs leading to dose delays occurred with 24 patients receiving the MTD (26 patients total). Of these AEs, only neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (n = 10 each) occurred in >2 patients.

A total of 13 deaths were reported, most commonly due to PD (n = 9). Only one patient died within 28 days after the last dose of study treatment (due to cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to DLBCL). There was one report of treatment-related fatal pneumonia associated with grade 4 neutropenia; other reasons for death include cardiorespiratory arrest and lung cancer (n = 1 each).

Efficacy

Among the 38 patients treated at the MTD, the overall response rate (ORR) was 84% [95% confidence interval (CI), 69%–94%], including nine CRs (Table 3). All patients treated at lower levels responded [dose level 1 (n = 3), two CRs and one PR; dose level 2 (n = 3), one CR and two PRs]; of the four patients treated at level 4, one had a CR. All 27 patients with indolent B-cell NHL responded, including 11 (41%) who achieved a CR. Among the 21 patients with aggressive B-cell NHL, a response was observed in 12 (57%) patients, two of whom achieved a CR. In addition, a response of CR or PR was achieved by five of eight patients who were refractory to most recent prior therapy, including two with aggressive histology lymphoma.

Table 3.

Efficacy endpoints

IndolentaAggressivebMTDTotal treated
(n = 27)(n = 21)(n = 38)(n = 48)
Response, n (%) [95% CI] 
 ORR 27 (100) [87–100] 12 (57) [34–78] 32 (84) [69–94] 39 (81) [67–91] 
  CR 11 (41) 2 (10) 9 (24) 13 (27) 
  PR 16 (59) 10 (48) 23 (61) 26 (54) 
 SD 2 (10) 2 (5) 2 (4) 
 PD 6 (29) 4 (11) 6 (13) 
 Not assessed 1 (5) 1 (2) 
Median (95% CI)c, mo 
 PFS NR (13–NR) 4 (1–13) 14 (5–NR) 14 (7–NR) 
 OS NR 25 (5–NR) NR (25–NR) NR 
 DOR NR (11–NR) 11 (2–NR) 21 (9–NR) 18 (11–NR) 
Probability of PFS, (95% CI) 
 12 mo 0.74 (0.53–0.87) 0.32 (0.13–0.53) 0.57 (0.39–0.71) 0.56 (0.41–0.69) 
 24 mo 0.50 (0.29–0.68) 0.19 (0.05–0.40) 0.39 (0.23–0.54) 0.38 (0.23–0.52) 
Probability of OS, (95% CI) 
 12 mo 0.93 (0.74–0.98) 0.60 (0.36–0.78) 0.79 (0.62–0.89) 0.79 (0.64–0.88) 
 24 mo 0.89 (0.69–0.96) 0.55 (0.31–0.73) 0.74 (0.56–0.85) 0.74 (0.59–0.85) 
IndolentaAggressivebMTDTotal treated
(n = 27)(n = 21)(n = 38)(n = 48)
Response, n (%) [95% CI] 
 ORR 27 (100) [87–100] 12 (57) [34–78] 32 (84) [69–94] 39 (81) [67–91] 
  CR 11 (41) 2 (10) 9 (24) 13 (27) 
  PR 16 (59) 10 (48) 23 (61) 26 (54) 
 SD 2 (10) 2 (5) 2 (4) 
 PD 6 (29) 4 (11) 6 (13) 
 Not assessed 1 (5) 1 (2) 
Median (95% CI)c, mo 
 PFS NR (13–NR) 4 (1–13) 14 (5–NR) 14 (7–NR) 
 OS NR 25 (5–NR) NR (25–NR) NR 
 DOR NR (11–NR) 11 (2–NR) 21 (9–NR) 18 (11–NR) 
Probability of PFS, (95% CI) 
 12 mo 0.74 (0.53–0.87) 0.32 (0.13–0.53) 0.57 (0.39–0.71) 0.56 (0.41–0.69) 
 24 mo 0.50 (0.29–0.68) 0.19 (0.05–0.40) 0.39 (0.23–0.54) 0.38 (0.23–0.52) 
Probability of OS, (95% CI) 
 12 mo 0.93 (0.74–0.98) 0.60 (0.36–0.78) 0.79 (0.62–0.89) 0.79 (0.64–0.88) 
 24 mo 0.89 (0.69–0.96) 0.55 (0.31–0.73) 0.74 (0.56–0.85) 0.74 (0.59–0.85) 

Abbreviation: SD, stable disease.

aIndolent lymphoma includes follicular lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma.

bAggressive lymphoma includes DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma.

cCalculated 95% CI using the generalized Brookmeyer–Crowley method.

