Outcomes of Myeloma Patients with Deletion 1p Receiving Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Previous studies indicated that 1p deletion (del 1p) in multiple myeloma patients has a negative effect on overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). However, majority of studies were conducted before the introduction of current first line therapy of Lenalidomide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (RVD). Our study investigated the association between del 1p and clinical outcomes in patients with MM treated with RVD. Methods: Single-center, retrospective analysis of an IRB approved myeloma database of 1000 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with RVD induction therapy per Richardson et al (Blood 2010), planned stem cell transplant and risk adapted maintenance (Nooka et al, Leukemia, 2014). 1p deletion status was determined by FISH. The primary outcomes were response to RVD, response to ASCT, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Treatment responses were evaluated as per IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Results: We identified 1000 multiple myeloma patients who started RVD treatment from July 2005 to August 2016. Among these, 83 patients (8.3 %) were found to have 1p deletion on FISH. The remaining 917 patients formed the control group. Median age at diagnosis, sex and race were similar between groups. Patients with del 1p were more likely to have IgA isotype compared to controls (28.1% vs 19.7%, P=0.054). There was no significant difference between groups in baseline hemoglobin, calcium, platelet count, creatinine and albumin levels. Baseline LDH levels were more likely to be high in the del 1p group (P=0.009). 49.6% of del 1p patients had high risk status (t(4:14), t(14:16), 17p deletion) vs 26.6% in the control group (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in the best response to induction therapy between groups, with an achievement of a VGPR or better in 62.8% vs 69.3% in the del 1p and control groups respectively (p=0.148). However, the del 1p group had lower best response after transplant, with a VGPR or better in 67.1% vs 89.2% respectively (P<0.001). Univariate regression analysis also showed a significant association of del 1p with decreased PFS (HR 1.782, P=0.002), which stayed significant after adjusting for disease stage, high risk FISH and maintenance (HR 2.265, p<0.001). There was no statistical decrease in OS in the del 1p population. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that the del 1p continues to be associated with adverse outcomes in the era of uniform induction therapy with RVD, transplant and risk-adapted maintenance. There was no significant difference in response to induction treatment, however, del 1p was a significant independent adverse prognostic factor for best response and PFS after ASCT. The lack of decrease in OS may be due to the routine use of risk adapted maintenance. Disclosures Heffner: Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boise:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Nooka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Response Adaptive Salvage Treatment with Carfilzomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone for Newly Diagnosed Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma Patients Failing Front-Line Bortezomib-Based Induction Therapy - Final Analysis from the Australasian Leukemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) MM17 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-152034 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1663-1663

Author(s):

Rose Turner ◽

Hang Quach ◽

Noemi Horvath ◽

Ian H Kerridge ◽

Flora Yuen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progressive Disease ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Depth Of Response

Abstract BACKGROUND Survival rates in multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved in recent decades with the advent of high-dose chemotherapy conditioned autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and the availability of novel agents for induction therapy (Kumar SK et al. Blood 2008). Failure to respond to front-line bortezomib-based induction therapy remains a significant clinical challenge in transplant eligible (TE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and is associated with poor outcomes with shortened progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (Lee SE et al. Ann Hematol. 2014). In combination with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), carfilzomib, a second generation proteosome inhibitor, has been shown to be highly effective in the context of MM induction with high rates of negativity for minimal residual disease (MRD) and few dose limiting toxicities (Langren O et al. Leukemia 2019). The ALLG MM17 trial is a multicentre single arm study of carfilzomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (KTd) in TE NDMM patients refractory or with suboptimal response to bortezomib-based induction therapy, designed to evaluate the efficacy of early response adaption with a switch to an intensive salvage strategy. METHOD Eligible patients included those with TE NDMM, aged 18 years and older, demonstrating sub-optimal response to bortezomib-based induction therapy (failure to achieve a minimal response after 2 cycles, partial response [PR] after 4 cycles, or disease progression within 60 days of completing induction). Salvage therapy consisted of 100mg daily oral thalidomide, with 20 mg of oral dexamethasone and 20mg/56mg of IV carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, with of each 28-day cycle. Following 4 cycles, patients in stringent complete response (sCR) proceeded to melphalan conditioned ASCT whereas those in less than sCR received a further 2 cycles of KTd prior to ASCT. Consolidation therapy consisted of a further 2 cycles of KTd, followed by maintenance 100mg daily thalidomide and 40mg weekly dexamethasone (Td) continuing until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or 12 months of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the overall response rate (ORR) and safety profile of treatment with KTd salvage therapy, with secondary objectives to determine the maximal depth of response, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) achieved with sequential treatment with KTd salvage, ASCT, post-ASCT consolidation, and maintenance Td therapy. Efficacy assessments were performed via serum protein electrophoresis, serum free light chain and bone marrow evaluation. Next generation flow (NGF) cytometry MRD evaluation of bone marrow aspirate was undertaken pre-ASCT, at day 100 post-ASCT, after 2 cycles of consolidation KTd, and following completion of Td using standardized 8-colour EuroFlow platform. RESULTS 50 patients were recruited across 6 Australian sites between September 2016 and April 2018. Overall response rate to KTd salvage was 78% (Credible Interval 95%: 64.4-87.1%), with dual proof of concept criteria met (observed ORR ≥ 50% and posterior probability that the true ORR exceeds 30% is ≥ 0.90). Response rates included 12% sCR, 6% CR, 38% VGPR, and 22% PR. Sixteen patients discontinued treatment (32%) including 10 cases (20%) of progressive disease, and 2 patient deaths without progression. NGF MRD negativity was found to be 32%, 36% and 55% at the pre-ASCT, post-ASCT and post-consolidation time-points. At the cut-off date, estimated median follow-up for disease status was 38.6 months and median PFS and OS had not been reached. At 36 months PFS and OS were 63.9% (95%CI: 49.0 - 75.5%) and 79.9% (95%CI: 65.8 - 88.6%) respectively (Figure 1). KTd was found to be well tolerated with 44% of patients experiencing a grade 3 of higher adverse event (AE). Most common AEs included upper respiratory infection (48%), peripheral neuropathy (36%), musculoskeletal pain (32%), dyspnoea (28%), fatigue or lethargy (28%), and constipation (28%). Significant cardiac toxicity was not observed at this higher dose level of carfilzomib. CONCLUSION Results demonstrate that response-adaptive utilisation of KTd salvage, ASCT, and consolidation therapy induces high response rates, improving depth of response with high levels of sequential MRD negativity, and durable responses with an acceptable toxicity profile in TE NDMM patients failing bortezomib-based induction therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Quach: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kalff: Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Bergin: Amgen: Other: Travel to workshop; Celgene: Consultancy. Reynolds: Novartis AG: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alcon: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Abbvie: Research Funding. Spencer: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Outcomes and Clinical Features of Patients with 1q+ Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112216 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3241-3241 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Timothy M. Schmidt ◽

