Real-World Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone, or Bortezomib and Dexamethasone: An Enhanced Electronic Health Records Database Analysis

Abstract Background: For transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), the only category 1 regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based, including triplet therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) (NCCN Myeloma v4.2018). Other doublet regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), are still a first-line option for patients with NDMM, especially for those who are elderly and/or frail. However, the latter population is either excluded or markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. Using an electronic health records (EHRs) database, we compared outcomes when either RVd or Vd were used in the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in a real-world practice setting, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two cohorts. Methods: A retrospective observational study of patients with NDMM was conducted using EHRs from a nationally representative database (Flatiron Health). The Flatiron Network database is an enhanced oncology EHR database of patients treated at 265 clinics throughout the USA. Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, ICD-9 (203.0x) or ICD-10 (C90.xx), between January 2011 and May 2018 who were treated with RVd or Vd and did not undergo stem cell transplantation were included in the analysis. The primary comparison was time to next therapy (TTNT) in the overall population and in a subset of frail patients, as determined by a composite score based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Data regarding overall and progression-free survival (PFS) were limited as patient data prior to adoption of the Flatiron Network database were incomplete. Treatment-free interval (TFI) for patients who initiated a second-line therapy was defined as time from start of first-line to start of second-line therapy minus the duration of therapy (DOT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate TTNT after adjusting for differences in patient baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 8,470 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in the database, 2,369 were treated with either RVd (n = 1,309) or Vd (n = 1,060) and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Patients treated with Vd were more likely to be older (median age 75 vs 70 years; P < 0.0001), frail (76.3% vs 65.4%; P = 0.0002), have creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (23.9% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), have a higher ECOG PS score (P = 0.0031), and have International Staging System stage III disease (45.1% vs 28.8%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in baseline neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, or in median CCI. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was lower in the Vd group (19.7% vs 26.0%; P < 0.0001). The mean DOT was longer for RVd (11.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 13.3 months) than for Vd (7.7 ± SD 9.7 months). However, the median adjusted TTNT was significantly longer with RVd than Vd (40.9 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.55; P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients initiating a new treatment was lower in the RVd group (24.8% vs 40.6%; P < 0.0001). Among those who initiated a second-line therapy, the mean TFI for RVd compared with Vd was 42.6 versus 39.3 days, respectively (P = 0.2214). Among the 735 frail patients (416 RVd and 319 Vd), the median TTNT was significantly longer with RVd (32.6 vs 17.1 months; HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.54; P < 0.0001; Figure). Similar to the overall population, there were no significant differences in TFI (54.9 vs 29.6 days, P = 0.2598) and a significantly higher proportion of Vd patients initiated a new treatment (22.1% vs 36.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world practice setting where PFS cannot be measured directly, triplet therapy with RVd significantly prolonged TTNT compared with Vd by 26.1 months in the overall patient population, and by 15.5 months in frail transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Ung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tian:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parikh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Analysis of Second-Line Lenalidomide Following Initial Relapse in the MM-015 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.944.944 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 944-944 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Meletios A Dimopoulos ◽

Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽

Robin Foa ◽

John V. Catalano ◽

Martin Kropff ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Second Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Third Line Therapy ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Third Line ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 944 Background: MM-009/010 established lenalidomide (LEN) + dexamethasone (DEX) as a standard of care in the treatment (Tx) of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Dimopoulos, NEJM. 2007; Weber, NEJM. 2007). The greatest benefits were observed when LEN + DEX was used at first relapse (Stadtmauer, Eur J Haematol. 2009). MM-015 is a pivotal, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with fixed-cycle melphalan-prednisone (MP) and melphalan-prednisone-LEN (MPR) in elderly patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplant. The final analysis demonstrated unprecedented improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts receiving MPR-R vs MP (31 vs 13 months [mos]; P < 0.001) with manageable toxicity (Palumbo, NEJM. 2012). The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess post-progression outcomes by second-line Tx and by initial MM-015 Tx arm (MPR-R, MPR, and MP). Methods: Induction and maintenance Tx has been described (Palumbo, NEJM. 2012). Pts with progressive disease during MM-015 could enroll in an open-label extension phase (OLEP) to receive LEN 25 mg (D1-21) ± DEX 40 mg (D1-4, 9–12, and 17–20) or could receive any other anti-myeloma Tx outside of the protocol. This analysis includes data up to Apr 10, 2012 (median follow-up: 48 mos after initial randomization). Time to progression (TTP) was assessed from randomization to disease progression as assessed by investigator. Time from start of second line to start of third-line Tx was assessed as a surrogate for TTP in second line. Safety data were assessed only for pts enrolled in the OLEP. Results: A total of 459 pts were enrolled in MM-015. Consistent with the superior PFS of MPR-R, fewer pts from the MPR-R arm progressed compared with the MPR and MP arms: 54% (81/150) vs 77% (117/152), and 83% (127/153) respectively. Compared with the overall population, pts receiving second-line Tx had shorter median first-line TTP (29 vs 20 mos), particularly for the MPR-R arm. This suggests that the present subset of pts in the MPR-R arm who started second-line therapy represents the early progressors, those with worse prognosis or more aggressive disease (Table). More pts received second-line Tx in the MP (72%) and MPR (58%) arms vs MPR-R arm (30%, Table); second-line Tx type was heterogeneous for MPR-R pts. Median time from second- to third-line Tx was significantly longer for LEN-based Tx vs non-LEN-based Tx across the 3 arms: MPR-R (18 vs 13 mos; P = 0.044), MPR (23 vs 8 mos; P = 0.02), and MP (18 vs 10 mos; P = 0.001). Median time from second- to third-line therapy with bortezomib (BORT)-based regimens was 14, 16, and 12 mos, respectively. This corresponded to higher proportions of pts remaining on second-line LEN at 2 yrs (38%, 44%, and 40%) vs non-LEN (15%, 30%, and 13%) for MPR-R, MPR, and MP, respectively. When evaluating second-line BORT, 22%, 33%, and 17%, respectively, had not progressed from second- to third-line therapy at 2 years. Prior LEN maintenance did not appear to induce resistant relapses as time from second- to third-line Tx was similar for all arms (Table) and all comparisons: MPR-R vs MP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.924; P = 0.69), MPR-R vs MPR (HR = 1.076; P = 0.71), and MPR vs MP (HR = 0.895; P = 0.53). With limited follow-up, no significant differences in post-relapse OS have been detected. Newly occurring grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) reported for ≥ 5% of pts entering the OLEP (n = 153) were neutropenia (11%) and anemia (5%). Grade 3/4 deep vein thrombosis and peripheral neuropathy occurred in 3% and 1% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: LEN-based Tx was active in the second line, with comparable efficacy regardless of first-line therapy (MPR-R, MPR, or MP). Although pt numbers are relatively small, and this is a non-randomized comparison, results with second-line LEN-based therapy compared favorably to outcomes with other Tx. The OLEP tolerability profile was favorable, with limited newly occurring grade 3/4 AEs. Importantly, LEN maintenance does not appear to induce resistant relapses. These results support the known activity of LEN as second-line MM therapy. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene Corp: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as frontline treatment of multiple myeloma. Petrucci:Celgene Corp: Honoraria. Foa:Celgene Corp: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Catalano:Celgene Corp: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herbein:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palumbo:Celgene Corp: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Targeted MEK Inhibition in Patients with Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.4775.4775 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 4775-4775 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Christoph Heuck ◽

Yogesh Jethava ◽

Rashid Z Khan ◽

Scott Miller ◽

Alan Mitchell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Mapk Pathway ◽

Objective Response ◽

Genomic Profiling ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Diagnostic and therapeutic advances have significantly improved the outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. However, pts who are refractory to or relapse after therapy with immune modulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors remain a therapeutic challenge. Comprehensive genomic profiling via clinical next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays studies of MM cases have revealed multiple targetable mutations that were previously unexploited in MM. Methods: Between June 2013 and May 2014 we performed genomic profiling of 351 patients who had progressed after initial therapy to assist physicians in therapy planning. Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed using the FoundationOne¨ or FoundationOne Heme¨ assays. FoundationOne assays 374 cancer-related and 24 frequently rearranged genes via DNA-seq, and FoundationOneHeme assays 405 cancer-related and 31 frequently rearranged genes via DNA-seq as well as 265 frequently rearranged genes by RNA-seq. All samples were sequenced in a CLIA-certified CAP-accredited laboratory to an average depth >500x . Patients with activating alterations of KRAS, NRAS or BRAF were considered for therapy with the targeted agent trametinib (TMTB) as were patients who had a gene expression signature suggesting activation of the MAPK pathway. Retrospective review of this case series was approved by the UAMS institutional review board. Results: We identified 63 patients who underwent treatment with Trametinib. 60 were treated based on activating mutations of KRAS, NRAS or BRAF and 3 were treated based on a GEP signature. The median age was 65 and patients had a median of 5 lines of prior therapy (range 1-20). 38 of 63 patients had prior treatment with Total Therapy. 43 underwent salvage with chemotherapy prior to initiation of TMTB, 15 had salvage transplants, 33 patients were exposed to novel agents (Pomalidomide, Carfilzomib) and 33 had Metronomic therapy before TMTB. 25% of patients were ISS stage 3 and 37% had GEP70 defined high risk. 13 had PET defined extra medullary disease (EMD). 41 patients were administered TMTB monotherapy and 22 received TMTB treatment in combination with other agents. In general the treatment was well tolerated. 10 patients discontinued therapy because of toxicities, 29 discontinued because of disease progression or death. None of the deaths were attributed to TMTB, Best treatment responses were SD in 30, PR in 8, VGPR in 2 and CR in 3 of the 63 pts. For 25 patients with evaluable PET data, treatment resulted in complete resolution of FDG avid lesions in 9 patients and a better than 50% reduction in 15 (Figure 1). We will present updated data on clinical responses as well as toxicities. Conclusions: Treatment with targeted therapy guided by prospective comprehensive genomic profiling across all classes of genomic alterations in this heavily pretreated population of MM patients resulted in an unexpectedly high objective response rate. Observation of CR with TMTB monotherapy further supports continued investigation of this individualized approach to MM management. Disclosures Van Laar: Signal Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ali:Foundation Medicine, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Miller:Foundation Medicine, Inc: Employment. Zangari:Norvartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. van Rhee:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Celgene Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloma UK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; International Myeloma Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Final Analysis of Overall Survival from the Phase 3 Panorama 1 Trial of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Placebo Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3026.3026 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3026-3026 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jesús F. San-Miguel ◽