Kaplan–Meier estimated probabilities of PFS, OS, and DOR among all patients (n = 48) and those with indolent (n = 27) or aggressive (n = 21) B-cell NHL are shown in Fig. 2. A total of 28 patients experienced PFS events (PD, death, or new anticancer therapy). Among all 48 patients, the median (95% CI) PFS was 14.4 [6.9–not yet reached (NR)] months, and Kaplan–Meier estimated probability (95% CI) of PFS at 24 months was 0.38 (0.23–0.52). With 13 and 15 events, respectively, the median PFS was not reached for all patients with indolent B-cell NHL and was 4.4 (1.3–12.9) months for those with aggressive B-cell NHL. The Kaplan–Meier estimated probability (95% CI) of PFS at 24 months was 0.50 (0.29–0.68) for all patients with indolent B-cell NHL and 0.19 (0.05–0.40) for all patients with aggressive B-cell NHL.

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier estimate of PFS (A), OS (B), and DOR (C). PFS was defined as the time from first dose until the first date of disease progression (including symptomatic deterioration), new antilymphoma therapy, or death from any cause. Patients without a PFS event were censored at the date of last valid postbaseline tumor assessment; patients without a PFS event and no postbaseline tumor assessment were censored at the date of first dose of study drug. OS was defined as the time from first dose to death from any cause, censoring at the last date of patient contact. DOR was defined as the time from response until the first date of disease progression (including symptomatic deterioration), new antilymphoma therapy, or death from any cause. Patients without an event were censored at the date of last valid tumor assessment. Plus (+), censored events. *, Number of responders.

Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier estimate of PFS (A), OS (B), and DOR (C). PFS was defined as the time from first dose until the first date of disease progression (including symptomatic deterioration), new antilymphoma therapy, or death from any cause. Patients without a PFS event were censored at the date of last valid postbaseline tumor assessment; patients without a PFS event and no postbaseline tumor assessment were censored at the date of first dose of study drug. OS was defined as the time from first dose to death from any cause, censoring at the last date of patient contact. DOR was defined as the time from response until the first date of disease progression (including symptomatic deterioration), new antilymphoma therapy, or death from any cause. Patients without an event were censored at the date of last valid tumor assessment. Plus (+), censored events. *, Number of responders.

Close modal

After a median follow-up of 24.1 (range 1.3–38.1) months, 22 patients receiving the MTD had experienced PFS events. Among all 38 patients treated at the MTD, the median (95% CI) PFS was 14.4 (5.5–NR) months. The Kaplan–Meier estimated probability (95% CI) of PFS at 24 months was 0.39 (0.23–0.54; Table 3). For the 18 patients with aggressive B-cell NHL receiving the MTD, the median (95% CI) PFS was 4.4 (2.4–14.4) months, and Kaplan–Meier estimated probability (95% CI) of PFS at 24 months was 0.21 (0.06–0.44).

As of the data cutoff date (October 2, 2014), the median OS has not been reached for patients who received the MTD. The median (95% CI) OS was also not reached for patients with indolent B-cell NHL and was 24.5 (5.5–NR) months for patients with aggressive B-cell NHL. The Kaplan–Meier estimated probability (95% CI) of OS at 24 months was 0.74 (0.56–0.85) for patients receiving the MTD, 0.89 (0.69–0.96) for patients with indolent B-cell NHL, and 0.55 (0.31–0.73) for patients with aggressive B-cell NHL.

Among 32 responders treated at the MTD, the median (95% CI) DOR was 21.4 (9.2–NR) months (Table 3). Response duration was longer for patients with indolent [NR (11.2 months–NR)] versus aggressive [11.0 (1.8–NR) months] B-cell NHL.