Nisha Joseph ◽

Levani Odikadze ◽

Leonard Heffner ◽

Craig C Hofmeister ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Partial Response ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Large Population ◽

Chromosome 1 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction: Recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities have been well described in multiple myeloma and have important roles in the development and progression of myeloma, as well as prognostic implications for patient survival. Amplification of chromosome 1 (+1q) has been associated with inferior outcomes including survival. However, it is unclear whether this association is due to a primary effect of +1q on myeloma biology or secondary to its association with genomic instability and more advanced disease. Furthermore, the prognostic implication of +1q has yet to be determined in the setting of novel treatment regimens including triplet induction regimens incorporating an immunomodulatory agent and proteasome inhibitor backbone, with consideration of risk-adapted maintenance therapy. This study investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of a large population of multiple myeloma patients with +1q who were treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) induction therapy. Methods: We collected data for 1000 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who received RVD induction and were seen at Emory University/Winship Cancer Institute between July 1, 2005 and August 31, 2016. Baseline characteristics were determined, including age, sex, race, laboratory values at diagnosis (hemoglobin, creatinine, calcium, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, beta-2-microglobulin, isotype, paraprotein, and serum free light chains) and molecular cytogenetics by fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) for +1q, t(11;14), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), del(13q), and hyperdiploidy. Patients were also categorized by their ISS stage, high-risk cytogenetics (defined as t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p)), and whether they were treated with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The primary outcomes were response to RVD induction by IMWG criteria (complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), and partial response (PR)), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients with +1q compared to patients without +1q. Hazard ratios and p-values for PFS and OS were calculated using multivariate analysis accounting for presence of ISS stage 3 disease, t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p). Results: Of 1000 total myeloma patients treated with RVD induction, 146 (14.6%) were noted to have +1q by FISH. Patients with +1q, compared to those without +1q, were more likely to be Caucasian (75.2% vs 60.1%, p=0.001) , have IgA isotype (29.8% vs 18.6%, p=0.049) , present with calcium > 10.5 (22.8% vs 14.3%, p=0.026) , and have concurrent high-risk abnormalities by FISH (59.6% vs 21.7%, p<0.001) . There was no significant difference in response to RVD induction, with responses of ≥CR/≥ VGPR /≥PR of 42.2%/67.2%/99.3% for patients with +1q compared with 36.1%/68.8%/97.8% for patients without +1q (p=0.693) . Median PFS was significantly shorter for patients with +1q compared with those without +1q (41.8 months vs 86.0 months , respectively, HR 2.39, p<0.001 ). OS of patients with +1q was significantly worse than patients without +1q (median not reached, HR 2.316, p=0.001 ). Conclusion: In this retrospective, single-center analysis of multiple myeloma patients treated with RVD induction, patients with 1q amplification had similar responses to induction therapy, but significantly inferior PFS and OS compared to patients without +1q. Further investigation is required to determine if the timing of 1q gain, copy number of chromosome amplification, and/or association with other high-risk cytogenetics are important contributing factors to the prognosis of patients with +1q. Disclosures Heffner: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: 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. Boise:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Nooka:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Phase I/Ib Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Lenalidomide/Bortezomib/Dexamethasone (RVD) and Panobinostat in Transplant-Eligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.33.33 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 33-33 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Lei Feng ◽