Vania T.M. Hungria ◽

Sung-Soo Yoon ◽

Meral Beksac ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Study Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Panobinostat is a potent pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that targets key aberrations in multiple myeloma (MM) cell biology, including epigenetics and protein metabolism. In the phase 3 clinical trial PANORAMA 1, panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PAN-BTZ-Dex) led to a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in progression-free survival of approximately 4 months compared with that with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Pbo-BTZ-Dex). Further analyses of patient outcomes by prior treatment demonstrated that the magnitude of PFS benefit was greatest among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD; PAN-BTZ-Dex [n = 73]: 12.5 months [95% CI, 7.3-14.0 months]; Pbo-BTZ-Dex [n = 74]: 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.1 mo; HR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.72]). These data supported the regulatory approvals of PAN-BTZ-Dex for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Here we present the final analysis of overall survival (OS) for the entire patient population and among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Methods: The study design for the PANORAMA 1 trial was described previously (San-Miguel. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195-206). The key secondary endpoint was OS. As of June 29, 2015, the 415 events required to conduct the final analysis of OS had been observed. Kaplan-Meier estimation was utilized for OS analyses for the entire population (N = 768), the pre-specified subgroup of patients who received prior bortezomib and IMiD (n = 193), and patients who received at least 2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (n = 147). Results: The median OS of patients who received PAN-BTZ-Dex in the overall population was 40.3 months (95% CI, 35.0-44.8 months) vs 35.8 months (95% CI, 29.0-40.6 months) for the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm with HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78-1.14], P = .5435 (Fig 1A). The percentage of patients in each arm who received post-study therapy was 37.7% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 48.8% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. The median OS of patients who received at least 2 prior lines, including bortezomib and an IMiD, was 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-34.3 months) in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm vs 19.5 months (95% CI, 14.1-32.5 months) in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm (Fig. 1B). The proportion of patients in this subgroup who received post-study therapy was 35.6% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 66.2% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. Conclusion: For the overall PANORAMA 1 study population, patients in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm demonstrated an increase in median OS of 4.5 months vs patients in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm, but this result was not statistically significant (P = .5435). Median OS was also slightly longer for the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm among the more heavily pretreated subgroup of patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. A higher percentage of patients on the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm received post-study therapy vs the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm, which may have confounded the OS results. In summary, PAN-BTZ-Dex demonstrates statistically significant increases in PFS vs Pbo-BTZ-Dex in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM; however, this did not translate to a statistically significant increase in OS. Future trials will plan to focus on further optimization of dose and schedule of panobinostat and bortezomib to improve outcome, as well as novel combinations with other agents, including IMiDs and next-generation proteasome inhibitors. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Beksac: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Jedrzejczak:Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siritanaratkul:Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Hou:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sopala:Novartis Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bengoudifa:Novartis: Employment. Corrado:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Receiving Triplet Therapy in the Connect MM® Disease Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4229.4229 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4229-4229

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Rafat Abonour ◽

Mohit Narang ◽

Jayesh Mehta ◽

Howard R. Terebelo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Triplet Regimen