Pharmacokinetics

Pharmacokinetic data from the start of cycle 3 were available from 23 patients treated at the MTD. Mean concentrations of inotuzumab ozogamicin and calicheamicin during cycle 3 are shown in Table 4. The concentrations of unconjugated calicheamicin were predominantly below the limit of quantification. Data for inotuzumab ozogamicin and total calicheamicin indicate that peak exposures were achieved at or near the end-of-infusion time, with high exposures minimally maintained through 24 hours. Total calicheamicin concentrations were usually detectable for approximately 1 week after dosing.

Table 4.

Mean concentrations of InO and total calicheamicin during cycle 3 following MTD treatmenta

Analyte, mean (n, CV%)Time, hb
 1c 24 144 
InO — 190 214 110 — 
 (23, -) (18, 43.0) (22, 33.5) (22, 33.9) (19, -) 
Total calicheamicin 26.6 32.4 21.7 7.6 
 (23, -) (18, 27.0) (22, 20.2) (22, 31.0) (19, 42.7) 
Analyte, mean (n, CV%)Time, hb
 1c 24 144 
InO — 190 214 110 — 
 (23, -) (18, 43.0) (22, 33.5) (22, 33.9) (19, -) 
Total calicheamicin 26.6 32.4 21.7 7.6 
 (23, -) (18, 27.0) (22, 20.2) (22, 31.0) (19, 42.7) 

Abbreviations: CV%, coefficient of variation; InO, inotuzumab ozogamicin.

aConcentrations expressed in units of ng/mL in serum.

bElapsed time relative to start of inotuzumab ozogamicin infusion.

cEnd of inotuzumab ozogamicin infusion.

Immunogenicity testing using ELISA indicated that 5.9% (7/118) of samples in 8.5% (4/47) of patients were positive for anti-inotuzumab ozogamicin antibodies; however, these positive samples were primarily obtained before cycle 1 and were not considered related to inotuzumab ozogamicin treatment. Antibodies to inotuzumab ozogamicin were detected in two patients after inotuzumab ozogamicin treatment, neither of whom exhibited clinical symptoms attributable to the formation of anti-inotuzumab ozogamicin antibodies. No anti-rituximab antibodies were detected among 116 samples drawn from 46 patients.

Currently, there is considerable interest in the potential for delivering targeted cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of lymphomas by conjugating these agents with specific mAbs that recognize highly expressed cell surface proteins (30–32). Despite the progress in initial treatment of B-cell NHL using combinations of mAbs with chemotherapy, there remains an unmet clinical need as most adult patients with NHL relapse, and many become refractory to standard therapy. Results from in vitro studies suggest mAbs can sensitize lymphoma cells to chemotherapy (33, 34), and a synergistic effect was observed between rituximab and various cytotoxic agents in patients with relapsed/refractory disease (35–39). In addition, unconjugated mAbs generally have mild, nonoverlapping toxicities with most cytotoxic agents (40). We therefore assessed the safety, MTD, and preliminary efficacy of the addition of another targeted agent (inotuzumab ozogamicin) to R-CVP in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell NHL.

The MTD for inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP was determined to be inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2 plus standard-dose R-CVP given on a 21-day cycle; DLTs were hematologic (grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) and hepatic (grade 2 hepatitis). Although dose escalation of cyclophosphamide in this combination was possible, the inotuzumab ozogamicin dose could not be increased. Consistent with the observed DLTs, toxicities associated with inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP were frequently hematologic [most commonly thrombocytopenia (83%)]; these toxicities were also the most common reason for treatment discontinuations, dose delays, and/or dose reductions. However, most patients had received ≥2 prior therapies, potentially predisposing them to developing hematologic AEs. Whereas fatigue (50%), constipation (42%), and nausea (47%) were the most common (any grade) treatment-related nonhematologic AEs in patients treated at the MTD, liver test abnormalities, including ALT increased (32%), AST increased (37%), and hyperbilirubinemia (34%) were also frequent and were a common reason for treatment discontinuation or dose reduction. Grade 3/4 nonhematologic AEs were uncommon. Overall, the toxicity profile of this combination was consistent with that previously reported for inotuzumab ozogamicin alone (18, 19), or in combination with rituximab (20, 21).

The benefit of adding rituximab to chemotherapeutic regimens to response and survival rates is well established (2, 3, 41–45), and immunochemotherapies have become standard treatments for relapsed/refractory disease. However, the addition of anthracyclines to CVP significantly increases the toxicity of the regimen (46, 47); R-CVP may be preferable to anthracycline-containing regimens in patients with a known cardiac history or for whom cumulative cardiac toxicity may be of concern; as such, R-CVP was chosen in this study for coadministration with inotuzumab ozogamicin.