Elisabet E. Manasanch ◽

Donna M. Weber ◽

Sheeba K. Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Depth Of Response

Abstract Background: Induction therapy prior to consolidation with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) continues to improve with the use of proteasome inhibitors and imids and combination regimens such as RVD. Bortezomib-based induction therapy has improved overall response rates (ORR) prior to transplant, which has translated to improvements in ORR and progression free survival post ASCT. However, complete remission (CR) rates with RVD remain low (10-15%) after 4 cycles of induction therapy. Panobinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, in combination with bortezomib/dexamethasone, has demonstrated a significant improvement in depth of response and progression free survival in patients (pts) with relapsed myeloma as seen in PANORMA I. Preclinical data demonstrate synergy between the combination of bortezomib and panobinostat. We undertook a phase I/Ib trial in pts with newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) of RVD + Panobinostat to establish the safety of the combination and goal of improving the depth of response with induction therapy prior to ASCT. Methods: The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety/tolerability of RVD + panobinostat in NDMM. Secondary objectives were to determine efficacy as measured by the CR/nCR rate after 4 cycles, ORR, tolerability/toxicity, and progression free survival. Pts had to have NDMM with indication for therapy, candidates for ASCT with and had adequate organ function. Panobinostat was administered on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-14; dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on a 21 day cycle. Dose-escalation of panobinostat used a standard 3+3 schema with dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) assessed during cycle 1. Three dose levels were studied with Panobinostat escalated from 10 to 20 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4, while responses were assessed by the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: 22 pts were enrolled; 12 pts in the completed phase 1 dose escalation portion of the study and 10/20 in the ongoing dose expansion. The median age was 61 (range 53-79); ISS stage I 12; stage II 7/20; stage III in 3/20 pts. No DLTs were observed in 3 pts dosed in cohort 1, with Panobinostat at 10 mg. In cohort 2, panobinostat was dosed at 15 mg, 2/6 pts encountered a DLT. One patient experienced Grade 4 (G4) thrombocytopenia, and the second patient had G3 diarrhea without supportive measures, for <12 hours and resolved with supportive measures. In cohort 1, 3 additional patients were enrolled and no DLTs were encountered in the remaining 3 pts. The final recommended dose was Panobinostat 10 mg in combination with RVD in NDMM. Treatment emergent SAEs related to therapy observed in 5 pts with 2 incidences of G3 diarrhea; 2 pts with atrial fibrillation; and other events included G4 thrombocytopenia; G3 bacteremia, G3 cellulitis, G3 myocardial infarction (MI), G3 pulmonary emboli; G3 pneumonia. Hematologic adverse events G3/4 included anemia 3/22; neutropenia 4/22; thrombocytopenia 7/22. G3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included ALT elevation (n=2); AST elevation (n=1); constipation (n=2); diarrhea (n=2); fatigue/muscle weakness (n=2); MI (n=1); pneumonia (n=3). Among 18/22 pts who have completed 4 cycles of therapy and are evaluable for efficacy, the ORR (≥PR) was 100%: including nCR/CR in 5/18 (28%), VGPR in 5/18 (28%), PR in 8/18 (44%). Conclusions: MTD has been established at level 1, with panobinostat 10 mg and full dose RVD in NDMM. The DLTs were diarrhea (irrespective of supportive care) and thrombocytopenia. This is the first experience with panobinostat and subcutaneous bortezomib and first experience in combination with RVD. The combination is well tolerated with limited toxicity and side effects can be managed with supportive care. The preliminary activity after 4 cycles of therapy demonstrated a high ORR of 100% and a promising depth of response with a nCR/CR of 27%. Enrollment in a dose expansion cohort is near completion and full data will be presented at ASH. Disclosures Shah: Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib for use in front-line tx of multiple myeloma . Weber:OncPep: Research Funding. Thomas:Novartis, Celgene, Millenium, Idera Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Orlowski:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Favorable Long-Term Outcomes after Daratumumab Discontinuation in AL Amyloidosis Patients Achieving Deep Responses

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124981 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1884-1884 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Alfred Chung ◽

Gregory P. Kaufman ◽

Surbhi Sidana ◽

David Iberri ◽

Erik Eckhert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Progression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Duration ◽