Abstract Introduction: Triplet therapies are used for treatment (Tx) of both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Actual patterns and outcomes of Tx are not fully understood. Connect MM® is the first and largest multicenter, US-based, prospective observational cohort study designed to characterize Tx patterns and outcomes for pts with NDMM. This analysis describes demographic and disease characteristics of pts who received triplet Tx as an induction regimen and for whom transplant was or was not intended. The analysis explores the relationship of these factors with overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints. Patients and Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 y with NDMM within 60 days of diagnosis were eligible for enrollment regardless of disease severity, medical history, or comorbidities. Data including transplant intent (yes/no) was collected at baseline; follow-up data was collected quarterly thereafter. Based on the initial intent, 2 groups were identified: patients with intent to transplant who received transplant (TT) and pts with no intent to transplant who did not receive a transplant (NT). Triplet Tx was defined as the combination of ≥ 3 concurrent therapeutic agents in the first course of Tx (within 56 days of study entry). KM analysis adjusted for age was conducted for OS. Because decisions on use of transplant and triplet therapy are influenced by multiple factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of the triplet therapy (yes/no) to OS and was adjusted for other variables, including age, comorbidities, and ISS staging. Results: Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 pts were enrolled. This analysis was on 1436 pts: 650 pts with transplant intent and 786 pts without transplant intent. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2014, and the median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 33.8 mos. Of pts with transplant intent, 451 (69%) received transplant (TT) and 199 (31%) did not. Of pts without transplant intent, 62 (8%) received transplant and 724 (92%) did not (NT). The abstract focuses on TT and NT groups only. NT pts tended to be older and have more advanced ISS staging and higher β2-microglobulin levels than TT pts (Table). The most common triplet regimen given during the first course treatment (within 56 days) was lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). RVd was administered to 34% of the NT pts (76/225) and 59% of the TT pts (152/257). The most common non-triplet regimen was bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), which was given to 31% of NT pts (156/499) and 38% of TT pts (73/194). Within the NT group, pts given triplet Tx had a lower risk of death than those who did not receive triplet Tx (P = .0013). The multivariable analysis found triplet Tx to be associated with a 36% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.82]; P = .001). ISS disease stage (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.69]; P < .001) and history of diabetes (HR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.78]; P = .012) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Within the TT group, pts who received triplet Tx did not attain an OS benefit (P = .8993), and no baseline characteristics were significantly associated with OS. These results may be limited by other factors not considered that may have influenced physicians' choice of treatment, including the use of maintenance therapy and a short follow-up period of 33.8 months. Conclusions: Triplet Tx as a first regimen is associated with longer OS in pts without transplant intent who did not receive a transplant. RVd and Vd were the most common first Tx regimens, respectively. Continued follow-up of these pts and enrollment of an additional cohort will provide additional data with mature follow-up. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Other: Export Board Committee, Speakers Bureau. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Srinivasan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Genes Influencing the Development and Severity of Chronic ITP Identified through Whole Exome Sequencing

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.73.73 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 73-73 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jenny M. Despotovic ◽

Linda M. Polfus ◽

Jonathan M. Flanagan ◽

Carolyn M. Bennett ◽

Michele P Lambert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Second Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Chronic Itp ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Whole Exome ◽