Interpretation of the efficacy data is limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity of enrolled patients. In addition, observed responses and response durations should be interpreted in the light of the low risk of many of the patients enrolled in this study, as 13 (34%) of the 38 patients treated at the MTD had stage I/II disease at study entry and 16 (42%) had achieved a CR to their most recent prior regimen. Nevertheless, the preliminary efficacy is encouraging, with 11 and two CRs observed in patients with indolent and aggressive B-cell NHL, respectively. The ORR for all follicular lymphoma patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin plus R-CVP (100%) compares favorably with that reported for frontline R-CVP in patients with follicular lymphoma (81%; ref. 44) and appears similar to that reported for rituximab plus inotuzumab ozogamicin (80%) in early-phase studies (22, 23). In addition, there was a 57% response rate in patients with aggressive lymphoma. This suggests that it may be appropriate to examine inotuzumab ozogamicin in combination with R-CVP in patients unable to tolerate anthracyclines (48), and a study of this regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients with DLBCL who are not candidates for anthracycline-based treatment is currently recruiting (49). Treatment at the MTD was also associated with notable PFS and OS rates at 24 months of 39% and 74%, respectively.

Circulating levels of inotuzumab ozogamicin, total calicheamicin, and unconjugated calicheamicin appear comparable with those previously reported following concomitant treatment of inotuzumab ozogamicin with rituximab alone in patients with B-NHL (23). The potential for the formation of anti-inotuzumab ozogamicin and anti-rituximab antibodies appears low.

In conclusion, inotuzumab ozogamicin 0.8 mg/m2 given with standard-dose R-CVP demonstrated manageable safety and tolerability. Nearly all grade 3/4 AEs in this heavily pretreated population were hematologic, most commonly thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Although the antitumor activity of this combination was noteworthy, further investigation in a larger population would be required to determine whether this regimen offers an advantage over other previously established regimens or whether inotuzumab ozogamicin should be combined with other agents.

M. Ogura reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and is a consultant/advisory board member for Celgene, MeijiSeika Pharma, Mundipharma, and Sandoz. K. Tobinai reports receiving commercial research grants from Abbvie, Celgene, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Servier. A. Davies is a consultant/advisory board member for CTI, Gilead, Karyopharma, Mudipharma, Roche, and Takeda, reports receiving commercial research grants from Acerta, Bayer, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and reports receiving fees for presentation at an educational meeting from Janssen. M. Crump is a consultant/advisory board member for Celgene, Roche Canada, and Seattle Genetics. L. Paccagnella and E. Vandendries have ownership interest (including patents) in Pfizer. D. MacDonald is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche Canada.

Conception and design: J. Boni, E. Vandendries

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): M. Ogura, K. Tobinai, K. Hatake, A. Davies, M. Crump, D. MacDonald

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M. Ogura, K. Tobinai, A. Davies, M. Crump, R. Ananthakrishnan, T. Ishibashi, L. Paccagnella, J. Boni, E. Vandendries

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M. Ogura, K. Tobinai, A. Davies, M. Crump, R. Ananthakrishnan, T. Ishibashi, L. Paccagnella, J. Boni, E. Vandendries, D. MacDonald

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): T. Ishibashi, L. Paccagnella

