Induction Therapy and Thalidomide Based Maintenance in Multiple Myeloma - A Retrospective Analysis from a Tertiary Cancer Center

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e79
Author(s):  
Arun Ramanan
Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 198-198
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Cowan ◽  
Philip A. Stevenson ◽  
Noam Kopmar ◽  
Edward N. Libby ◽  
Pamela S. Becker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care for eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Typically, patients receive several cycles of induction therapy to achieve appropriate cytoreduction prior to ASCT. Since the introduction of lenalidomide into induction therapy, there have been conflicting reports about its impact on subsequent autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization. Early reports showed a trend of patients failing PBSC mobilization and collection after lenalidomide when granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) was employed as a single agent. More recent reports suggested that using chemotherapy in combination with growth factors including plerixafor can overcome failures of mobilization. To address these conflicting reports, we evaluated the impact of prior lenalidomide in a large cohort of MM patients undergoing mobilization and collection at a tertiary stem cell transplant center. Methods: The primary aim of this study was to identify the impact of prolonged lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of autologous PBSCs. We examined all patients 18 years of age and older, with a confirmed diagnosis of MM who attempted stem cell mobilization and collection between January 2012 and July 2015 at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Collected information included: demographics, staging according to the International Staging System, results of cytogenetics by conventional karyotype or FISH, prior treatments, number of cycles of lenalidomide received, mobilization method, receipt of plerixafor, number of stem cells collected, days of collection, and receipt of prior radiation therapy. Patients were also scored as successful or failed mobilization (defined as collecting < 2.5 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg). The patients were categorized into 3 groups (based on our recommendations for induction duration ≤ 6 cycles) for analysis: 1) Those patients with prior receipt of > 6 cycles lenalidomide, 2) Those patients with prior receipt of ≤ 6 cycles of lenalidomide, and 3) Patients without prior lenalidomide exposure. Results: We identified 297 patients with MM who underwent mobilization of PBSCs. Of these, 35 received > 6 cycles of lenalidomide (median of 8 cycles, range of 7 - 25), 156 received ≤ 6 cycles of lenalidomide (median of 4 cycles, range 1 - 6), and 106 received no lenalidomide (Table 1). Similar proportions of patients in each group of lenalidomide exposure received chemotherapy mobilization, chemotherapy with plerixafor, GCSF alone, and GCSF with plerixafor. There was no significant difference in receipt of plerixafor between these groups (p=0.41). A second mobilization attempt was made in 1 patient (2.9%) who received > 6 cycles of lenalidomide, 1.9% of patients who received ≤ 6 cycles of lenalidomide, and 0% of patients with no prior lenalidomide exposure. Only one patient, who had not received lenalidomide previously, failed to collect. In a multivariate linear regression analysis for association between receipt of > 6 cycles of lenalidomide with total number of PBSCs collected, with other covariates including prior radiation therapy, age, and number of prior regimens received, we did not observe a significant effect (regression coefficient of -3.37, p=0.166). We then examined whether receiving > 6 cycles of lenalidomide was associated with days of stem cell collection in a multivariate regression; other covariates included prior radiation therapy, age, mobilization regimen, and number of prior regimens, and did not see any association (regression coefficient -0.053, p=0.697). Discussion: In this retrospective analysis of MM patients undergoing autologous PBSC mobilization at a single center, we show that prior lenalidomide exposure did not meaningfully impact the total number of PBSC collected or the number of days of apheresis after controlling for clinically relevant features in a multivariate model. These data suggest that longer courses of induction therapy with lenalidomide-containing regimens to achieve a maximum response before transplant should not adversely impact the ability to collect PBSC, and that arbitrarily limiting lenalidomide use pre-mobilization does not appear warranted. The extensive use of chemotherapy with G-CSF and plerixafor for mobilization at our center may account in part for these findings. Disclosures Cowan: Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Incyte: Consultancy; Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Asana: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Holmberg:Millenium-Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; NCCN: Consultancy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. e165-e170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cinnie Yentia Soekojo ◽  
Jia Zhen Low ◽  
Jaslyn Oh ◽  
Melissa Ooi ◽  
Sanjay De Mel ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-367
Author(s):  
Suresh Kumar Bondili ◽  
Bhausaheb Bagal ◽  
Abhinav Zawar ◽  
Pradeep Ventrapati ◽  
Jayashree Thorat ◽  
...  

PURPOSE The prognosis of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that is refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide is very poor wherein the median survival is between 3 and 9 months. We did this retrospective analysis to study the pattern of utilization, tolerance, and outcomes with pomalidomide in these patients having RRMM. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective analysis of all the patients who were treated with generic pomalidomide at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, during the period of May 2017 to March 2019 was done. Patients with secretory disease and who had completed at least one cycle of pomalidomide were analyzed for response rates, toxicity, and survival outcomes. RESULTS A total of 81 patients received pomalidomide-based therapy during this study period, out of which 75 were included in the survival analysis. Forty-eight patients (59.3%) were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. Overall response rate was 58.7%. Five patients (6.7%) achieved complete response, very good partial response was seen in 13 patients (17.3%), and partial response was seen in 26 patients (34.7%). After a median follow-up of 11 months (range 2-27 months), median progression-free survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.9 months). Median progression-free survival for patients who were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib versus nonrefractory was 5.5 and 12.6 months, respectively, which was significant statistically ( P = .04, hazard ratio, 0.35, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.97). The median overall survival was not reached. Important toxicities included anemia (28%), neutropenia (16%), pneumonia (16%), and venous thrombosis (5%). CONCLUSION Generic pomalidomide-based therapy is an effective option and is well tolerated in patients with RRMM. Higher response rates and longer survival seen in our study are possibly because of heterogeneity of the study population.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giv Heidari-Bateni ◽  
Jean-Bernard Durand ◽  
Cezar Iliescu ◽  
Greg Gladish ◽  
Anita Deswal ◽  
...  

Objectives: To assess the clinical impact of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) in clinical decision making of cancer patients with a suspected cardiomyopathy in a tertiary cancer center.Background: Cardiomyopathies of diverse etiologies are frequently encountered in a Cardio-Oncology practice. The clinical impact of CMR after a presumptive diagnosis of cardiomyopathy has not been studied in cancer patients.Methods: We reviewed data on cancer patients with presumptive diagnosis of cardiomyopathy who underwent CMR in a tertiary cancer center. The clinical impact of CMR was defined as either change in clinical diagnosis or management post CMR results. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether any of the baseline characteristics were predictive of the clinical impact of CMR.Results: A total of 110 consecutive patients were identified. Clinical impact of CMR was seen in 68 (62%) patients. Change in the clinical diagnosis and management was seen in 56 (51%) and 41 (37%) of patients, respectively. The most common change was prevention of endomyocardial biopsy in 26 patients (24%). Overall, patients with higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography (echo), clinical impact was influenced more by CMR (LVEF of 37.2 ± 12.3% vs. 51.5 ± 11.6%, p &lt; 0.001). Cancer diagnosis of multiple myeloma was associated with change in the management post CMR (adjusted OR of 25.6, 95% CI 4.0–162.4, p = 0.001). Suspicion of infiltrative cardiomyopathy was associated with a higher likelihood of change in diagnosis. Having an LVEF≥40 by echo was associated with change in diagnosis and management by CMR.Conclusions: Utilization of CMR has a significant clinical impact in cancer patients with suspected cardiomyopathy. Patients with cancer diagnosis of multiple myeloma, suspicion of infiltrative cardiomyopathy and those with higher LVEF by echo seem to benefit more from CMR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document