Phenotype Data

Abstract Background: Chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a complex autoimmune disease characterized by antibody mediated platelet destruction and impaired production. Sustained autoimmunity in chronic ITP appears to be due to generalized immune dysregulation including altered T cell balance with a shift toward immune activation (increased Th1/Th2 ratio) as well as decreased number and impaired function of regulatory T cells (Treg). The cause of these abnormalities has not been fully elucidated and is likely multifactorial, but genetic factors may be involved in ITP pathogenesis. Improved understanding of genetic influences could lead to novel therapeutic approaches. Aim: To identify genetic variants that may be involved in chronic ITP susceptibility and severity. Methods: Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 262 samples with robust phenotype data on children with chronic ITP from the North American Chronic ITP Registry (NACIR, n= 173) and the Platelet Disorders Center at the Weill-Cornell Medical Center (n=89). All but three patients were ≤19 years old at diagnosis; 83% had primary ITP, 10% had Evans syndrome, 7% had other autoimmune disorders. Sequencing data for ITP cases of European American (EA) ancestry were compared to EA controls with platelets >150 x 109/L sequenced in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study (N=5664) to identify candidate genes associated with ITP susceptibility. Analyses filtered variants on a minor allele frequency (MAF) <0.01 as well as functionality of nonsynonymous, stop gain, splicing, stop loss, and indel variants. Both Fisher-Exact tests of single variants and Firth logistic regression for gene-based tests, accounting for an unequal proportion of cases compared to controls, were used. A Bonferroni corrected threshold based on 16,532 genes was calculated at 3.0x10-6. In a separate analysis, phenotype data for ITP cases were reviewed and cases stratified by disease severity according to second line treatment needed (Yes =139, No=113) and compared to ARIC EA controls with platelet count >150 x 109/L (N=5664). Results: Several damaging variants identified in genes involved in cellular immunity had a significantly increased frequency in the EA ITP cohort (Table). The most significant associations were detected in the IFNA17 gene, which is involved in TGF-β secretion and could affect number and function of the Treg compartment. IFNA17 rs9298814 (9:21227622 A>C) was identified in 26% of cases in the EA ITP cohort compared to <0.01% of EA controls, and other low frequency but presumed deleterious variants were also identified in IFNA17. IFNA17 gene variants remained significant in the most severely affected patients, specifically those requiring second line therapy, providing further evidence for this gene's functional relevance in the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of ITP. Other genes with known impact on T cell number or function, including DGCR14, SMAD2 and CD83 also contained variants with increased frequency in the EA ITP cohort. IFNLR1 and REL genes were also significantly associated with need for second line ITP therapy. Analysis of this large cohort did not validate any of over 20 variants that have been previously published as candidates for ITP susceptibility or evolution to chronic ITP. Conclusion: Damaging variants in genes associated with cellular immunity have an increased frequency in children with chronic ITP compared to controls, providing further evidence for the role of T cell abnormalities in the pathophysiology of ITP. The IFNA17 and IFNLR1 genes maintained significance when the ITP cohort was stratified according to disease severity, and may be important candidate genes involved in immune regulation and sustained autoimmunity associated with chronic ITP. Table. Genes identified through WES analysis of children with chronic ITP. Gene Function Relevant to ITP Pathophysiology Minor Allele Count (MAC)Cases Controls p value EA Chronic ITP vs. EA ARIC (non-ITP) controls N=172 N=5664 IFNA17 Treg, TGF-β signaling 91 17 3.97x10-13 DGCR14 IL-17 induction 14 3 1.27x10-10 SMAD2 TGF-β signaling 1 0 5.62x10-22 CD83 Th17/Treg balance 2 3 1.67x10-6 EA Chronic ITP requiring Second Line Therapy vs. EA ARIC (non-ITP) controls N=139 N=5664 IFNLR1 Class II cytokine receptor 2 1 3.95x10-15 IFNA17 Treg, TGF-β signaling 75 17 3.40x10-7 REL T and B cell function, inflammation 2 0 1.39x10-14 Disclosures Off Label Use: Off-label use of CliniMACS purified CD34+ cells. Lambert:GSK: Consultancy; NovoNordisk: Honoraria; Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto: Consultancy. Recht:Baxalta: Research Funding; Kedrion: Consultancy. Bussel:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; protalex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; rigel: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cangene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Practice Patterns of Re-Initiation of Therapy at Time of Relapse or Progression Post- Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) Among Patients with AL Amyloidosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3444.3444 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3444-3444 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yi L. Hwa ◽

Rahma Warsame ◽

Morie A. Gertz ◽

Francis K Buadi ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Practice Patterns ◽

Autologous Stem Cell Transplant ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Second Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy

Abstract Background: Among patients with immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, there is little consensus on when reinstitution of chemotherapy should occur (Milani and Dispenzieri, International Society of Amyloidosis 2016). AL amyloidosis patients who are treated with high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are a relatively low-risk and homogenous population, making them an ideal group to study practice patterns. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the patterns of relapse or progression and the timing of re-initiation of therapy among 146 patients who were initially treated with ASCT at Mayo Clinic between 1996 and 2009 and who received second-line therapy between 7/9/1997 and 4/12/2012. Results: The median time from ASCT to second-line therapy was 23.6 months and the median follow up post ASCT was 57.5 months. The indications for second-line treatment were: 1) both hematologic and organ progression 24.7% (36 patients); 2) organ progression only 41.1% (60); 3) hematologic relapse only 34.2% (50). The median dFLC at the time of starting second-line therapy was 10.5 mg/dL (1.6 - 59.5 mg/dL), which was 44.9% (13.8-167.2%) of dFLC level at diagnosis. Increase in proteinuria by > 50% from nadir (that was also at least 1g/24 hours, i.e. renal progression) was present in 35.8%. Increase in NT proBNP by >30% from nadir and minimum of 300 pg/mL was present in 48.9% of patients. The respective 4 years overall survival rates from the time of ASCT were 87.8%, 63.9%, and 56.7% (p=0.0016) for patients who had hematologic relapse, organ progression only and both organ and hematologic progression. Comparisons of laboratory markers at diagnosis, nadir of post ASCT and initiation of second-line therapy are listed in the table. Conclusions: Our study investigated the patterns of relapse / progression following upfront ASCT. This provides some insights on practice patterns of when physicians re-initiate therapy. Table Table. Disclosures Gertz: NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; Ionis: Research Funding; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Ruxolitinib in the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Policythemia Vera Resistant/Intolerant to Hydroxyurea

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-149612 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2581-2581

Author(s):