Research Funding ◽

Control Group ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Interval ◽

Significant Difference

Daratumumab (DARA) is a CD38-targeted antibody FDA-approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and its efficacy has recently been demonstrated in the treatment of AL amyloidosis. DARA is conventionally given indefinitely until evidence of disease progression or intolerance for the treatment of MM. In AL amyloidosis, the optimal duration of therapy is not known, and patients may be treated indefinitely on maintenance, extrapolating from MM data. However, the plasma cell burden observed in AL amyloidosis is often lower than in MM, and thus certain patients achieving deep responses may have durable responses with time-limited treatment. Outcomes for patients who are observed after DARA discontinuation are not known. We report the outcomes of patients at our institution who received time-limited DARA. A retrospective analysis of AL amyloidosis patients treated at Stanford University from 2016 to 2019 with DARA monotherapy and dexamethasone for at least 2 months was performed, and patients who subsequently had DARA discontinued for reasons other than disease progression or lack of response were selected for the study. Hematologic responses were assessed by consensus guidelines. Duration on and off therapy were explored, along with time-to-next treatment or death (TTNT), defined as the time from DARA initiation to restarting/switching therapy or death. An exploratory analysis comparing TTNT between the study population and a control cohort who achieved hematologic CR and were maintained on DARA was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank testing. 67 patients received at least 2 months of DARA monotherapy and dexamethasone; among these, 15 patients discontinued therapy for reasons other than disease progression and were included. Median age was 66 years old and median lines of prior therapies was 4 (range: 1 - 6). Baseline difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) prior to DARA initiation was 2.6 mg/dL (range: 0 - 16.8 mg/dL). 10 of 15 patients had cardiac involvement with median NT-proBNP of 1982 pg/mL and 9 of 15 patients had renal involvement with median 24-hour proteinuria of 6.2 g and eGFR of 32 mL/min/1.73m2 at DARA initiation. Median duration from starting to stopping DARA was 7.8 months (range: 2 - 21 months). Median duration from achieving best hematologic response to stopping DARA was 3 months (range: 0 - 17 months). Reasons for discontinuation included: patient preference (5), fatigue/body aches (4), infection (2), other active medical comorbidities (3), and lack of perceived further benefit (1). At DARA discontinuation, median dFLC was 0.1 mg/dL (range: 0 - 2.2 mg/dL) and there were 12 hematologic CR, 1 VGPR, 1 PR, and 1 not assessable for response. Outcomes for all 15 patients are shown in Figure 1. The median treatment-free interval was 17.5 months (range: 5 - 34 months); estimated 2-year TTNT-free survival was 83% (95% CI: 61 - 100%). All 14 evaluable patients eventually achieved CR. 3 patients restarted DARA for rising dFLC, and all 3 patients demonstrated response to retreatment (2 achieving CR and 1 near PR with ongoing follow-up). There were 2 deaths. One patient with severe baseline cardiac amyloidosis developed sudden rise in dFLC after treatment-free interval of 21 months; although he rapidly achieved hematologic CR on retreatment, he died of heart failure within 2 months of restarting DARA. The other patient developed therapy-related AML while off therapy and underwent allogenic stem cell transplant but died of leukemia (censored for AL amyloidosis outcomes at transplant). There was no significant difference in the TTNT between the study group and a control group of 16 patients who achieved CR and were on continuous maintenance (Figure 2; p=0.807). AL amyloidosis patients achieving deep responses with DARA can have favorable outcomes after treatment discontinuation, including a long treatment-free interval. Although our sample size is small, the outcomes of these patients appeared comparable to those achieving CR on continuous DARA maintenance, and patients were able to regain responses when retreatment was necessary. These results suggest that DARA may be safely discontinued in patents achieving deep hematologic responses, which has significant implications for quality of life and financial burden of treatment. Future studies evaluating time-limited versus continuous DARA maintenance after achievement of deep responses are warranted. Disclosures Kaufman: Janssen: Other: travel/lodging, Research Funding. Liedtke:Janssen: 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; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Daratumumab for treatment of AL amyloidosis

Download Full-text

Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Compared with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Induction and Consolidation Therapy Before and After Double Autologous Transplantation In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.42.42 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 42-42 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Michele Cavo ◽