Study supervision: L. Paccagnella

We would like to thank the patients who participated in this study and their families, as well as the research nurses, study coordinators, and operations staff. This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Editorial support was provided by Johna VanStelten, PhD, and Simon J. Slater, PhD, of Complete Healthcare Communications, LLC., and was funded by Pfizer Inc.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Siegel
RL
,
Miller
KD
,
Jemal
A
. 
Cancer statistics, 2015
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2015
;
65
:
5
29
.
2.
Coiffier
B
,
Lepage
E
,
Briere
J
,
Herbrecht
R
,
Tilly
H
,
Bouabdallah
R
, et al
CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
2002
;
346
:
235
42
.
3.
Coiffier
B
,
Thieblemont
C
,
Van Den Neste
E
,
Lepeu
G
,
Plantier
I
,
Castaigne
S
, et al
Long-term outcome of patients in the LNH-98.5 trial, the first randomized study comparing rituximab-CHOP to standard CHOP chemotherapy in DLBCL patients: a study by the Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes de l'Adulte
.
Blood
2010
;
116
:
2040
5
.
4.
Herbrecht
R
,
Cernohous
P
,
Engert
A
,
Le Gouill
S
,
Macdonald
D
,
Machida
C
, et al
Comparison of pixantrone-based regimen (CPOP-R) with doxorubicin-based therapy (CHOP-R) for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
.
Ann Oncol
2013
;
24
:
2618
23
.
5.
Hernandez-Ilizaliturri
FJ
,
Gowda
A
,
Czuczman
MS
. 
Development of targeted therapies for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma
.
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol
2004
;
2
:
606
18
.
6.
Leonard
JP
. 
Antibodies in the treatment of lymphoma
.
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol
2004
;
2
:
210
1
.
7.
Sullivan-Chang
L
,
O'Donnell
RT
,
Tuscano
JM
. 
Targeting CD22 in B-cell malignancies: current status and clinical outlook
.
BioDrugs
2013
;
27
:
293
304
.
8.
Friedberg
JW
,
Vose
JM
,
Kelly
JL
,
Young
F
,
Bernstein
SH
,
Peterson
D
, et al
The combination of bendamustine, bortezomib, and rituximab for patients with relapsed/refractory indolent and mantle cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
2011
;
117
:
2807
12
.
9.
Maddocks
K
,
Christian
B
,
Jaglowski
S
,
Flynn
J
,
Jones
JA
,
Porcu
P
, et al
A phase 1/1b study of rituximab, bendamustine, and ibrutinib in patients with untreated and relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
2015
;
125
:
242
8
.
10.
Vaickus
L
,
Ball
ED
,
Foon
KA
. 
Immune markers in hematologic malignancies
.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
1991
;
11
:
267
97
.
11.
Schwartz-Albiez
R
,
Dorken
B
,
Monner
DA
,
Moldenhauer
G
. 
CD22 antigen: biosynthesis, glycosylation and surface expression of a B lymphocyte protein involved in B cell activation and adhesion
.
Int Immunol
1991
;
3
:
623
33
.
12.
Hinman
LM
,
Hamann
PR
,
Wallace
R
,
Menendez
AT
,
Durr
FE
,
Upeslacis
J
. 
Preparation and characterization of monoclonal antibody conjugates of the calicheamicins: a novel and potent family of antitumor antibiotics
.
Cancer Res
1993
;
53
:
3336
42
.
13.
Boue
DR
,
LeBien
TW
. 
Expression and structure of CD22 in acute leukemia
.
Blood
1988
;
71
:
1480
6
.
14.
Bouchard
H
,
Viskov
C
,
Garcia-Echeverria
C
. 
Antibody-drug conjugates-A new wave of cancer drugs
.
Bioorg Med Chem Lett
2014
;
24
:
5357
63
.
15.
Zein
N
,
Sinha
AM
,
McGahren
WJ
,
Ellestad
GA
. 
Calicheamicin gamma 1I: an antitumor antibiotic that cleaves double-stranded DNA site specifically
.
Science
1988
;
240
:
1198
201
.
16.
DiJoseph
JF
,
Armellino
DC
,
Boghaert
ER
,
Khandke
K
,
Dougher
MM
,
Sridharan
L
, et al
Antibody-targeted chemotherapy with CMC-544: a CD22-targeted immunoconjugate of calicheamicin for the treatment of B-lymphoid malignancies
.
Blood
2004
;
103
:
1807
14
.
17.
Hanna-Rose
W
,
Hansen
U
. 
Active repression mechanisms of eukaryotic transcription repressors
.
Trends Genet
1996
;
12
:
229
34
.
18.
Abulayha
A
,
Bredan
A
,
Enshasy
HE
,
Daniels
I
. 
Rituximab: modes of action, remaining dispute and future perspective
.
Future Oncol
2014
;
10
:
2481
92
.
19.
DiJoseph
JF
,
Dougher
MM
,
Kalyandrug
LB
,
Armellino
DC
,