Roberto Latagliata ◽

Daniela Bartoletti ◽

Alessandro Andriani ◽

Massimo Breccia ◽

Elena Rossi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Age Groups ◽

Second Line ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Introduction: Ruxolitinib (Rux) has been recently approved as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with Polycythemia Vera (PV) resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea (HU). Median age of PV pts enrolled in the pivotal Response trials was around 60 yrs; at present, no data is reported on the use of Rux in elderly pts. Aims: In a real-world cohort of PV pts treated with Rux, we investigated whether the efficacy and safety of Rux were comparable in pts who initiated therapy when aged ≥75 years compared with younger pts. Methods: After IRB approval, clinical/laboratory data of 934 WHO2016-defined PV pts followed in 29 Hematology Centers were retrospectively collected. Of them, 168 (17.9%) were considered resistant/intolerant to HU at any time during follow-up by responsible physician and shifted to Rux as second-line therapy. Results: Among the 168 pts treated with Rux, 42 (25%, median age 78.2 years) were aged ≥75 yrs at Rux start, 74 (44%, median age 67.7) were aged 60-74 and 52 (31%, median age 53) were <60 at Rux start. No significant differences were observed between the 3 groups, apart from a lower need for phlebotomies in pts aged ≥75 yrs and lower presence of palpable spleen in older pts (age ≥60), that more frequently switched to Rux due to HU intolerance (Table 1). Median duration of HU treatment was 41.0 months (IQR 14.6 - 85.8), with a trend for a longer median treatment duration in pts aged ≥75 [61.0 months (IQR 21.5 - 89.6) vs 35.9 months (IQR 13.4 - 79.6), p=0.04]. Rux starting dose was similar across age groups; however, more elderly pts underwent Rux dose reductions during follow-up (45.2% in pts aged ≥75 vs 28.6% in younger pts, p=0.04). Responses during Rux therapy are reported in Table 2, with no significant differences between the 3 groups at any time. In the overall cohort, response on PV-related symptoms at 6 and 12 months was significantly higher in pts who switched to Rux because of HU intolerance; however, this difference was not observed in pts aged ≥75 yrs. As to the most common hematologic Rux-related toxicities, grade 3-4 anemia and thrombocytopenia were observed in only 2 (1.2%) and 5 (3%) pts, with no difference across age groups (p=0.45 and p=0.18). However, any grade anemia and thrombocytopenia during Rux were more frequently observed in pts aged ≥75 (68.3% vs 51.7% of anemia, p=0.06 and 12.2% vs 3.5% of thrombocytopenia in younger pts, p=0.04). Nineteen and 4 pts experienced infectious and thrombotic complications during Rux with incidence rates of 0.59 and 0.12 per 100 patient-months, respectively, comparably in younger and older (≥75) pts (p=0.75 and p=0.29, respectively). Notably, 6 infections were herpes simplex/zoster virus, comparably distributed between the 3 groups (p=0.60). Permanent Rux discontinuation was needed in 14 pts (8.3%) after a median Rux exposure of 7.8 months (IQR 4.6 - 17.6) (incidence: 0.41 per 100 pts/months). Discontinuation was comparable between age groups, with Rux stop in 4 pts aged ≥75 yrs and 10 younger pts (2.4% vs 5.2% at 8 months, log-rank p=0.75). At last follow-up, 2 pts had died (1 from 2 nd neoplasia after 19.1 months from Rux start and 1 from acute leukemia after 3.3 years), both pts aged 60-74 yrs. Conclusions. In this real-world analysis, use of Rux in HU resistant/intolerant elderly PV pts was effective and safe despite the more frequent need for dose reductions. Older age should not discourage Rux therapy, but stricter hematological monitoring may be suggested. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Latagliata: BMS Cellgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Breccia: Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Bonifacio: Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Cavo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palandri: AOP: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Baseline and on-Treatment Bone Marrow Microenvironments Predict Myeloma Patient Outcomes and Inform Potential Intervention Strategies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113169 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1882-1882 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Samuel A Danziger ◽

Mark McConnell ◽

Jake Gockley ◽

Mary Young ◽

Adam Rosenthal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Bone Marrow ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Expression Profiles ◽