Giulia Perrone ◽

Silvia Buttignol ◽

Elisabetta Calabrese ◽

Monica Galli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Autologous Transplantation ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Abstract 42 We prospectively compared thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Three 21-d cycles of either VTD (V, 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly; T, 200 mg/d through d 1 to 63; D, 320 mg/cycle) or TD were given as induction therapy. Consolidation therapy comprised two 35-d cycles of VTD (V, 1.3 mg/m2 once-weekly; T, 100 mg/d through d 1 to 70; D, 320 mg/cycle) or TD. 474 patients randomized to the VTD (n=236) or TD (n=238) arm were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis for response rate, PFS and OS. Centrally reassessed CR/nCR rate was significantly higher in the VTD compared with the TD arm after all treatment phases, including induction therapy (30% vs 10%, p<0.0001), double autotransplantation (54% vs 42%, p=0.008) and consolidation therapy (60% vs 44%, p=0.001). Best confirmed overall CR/nCR rate was 71% in the VTD arm compared with 52% in the TD arm (p<0.0001); the corresponding values for VGPR or better were 89% vs 72%, respectively (p<0.0001). To evaluate the role of consolidation therapy we performed a per-protocol analysis of 323 patients, 161 treated with VTD and 162 with TD. Overall, upgraded responses with VTD and TD as consolidation therapy were observed in 55% vs 37% of patients, respectively (p=0.01; OR:1.15-3.77). Furthermore, the probability to improve responses from less than CR before consolidation to CR after consolidation was 28% with VTD vs 15% with TD (p=0.02; OR:1.07-4.57) (p=0.003 using the Mc Nemar's test). Post-consolidation molecular detection of minimal residual disease was the objective of a substudy; detailed results are reported in a separate abstract. Briefly, both qualitative and quantitative analyses confirmed the statistically significant superiority of VTD over TD in effecting higher rates of molecular remissions and reducing the burden of residual myeloma cells after ASCT. Any grade 3–4 non-hematologic adverse events were 10% with VTD (peripheral neuropathy: 1.3%, skin rash: 0.6%) vs 12% with TD. With a median follow-up of 31 months, median PFS was 42 months in the TD arm and was not yet reached in the VTD arm (44-month projected rate: 61%) (HR: 0.62 [CI: 0.45–0.87], p=0.006). Superior PFS in the VTD vs TD arm was retained across patient subgroups with poor prognosis, including those with t(4;14) and/or del(17p). Randomization to VTD overcome the adverse influence of t(4;14) on PFS (40-month projected rates: 69% vs 67% according to the presence or absence of this abnormality, respectively; p=0.6). By the opposite, in the TD arm corresponding median PFS values were 24.5 vs 41.5 months, respectively (p=0.01). The small numbers of patients with del(17p) in both arms of the study precluded a statistical comparison with del(17p)-negative group. In a multivariate analysis, variables favorably influencing PFS were beta2-m lower than 3.5 mg/L (HR:0.47; p=0.000), absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR:0.52; p=0.000), randomization to VTD arm (HR:0.57; p=0.002), attainment of at least VGPR (HR:0.50; p=0.009) and CR (HR:0.8; p=0.01). No statistically significant difference between the overall treatment protocols was seen in terms of OS, although curves seemed to initially diverge after 40 months (44-month projected rates: 84% vs 74% for VTD and TD arms, respectively). A multivariate analysis showed the independent role of absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR:0.42; p=0.003), ISS stage1-2 (HR:0.49; p=0.02) and randomization to VTD (HR:0.53; p=0.04) in prolonging OS. When time-dependent CR entered the model, absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) and less advanced ISS stage retained their positive prognostic value; attainment of CR (strictly related to VTD randomization) was an additional favorable variable. In conclusion, in comparison with the TD arm of the study, 1) VTD induction emerges as a new standard of care for maximizing the degree and speedy of tumor reduction in preparation for ASCT; 2) VTD consolidation effected significantly higher rates of upgraded responses, including CR, and of molecular remissions; 3) double ASCT incorporating VTD as induction and consolidation therapy resulted in significantly longer PFS, a benefit confirmed in a multivariate regression analysis and maintained in the subgroup of patients with adverse cytogenetic abnormalities. Disclosures: Cavo: Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: 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, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Use of bortezomib and thalidomide as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, autologous transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Baccarani:NOVARTIS: Honoraria; BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Characteristics Of Multiple Myeloma Patients With 6-Year Or Longer Progression-Free Survival After a Single Autologous Transplant

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.3366.3366 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 3366-3366 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Kehinde U.A. Adekola ◽

Qaiser Bashir ◽

Nina Shah ◽

Sai Ravi Pingali ◽

Simrit Parmar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

High Dose ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Autologous Transplant ◽

Preparative Regimen

Background High dose chemotherapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-HCT) is considered standard of care in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). In a recent randomized trial, median progression free survival (PFS) after auto-HCT, with or without maintenance therapy was 46 and 27 months, respectively (McCarthy P et al. NEJM 2012). However, about 15% of patients are reported to have much longer PFS (Pineda-Roman M et al. Cancer 2008). Here we tried to identify the factors that may predict a long PFS after auto-HCT. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received an auto-HCT for MM between January 2000 and March 2007. A total of 1135 patients underwent an auto-HCT during this period, and 194 patients (17%) had a minimum PFS of 72 months or longer after a single auto-HCT. The primary objective was to determine the variables associated with a long PFS and overall survival (OS). Results Patient characteristics and outcomes are shown in the attached Table. The median age at auto-HCT was 56 years, and the median time from diagnosis to auto-HCT was 7.5 months. Twenty-three (13%) patients had ≥ 10% plasma cells in the bone marrow at auto-HCT and only 9 patients (4.8%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. One-hundred and fifty (77%) patients received induction therapy containing either an immunomodulatory (IMiD) agent or a proteasome inhibitor (PI). At the time of the auto-HSCT, only 13 (6.7%) patients were in CR and 38 (19.6%) were CR or VGPR after induction therapy (Table). One-hundred and sixty three (84%) patients received mephalan alone as conditioning regimen. Eighty-one (42%) patients received post auto-HCT maintenance. Eighty (41%) patients achieved a CR, while 104 (54%) achieved CR + VGPR after auto-HCT. Six patients (3.1%) developed a second primary malignancy post- autologous transplant. After a median follow-up of 95.4 months, median PFS was 97.3 months and median OS has not been reached. The 10-year PFS and OS were 41% and 73% respectively. Use of melphalan alone as preparative regimen was associated with a longer PFS and OS (p=0.004 and 0.004, respectively). Achievement of CR after auto-HCT was associated with a longer PFS only (p=0.001), and the use of IMiD or a PI as induction was associated with a longer OS (p=0.01). Conclusion Approximately 17% patients achieved a median PFS of 6 years or longer after a single auto-HCT. The long PFS in this cohort may be associated with younger age, low incidence of HR cytogenetics, use of an IMiD or PI as induction therapy, relatively low disease burden at auto-HCT, transplant from the year 2000 onwards, achievement of CR in >40% and the use of melphalan alone as preparative regimen. Disclosures: Shah: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Qazilbash:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Ornithine Decarboxylase: Novel Prognostic Marker and Target for Multiple Myeloma Therapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1824.1824 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1824-1824