Boghaert
ER
,
Hamann
PR
, et al
Antitumor efficacy of a combination of CMC-544 (inotuzumab ozogamicin), a CD22-targeted cytotoxic immunoconjugate of calicheamicin, and rituximab against non-Hodgkin's B-cell lymphoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2006
;
12
:
242
9
.
20.
Advani
A
,
Coiffier
B
,
Czuczman
MS
,
Dreyling
M
,
Foran
J
,
Gine
E
, et al
Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a novel immunoconjugate for the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a phase I study
.
J Clin Oncol
2010
;
28
:
2085
93
.
21.
Ogura
M
,
Tobinai
K
,
Hatake
K
,
Uchida
T
,
Kasai
M
,
Oyama
T
, et al
Phase I study of inotuzumab ozogamicin (CMC-544) in Japanese patients with follicular lymphoma pretreated with rituximab-based therapy
.
Cancer Sci
2010
;
101
:
1840
5
.
22.
Ogura
M
,
Hatake
K
,
Ando
K
,
Tobinai
K
,
Tokushige
K
,
Ono
C
, et al
Phase I study of anti-CD22 immunoconjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin plus rituximab in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Cancer Sci
2012
;
103
:
933
8
.
23.
Fayad
L
,
Offner
F
,
Smith
MR
,
Verhoef
G
,
Johnson
P
,
Kaufman
JL
, et al
Safety and clinical activity of a combination therapy comprising two antibody-based targeting agents for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: results of a phase I/II study evaluating the immunoconjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin with rituximab
.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
573
83
.
24.
DiJoseph
JF
,
Dougher
MM
,
Evans
DY
,
Zhou
BB
,
Damle
NK
. 
Preclinical anti-tumor activity of antibody-targeted chemotherapy with CMC-544 (inotuzumab ozogamicin), a CD22-specific immunoconjugate of calicheamicin, compared with non-targeted combination chemotherapy with CVP or CHOP
.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
2011
;
67
:
741
9
.
25.
Turturro
F
. 
Update on front-line therapy for follicular lymphoma: chemo-immunotherapy with rituximab and survival
.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
2007
;
7
:
959
65
.
26.
van Oers
MH
,
Klasa
R
,
Marcus
RE
,
Wolf
M
,
Kimby
E
,
Gascoyne
RD
, et al
Rituximab maintenance improves clinical outcome of relapsed/resistant follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma in patients both with and without rituximab during induction: results of a prospective randomized phase 3 intergroup trial
.
Blood
2006
;
108
:
3295
301
.
27.
Chao
MP
. 
Treatment challenges in the management of relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - novel and emerging therapies
.
Cancer Manag Res
2013
;
5
:
251
69
.
28.
Cheson
BD
,
Pfistner
B
,
Juweid
ME
,
Gascoyne
RD
,
Specht
L
,
Horning
SJ
, et al
Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
579
86
.
29.
Ogura
M
,
Uchida
T
,
MacDonald
DA
,
Hatake
K
,
Davies
A
,
Sangha
R
, et al
An open-label, phase I study of R-CVP in combination with inotuzumab ozogamicin in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma [abstract]
.
Blood
2011
;
118
:
3715
.
30.
Senter
PD
,
Sievers
EL
. 
The discovery and development of brentuximab vedotin for use in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma
.
Nat Biotechnol
2012
;
30
:
631
7
.
31.
Pro
B
,
Advani
R
,
Brice
P
,
Bartlett
NL
,
Rosenblatt
JD
,
Illidge
T
, et al
Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) in patients with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: results of a phase II study
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
2190
6
.
32.
Younes
A
,
Gopal
AK
,
Smith
SE
,
Ansell
SM
,
Rosenblatt
JD
,
Savage
KJ
, et al
Results of a pivotal phase II study of brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
2183
9
.
33.
Chow
KU
,
Sommerlad
WD
,
Boehrer
S
,
Schneider
B
,
Seipelt
G
,
Rummel
MJ
, et al
Anti-CD20 antibody (IDEC-C2B8, rituximab) enhances efficacy of cytotoxic drugs on neoplastic lymphocytes in vitro: role of cytokines, complement, and caspases
.
Haematologica
2002
;
87
:
33
43
.
34.
Demidem
A
,
Lam
T
,
Alas
S
,
Hariharan
K
,
Hanna
N
,
Bonavida
B
. 
Chimeric anti-CD20 (IDEC-C2B8) monoclonal antibody sensitizes a B cell lymphoma cell line to cell killing by cytotoxic drugs