Cell Types ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction The multiple myeloma (MM) tumor microenvironment (TME) strongly influences patient outcomes as evidenced by the success of immunomodulatory therapies. To develop precision immunotherapeutic approaches, it is essential to identify and enumerate TME cell types and understand their dynamics. Methods We estimated the population of immune and other non-tumor cell types during the course of MM treatment at a single institution using gene expression of paired CD138-selected bone marrow aspirates and whole bone marrow (WBM) core biopsies from 867 samples of 436 newly diagnosed MM patients collected at 5 time points: pre-treatment (N=354), post-induction (N=245), post-transplant (N=83), post-consolidation (N=51), and post-maintenance (N=134). Expression profiles from the aspirates were used to infer the transcriptome contribution of immune and stromal cells in the WBM array data. Unsupervised clustering of these non-tumor gene expression profiles across all time points was performed using the R package ConsensusClusterPlus with Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to select the number of clusters. Individual cell types in these TMEs were estimated using the DCQ algorithm and a gene expression signature matrix based on the published LM22 leukocyte matrix (Newman et al., 2015) augmented with 5 bone marrow- and myeloma-specific cell types. Results Our deconvolution approach accurately estimated percent tumor cells in the paired samples compared to estimates from microscopy and flow cytometry (PCC = 0.63, RMSE = 9.99%). TME clusters built on gene expression data from all 867 samples resulted in 5 unsupervised clusters covering 91% of samples. While the fraction of patients in each cluster changed during treatment, no new TME clusters emerged as treatment progressed. These clusters were associated with progression free survival (PFS) (p-Val = 0.020) and overall survival (OS) (p-Val = 0.067) when measured in pre-transplant samples. The most striking outcomes were represented by Cluster 5 (N = 106) characterized by a low innate to adaptive cell ratio and shortened patient survival (Figure 1, 2). This cluster had worse outcomes than others (estimated mean PFS = 58 months compared to 71+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.002; estimate mean OS = 105 months compared with 113+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.040). Compared to other immune clusters, the adaptive-skewed TME of Cluster 5 is characterized by low granulocyte populations and high antigen-presenting, CD8 T, and B cell populations. As might be expected, this cluster was also significantly enriched for ISS3 and GEP70 high risk patients, as well as Del1p, Del1q, t12;14, and t14:16. Importantly, this TME persisted even when the induction therapy significantly reduced the tumor load (Table 1). At post-induction, outcomes for the 69 / 245 patients in Cluster 5 remain significantly worse (estimate mean PFS = 56 months compared to 71+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.004; estimate mean OS = 100 months compared to 121+ months for other clusters, p-Val = 0.002). The analysis of on-treatment samples showed that the number of patients in Cluster 5 decreases from 30% before treatment to 12% after transplant, and of the 63 patients for whom we have both pre-treatment and post-transplant samples, 18/20 of the Cluster 5 patients moved into other immune clusters; 13 into Cluster 4. The non-5 clusters (with better PFS and OS overall) had higher amounts of granulocytes and lower amounts of CD8 T cells. Some clusters (1 and 4) had increased natural killer (NK) cells and decreased dendritic cells, while other clusters (2 and 3) had increased adipocytes and increases in M2 macrophages (Cluster 2) or NK cells (Cluster 3). Taken together, the gain of granulocytes and adipocytes was associated with improved outcome, while increases in the adaptive immune compartment was associated with poorer outcome. Conclusions We identified distinct clusters of patient TMEs from bulk transcriptome profiles by computationally estimating the CD138- fraction of TMEs. Our findings identified differential immune and stromal compositions in patient clusters with opposing clinical outcomes and tracked membership in those clusters during treatment. Adding this layer of TME to the analysis of myeloma patient baseline and on-treatment samples enables us to formulate biological hypotheses and may eventually guide therapeutic interventions to improve outcomes for patients. Disclosures Danziger: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. McConnell:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Gockley:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Young:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmitz:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reiss:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Davies:MMRF: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TRM Oncology: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; ASH: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Copeland:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fox:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fitch:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Newhall:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barlogie:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC. Trotter:Celgene Research SL (Spain), part of Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hershberg:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Dervan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ratushny:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Pmd-107: Marizomib, Pomalidomide and Low Dose-Dexamethasone Combination Study in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (NCT02103335): Full Enrollment Results from a Phase-1 Multicenter, Open Label Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3326.3326 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3326-3326 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Andrew Spencer ◽