Author(s):

Sonali Panchabhai ◽

Ilana Miriam Schlam ◽

Sinto Sebastian Chirackal ◽

Rafael Fonseca

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Prognostic Marker ◽

Ornithine Decarboxylase ◽

Therapeutic Target ◽

Research Funding ◽

Preclinical Model ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Survival Difference ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is an age dependent second most common hematopoietic malignancy which remains incurable despite recent advances in therapies. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a common premalignant condition that precedes MM. Dysregulation and mutations of myriad of molecules is implicated in pathogenesis of MM. Cyclins (CCND) are almost universally dysregulated in MGUS and MM, while c-MYC overexpression and sometimes RAS mutations are associated with MGUS to MM progression. c-MYC, because of its strong association in this malignant transformation and it being a master regulatory factor is a logical therapeutic target. But, a therapeutic approach to target c-MYC has not been successful. So a strategy to target either upstream or downstream molecules in c-MYC pathway is worth considering. Ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) is one such downstream effector of c-MYC which regulates polyamine synthesis and thus regulates cell proliferation. ODC is also downstream of RAS which makes it common to two of the important oncogenes involved in MM. To know whether ODC plays a role in MM pathogenesis, we looked into its gene expression profile in the MM patients. In the Mayo cohort of 100 patients we found significant difference in ODC expression as disease progresses from MGUS to MM. We found significant survival difference in MM patients from this cohort which were divided by ODC expression and this survival difference was more pronounced in non-hyperdiploid group (median survival were for ODC < 1 - 66 mo vs for ODC > 1 - 29.5 mo, Figure 1A) which is a known poor prognostic group. When looked at ODC expression among different TC classes in MMRC dataset, we find ODC expression significantly higher in known high risk and poor prognostic groups 4p16 and MAF than other groups. These findings suggest higher ODC expression associated with poor survival. To further strengthen our observation, we analyzed TT3 group of Arkansas cohort and we observe prolonged event free survival (Figure 1B) and overall survival in patients with low ODC expression as compared to patients with high ODC expression (Figure 1C). After establishing poor prognostic role of ODC, we wanted to test it as a potential therapeutic target. For this purpose, we employed DFMO (Difluromethylornithine) which is the enzymatic irreversible inhibitor of ODC. We tested 15 different MM cell lines for proliferation with DFMO, majority of them respond to DFMO and IC 50 ranged from 28uM to 70 uM. DFMO generally halted cell cylce in G1S and had a cytostatic effect. We further tested efficacy of DFMO in combination with standard anti-myeloma agents lenalidomide, bortezomib, Vorinostat, melphalan and dexamethasone. We found these combinations to be synergistic except with melphalan where the combination was antagonistic. We therefore suggest that DFMO, which has a good toxicity profile can be advantageous in MM patients who are relatively old and many times cannot tolerate extensive chemotherapy for its toxicity. Moreover since it is synergistic in preclinical model with two main anti-myeloma agents lenalidomide and bortezomib, it may well be combined with both to decrease the amount of drug needed and hence toxicity. We think it will be especially beneficial to those patients who have high ODC levels. So we propose ODC to be a prognostic marker and therapeutic target in MM. Disclosures Chirackal: Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Filed a professional US patent for quantifying cellular anti-oxidative capacity. Fonseca:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

High Levels of APOBEC3B Gene Expression Contribute to Poor Prognosis in Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117067 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3897-3897

Author(s):

Valeriy V Lyzogubov ◽

Pingping Qu ◽

Cody Ashby ◽

Adam Rosenthal ◽

Antje Hoering ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Poor Prognosis ◽