.
Cancer Biother Radiopharm
1997
;
12
:
177
86
.
35.
Griffin
MM
,
Morley
N
. 
Rituximab in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma–a critical evaluation of randomized controlled trials
.
Expert Opin Biol Ther
2013
;
13
:
803
11
.
36.
Hagemeister
F
. 
Rituximab for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia
.
Drugs
2010
;
70
:
261
72
.
37.
Keating
GM
. 
Spotlight on rituximab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, low-grade or follicular lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
.
BioDrugs
2011
;
25
:
55
61
.
38.
Tarella
C
,
Zanni
M
,
Magni
M
,
Benedetti
F
,
Patti
C
,
Barbui
T
, et al
Rituximab improves the efficacy of high-dose chemotherapy with autograft for high-risk follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a multicenter Gruppo Italiano Terapie Innnovative nei linfomi survey
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
3166
75
.
39.
Alas
S
,
Emmanouilides
C
,
Bonavida
B
. 
Inhibition of interleukin 10 by rituximab results in down-regulation of bcl-2 and sensitization of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to apoptosis
.
Clin Cancer Res
2001
;
7
:
709
23
.
40.
Halwani
AS
,
Link
BK
. 
Chemotherapy and antibody combinations for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
2011
;
11
:
443
55
.
41.
Hiddemann
W
,
Kneba
M
,
Dreyling
M
,
Schmitz
N
,
Lengfelder
E
,
Schmits
R
, et al
Frontline therapy with rituximab added to the combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) significantly improves the outcome for patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma compared with therapy with CHOP alone: results of a prospective randomized study of the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group
.
Blood
2005
;
106
:
3725
32
.
42.
Czuczman
MS
,
Weaver
R
,
Alkuzweny
B
,
Berlfein
J
,
Grillo-Lopez
AJ
. 
Prolonged clinical and molecular remission in patients with low-grade or follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with rituximab plus CHOP chemotherapy: 9-year follow-up
.
J Clin Oncol
2004
;
22
:
4711
6
.
43.
Czuczman
MS
,
Koryzna
A
,
Mohr
A
,
Stewart
C
,
Donohue
K
,
Blumenson
L
, et al
Rituximab in combination with fludarabine chemotherapy in low-grade or follicular lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
694
704
.
44.
Marcus
R
,
Imrie
K
,
Solal-Celigny
P
,
Catalano
JV
,
Dmoszynska
A
,
Raposo
JC
, et al
Phase III study of R-CVP compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone alone in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
4579
86
.
45.
Herold
M
,
Haas
A
,
Srock
S
,
Neser
S
,
Al-Ali
KH
,
Neubauer
A
, et al
Rituximab added to first-line mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, and prednisolone chemotherapy followed by interferon maintenance prolongs survival in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: an East German Study Group Hematology and Oncology Study
.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
1986
92
.
46.
Kimby
E
,
Bjorkholm
M
,
Gahrton
G
,
Glimelius
B
,
Hagberg
H
,
Johansson
B
, et al
Chlorambucil/prednisone vs. CHOP in symptomatic low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: a randomized trial from the Lymphoma Group of Central Sweden
.
Ann Oncol
1994
;
5
Suppl 2
:
67
71
.
47.
Peterson
BA
,
Petroni
GR
,
Frizzera
G
,
Barcos
M
,
Bloomfield
CD
,
Nissen
NI
, et al
Prolonged single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in indolent follicular lymphomas: a study of the cancer and leukemia group B
.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
5
15
.
48.
Federico
M
,
Luminari
S
,
Dondi
A
,
Tucci
A
,
Vitolo
U
,
Rigacci
L
, et al
R-CVP versus R-CHOP versus R-FM for the initial treatment of patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: results of the FOLL05 trial conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi
.
J Clin Oncol
2013
;
31
:
1506
13
.
49.
Yilmaz
M
,
Kantarijan
H
,
Quintas-Cardama
A
,
O'Brien
S
,
Burger
JA
,
Ferrajoli
A
, et al
Estimated glomerular filtration rate changes in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) [abstract]
.
Blood
2013
;
122
:
1488
.