Simon Harrison ◽

Jacob P. Laubach ◽

Jeffrey Zonder ◽

Ashraf Z Badros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Marizomib (MRZ) is a novel, irreversible, pan subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) with preclinical evidence demonstrating in vitro and in vivo activity in multiple myeloma (MM). This study was designed to evaluate the safety and antimyeloma activity of pomalidomide (POM), MRZ and low dose dexamethasone (Lo-DEX) (PMD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty-eight heavily pretreated patients with RRMM were enrolled [dose-escalation cohort (n=14); recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) cohort (n=24)]. IV MRZ (0.3 to 0.5 mg/m2) was administered on Days (D) 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3 or 4 mg) on D1 through 21; and Lo-DEX (5 or 10 mg) on D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23 of every 28-D cycle. Patients received a median of 4 (range 1-9) prior lines of therapy; 100% received prior lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BTZ), 34% carfilzomib (CFZ), and 50% thalidomide. 53% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BTZ and 21% were refractory to LEN, BTZ, and CFZ. There were no dose limiting toxicities during the study. The most common study treatment related ≥Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (11/38 pts: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 pts 11%), anemia (4/38 pts; 11%), thrombocytopenia (4/38 pts; 11%), and febrile neutropenia (2/38 pts; 5%), with two grade 4 AEs (neutropenia related to POM and viral infection related to DEX), and one grade 5 AE (cardio-respiratory arrest from a suspected PE related to POM). Overall, MRZ was well tolerated, did not add to the incidence or severity of POM/Lo-DEX AEs and the regimen may have fewer hematological and infectious AEs compared to that observed with POM/Lo-DEX. MRZ pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that it was rapidly cleared with a short T1/2 (6.2-11mins) and a large volume of distribution (41-86L) suggesting extensive tissue distribution. Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated rapid and robust inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity in both packed whole blood (PWB) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs), reflecting the irreversible binding nature of MRZ. Evolving inhibition of trypsin-like and caspase-like proteasome activity was also observed in PWB and PBMC with continued dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) for the 36 response evaluable patients was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively (Table 1). Subpopulation analysis demonstrated an ORR of 50% (5/10) in high risk cytogenetic patients, 56% (10/18) in LEN/BTZ refractory patients, 71% (5/7) in LEN/BTZ/CFZ refractory patients and 80% (8/10) in CFZ refractory patients. These data compare favorably against POM/Lo-Dex with a near doubling of ORR in both the total patient population and the double refractory patients. Substantial activity in high-risk patients that are triple refractory and in patients that are refractory to CFZ in prior last regimen was observed. MRZ activity in RRMM patients exposed and/or refractory to multiple PIs is likely a consequence of its unique pan proteasome subunit inhibitory actions. In conclusion, MRZ in combination with POM and Lo-DEX was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pretreated, high-risk RRMM patients. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership. Khot:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacLaren:Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reich:Triphase Accelerator: Consultancy. Trikha:Encycle Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Results from Phase 1/2 Trial of Tagraxofusp in Combination with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-130410 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3145-3145 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Myo Htut ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

Jeffrey A. Zonder ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Peripheral Blood ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Single Agent ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: The bone marrow microenvironment of many multiple myeloma (MM) patients contains high levels of CD123-expressing plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). These pDCs have been shown to augment MM growth and contribute to drug resistance (Chauhan, et al., Cancer Cell, 2009). Tagraxofusp, a novel CD123 targeted therapy, has demonstrated high levels of anti-tumor activity in patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), an aggressive CD123+ malignancy of pDC origin. Tagraxofusp demonstrated potent in vitro and in vivo activity against MM cell lines and primary tumor samples via both a direct anti-MM effect and indirect pDC-targeting effect (Ray, et al., Leukemia, 2017), as well as demonstrating synergy in these systems when used in combination with traditional MM therapies including pomalidomide (POM). As such, targeting pDCs with tagraxofusp may offer a novel therapeutic approach in MM. Methods: This multicenter, single arm Phase 1/2 trial enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) MM and tested two different doses of tagraxofusp (7 or 9 mcg/kg). Patients received tagraxofusp as a daily IV infusion for days 1-5 of a 28-day cycle as a single agent for the initial run-in cycle (cycle 0) and in combination with standard doses/administration of POM and dexamethasone (DEX) in cycles 1 and beyond. Objectives included evaluation of safety and tolerability, identification of the maximum tolerated or tested dose, and efficacy. Results: 9 patients with r/r MM received tagraxofusp (7 mcg/kg, n=7; 9 mcg/kg, n=2). 5 males, median age 65 years (range: 57-70), median 3 prior therapies (range 2-6). Median follow-up was 12 months (range: 7 - 19). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were hypoalbuminemia 67% (6/9); chills, fatigue, insomnia, nausea and pyrexia each 56% (5/9); and dizziness, headache, hypophosphatemia, and thrombocytopenia each 44% (4/9). The most common grade 3 and 4 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia 44% (4/9) and neutropenia 33% (3/9). No grade 5 events reported. 5 patients treated with tagraxofusp and POM+DEX had a partial response (PR) after tumor evaluation. These patients demonstrated a rapid decrease in a set of myeloma-related laboratory values from pre-tagraxofusp treatment levels after the first combination cycle of tagraxofusp and POM+DEX. Additionally, these 5 patients demonstrated >50% decreases in peripheral blood pDC levels after both tagraxofusp monotherapy and combination therapy. Conclusions: Tagraxofusp was well-tolerated, with a predictable and manageable safety profile, when dosed in combination with POM+DEX in patients with r/r MM. Evidence of pDC suppression in peripheral blood and BM was observed in this patient population. 5 patients that received tagraxofusp and POM+DEX combination had PRs and decreases in pDC levels while on treatment with tagraxofusp. Given CD123 expression on pDCs in the tumor microenvironment and the potential synergy of tagraxofusp with certain MM agents including POM, tagraxofusp may offer a novel mechanism of action in MM. NCT02661022. Disclosures Richardson: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Zonder:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Chen:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Brooks:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. McDonald:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rupprecht:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wysowskyj:Stemline Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chauhan:C4 Therapeutics.: Equity Ownership; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy. Anderson:Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board; OncoPep: Other: Scientific founder ; C4 Therapeutics: Other: Scientific founder .

Download Full-text