Target Genes ◽

Plasma Cells ◽

Nuclear Fraction ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction: Poor prognosis and drug resistance in multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with increased mutational load. APOBEC3B is a major contributor to mutagenesis, especially in myeloma patients with t(14;16) MAF subgroup. It was shown recently that presence of the APOBEC signature at diagnosis is an independent prognostic factor for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We hypothesized that high levels of APOBEC3B gene expression at diagnosis may also have a prognostic impact in myeloma. To consider APOBEC3B as a potential target for therapy more studies are necessary to understand how APOBEC3B expression is regulated and how APOBEC3B generates mutations. Methods: Gene expression profiling (GEP, U133 Plus 2.0) of MM patients was performed. APOBEC3B gene expression levels were investigated in plasma cells of healthy donors (HD; n=34), MGUS (n=154), smoldering myeloma (SMM; n=219), MM low risk (LR; n=739), MM high risk (HR; n=129), relapsed MM (RMM; n=74), and primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL; n=19) samples. The samples from relapse were taken on or after the progression/relapse date but within 30 days after progression/relapse from Total Therapy trials 3, 4, 5 & 6. GEP70 score was used to separate samples into LR and HR groups. We also investigated APOBEC3B expression in different MM molecular subgroups and used logrank statistics with covariate frequency distribution to determine an optimal cut off APOBEC3B expression value. Gene expression was compared in cases with low expression of APOBEC3B (log2<7.5) and high expression of APOBEC3B (log2>10), and an optimal cut-point in APOBEC3B expression was identified with respect to PFS. To explore the role of MAF and the non-canonical NF-ĸB pathway we performed functional studies using a cellular model of MAF downregulation. TRIPZ lentiviral shRNA MAF knockdown in the RPMI8226 cell lines was used to explore MAF-dependent genes. NF-ĸB proteins, p52 and RelB, were investigated in the nuclear fraction by immunoblot analysis. Results: Expression of APOBEC3B in HD control samples (log2=10.9) was surprisingly higher than in MGUS (log2=9.51), SMM (log2=9.09), and LR (log2=9.40) and was comparable to HR (log2=10.4) and RMM (log2=10.6) groups. Expression levels of APOBEC3B were gradually increased as disease progressed from SMM to pPCL. The high expression of APOBEC3B in HD places plasma cells at risk of APOBEC induced mutagenesis where the regulation of APOBEC3B function is compromised. The correlation between APOBEC3B expression and GEP70 score in MM was 0.37, and there was a significant difference in APOBEC3B expression between GEP70 high and low risk groups (p=0.0003). An optimal cut-point in APOBEC3B expression of log2=10.2 resulted in a significant difference in PFS (median 5.7 yr vs.7.4 yr; p=0.0086) and OS (median 9.1 yr vs. not reached; p<0.0001), between high and low expression. The highest APOBEC3B expression was detected in cases with a t(14;16). We analyzed t(14;16) cases with the APOBEC mutational signature and compared them to t(14;16) cases without the APOBEC signature and found elevated MAF (2-fold) and APOBEC3B (2.7-fold) gene expression in samples with the APOBEC signature. No APOBEC signature was detected in SMM cases, including those with a t(14;16). High APOBEC3B levels in myeloma patients was associated with overexpression of genes related to response to DNA damage and cell cycle control. Significant (p<0.05) increases of NF-κB target genes was seen in high APOBEC3B cases: TNFAIP3 (4.4-fold), NFKB2 (1.7-fold), NFKBIE (1.9-fold), RELB (1.4-fold), NFKBIA (2.0-fold), PLEK (2.5-fold), MALT1 (2.5-fold), WNT10A (2.4-fold). However, in t(14;16) cases there was no significant increase of NF-κB target genes except BIRC3 (2.5-fold) and MALT1 (2.0-fold). MAF downregulation in RPMI8226 cells did not lead to changes in NF-κB target gene expression but MAF-dependent genes were identified, including ETS1, SPP1, RUNX2, HGF, IGFBP2 and IGFBP3. Analysis of nuclear fraction of NF-ĸB proteins did not show significant changes in expression of p52 and RelB in RPMI8226 cells after MAF downregulation. Conclusions: Increased expression of APOBEC3B is a negative prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. MAF is a major factor regulating expression of APOBEC3B in the t(14;16) subgroup. NF-ĸB pathway activation is most likely involved in upregulation of APOBEC3B in non-t(14;16) subgroups. Disclosures Davies: TRM Oncology: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Maintenance and Consolidation Regimens after a Second Autologous Transplant for Multiple Myeloma: A Decade of Experiences

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-130619 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5700-5700

Author(s):

Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin ◽

Maire Okoniewski ◽

Osama Diab ◽

Siddhartha Ganguly ◽

Al-Ola Abdallah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Fda Approval ◽

Novel Drugs ◽

Significant Difference

Introduction: Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) followed by maintenance is the standard of care for eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). For patients that relapse, a second ASCT remains a viable option. However, the maintenance regimen to use for such patients remains an unanswered question, particularly in those with prior lenalidomide exposure. We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving two autologous transplants for a diagnosis of MM at our institution from 2008 to 2018 to determine maintenance strategies and outcomes upon completion of a second transplant. Methods: A total of 189 patients received two or more autologous transplants for MM at our institution from 2008 to 2018. Patients with planned tandem transplants, or those that proceeded directly to another transplant without interval progression were excluded. The remaining 135 patients were analyzed. Results: Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. After first ASCT, 94 out of 135 patients (69.6 %) started maintenance therapy. The most commonly used maintenance regimen was lenalidomide in 63 patients, followed by bortezomib in 12 patients and thalidomide in 10 patients. Median time to initiation of maintenance from the date of transplant was 3.9 months. Overall median progression free survival (PFS) from transplant was 24.7 months with no significant difference between groups that received lenalidomide (median PFS: 21.2 months) or bortezomib (median PFS: 19.2 months, p:0.12). 10 (15.8%) patients discontinued lenalidomide due to toxicity, and 1 patient (8.3%) discontinued bortezomib due to toxicity. The median time from the onset of disease progression post first ASCT to time of second ASCT was 5.8 months. Strategies used post second ASCT includedconsolidation with triplet regimens followed by de-escalation (n=11) versus monotherapy (n=100). Table 2 highlights differing maintenance regimens used after the second ASCT. Median time from second ASCT to initiation of maintenance was 4.0 months. Median PFS post ASCT was 20.7 months. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the different regimens used (p=0.26), although there was a numerically higher discontinuation rate due to toxicity with older agents such as lenalidomide and bortezomib compared with newer agents such as daratumumab and pomalidomide. There was no statistically significant difference in the cytogenetic risk profile (p=0.21) or stage at diagnosis (p=0.36) between the groups that received different types of maintenance agents. However, patients receiving daratumumab as maintenance were more likely to have received more lines of therapy (median 5 for Daratumumab vs 3 for Lenalidomide, p=0.0001), and more likely to have previous exposure to daratumumab prior to second ASCT (92% vs 0% for other agents p=0.0001). Patients receiving daratumumab, carfilzomib or triple therapy were more likely to have been refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) (p=0.0001). Despite stratifying for use of newer novel drugs (FDA approval after 2010- pomalidomide, daratumumab, carfilzomib) vs older novel drugs (FDA approval before 2010- lenalidomide, bortezomib, thalidomide), there was no difference in PFS ( 21.2 months vs 20.4 months, p= 0.92), between these groups when used as part of a maintenance strategy. Conclusions: Our data show a variety of maintenance and consolidation regimens are used for patients with MM after their second ASCT. In this single-center, retrospective analysis, there was no clear superiority of a consolidative strategy using triplet over monotherapy, and no superiority of newer agents compared to older agents. This suggests that toxicity, prior therapies and their tolerance may be the more important patient-related factors for consideration when selecting an agent/agents. Randomized, prospective data will be important to ascertain the standard of care in this situation. Disclosures Ganguly: Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. McGuirk:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Among Patients with 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Based on Previous Treatment Exposure: Updated Analysis of Pollux

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.489.489 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 489-489 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Philippe Moreau ◽

Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽

Heather J. Sutherland ◽

Marc Lalancette ◽

Hila Magen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Previous Treatment ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that has been combined successfully with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The combination of daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) has been compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in a randomized phase 3 study (Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). In a pre-specified interim analysis, the DRd combination demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in addition to deep and durable responses compared with the Rd arm. We performed subgroup analyses to further examine these efficacy data according to prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone: 40 mg PO weekly) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw for 8 weeks, q2w for 16 weeks, then q4w until progression). The primary endpoint was PFS. Pts who were refractory to lenalidomide were not eligible. All analyses were performed in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Results: Median follow-up was 13.5 months. Pts who were lenalidomide-naive prior to the start of study treatment (DRd, n=226; Rd, n=219) demonstrated significantly longer PFS with DRd vs Rd (median: not reached [NR] vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.52; P<0.0001), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 83.0% vs 59.9%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (96% vs 79%), with ≥VGPR rates of 76% vs 47% and ≥CR rates of 44% vs 21%, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). In the lenalidomide-exposed subgroup (DRd, n=46; Rd, n=45), median PFS was NR in both treatment groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.22-1.12; P=0.0826); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 84.1% vs 63.1%, respectively. ORR was higher with DRd vs Rd but did not reach statistical significance (87% vs 71%; P=0.0729); however, rates of ≥VGPR (78% vs 38%; P=0.0001) and ≥CR (44% vs 12%; P=0.0011) were significantly improved with DRd vs Rd, respectively. For bortezomib-naive pts (DRd, n=44; Rd, n=45), PFS was significantly longer with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.86; P=0.0170), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 85.4% vs 69.2%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (98% vs 82%; P=0.0158), with trends toward increased rates of ≥VGPR (74% vs 55%; P=0.0544) and ≥CR (42% vs 23%; P=0.0576). In the bortezomib-exposed pts (DRd, n=228; Rd, n=219), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 18.4 months in Rd (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50 P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 82.8% vs 58.7%, respectively. Significant differences in ORR (93% vs 77%), rate of ≥VGPR (77% vs 43%) and rate of ≥CR (44% vs 19%) were observed with DRd vs Rd, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). Among bortezomib-refractory patients (DRd, n=54; Rd, n=49), the PFS benefit of DRd compared with Rd was maintained (median: NR vs 10.3 mo, respectively; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85; P=0.0117; Figure). The estimated 12-month PFS rates were 70.8% vs 44.4%, respectively. Similar to bortezomib-exposed pts, ORR (92% vs 68%; P=0.0024), rate of ≥VGPR (75% vs 36%; P=0.0001), and rate of ≥CR (46% vs 13%; P=0.0003) were all significantly higher with DRd vs Rd for bortezomib-refractory pts. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Among pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, significantly longer PFS and higher ORR were observed with DRd vs Rd among pts who previously received bortezomib or were refractory to bortezomib or were lenalidomide-naive. Higher rates of deeper responses were observed in pts who previously received lenalidomide or bortezomib. Follow-up is ongoing to assess PFS in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and previously received lenalidomide. These results further strengthen the significant benefit of combining daratumumab with Rd for RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Kaufman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sutherland:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lalancette:Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Iida:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prince:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cochrane:BMS: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Novartis: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Celgene: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Takeda: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings. Khokhar:Janssen: Employment. Guckert:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Oriol:Janssen: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text