Efficacy and Tolerability of Ixazomib, Daratumumab and Low Dose Dexamethasone (IDd) in Unfit and Frail Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Patients; First Interim Safety Analysis of the Phase II HOVON 143 Study

Abstract Introduction Data from clinical trials indicate that elderly non-transplant eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (nte-NDMM) patients also benefit from novel therapies. However, overall survival is inferior in unfit and frail compared to fit patients as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty index, caused by a high discontinuation rate due to toxicity. Therefore, there is a need for less toxic treatment for unfit and frail patients. In view of the favorable safety profile of ixazomib and daratumumab, we investigated the efficacy and feasibility of treatment with ixazomib, daratumumab and low dose dexamethasone (IDd) in unfit and frail patients. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR6297. Methods In this prospective multicenter phase II trial treatment consisted of 9 28 day-induction cycles consisting of ixazomib (I) 4 mg (days 1, 8, 15), daratumumab (D) 16 mg/kg (cycle 1-2: days 1, 8, 15, 22; cycle 3-6: days 1, 15; cycle 7-9: day 1) and dexamethasone (in combination with daratumumab (d); cycle 1-2: 20 mg; subsequent cycles 10 mg) followed by maintenance therapy with I (days 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, 43) and D (day 1) of 8-week cycles, until progression for a maximum of 2 years. The primary objective is to determine the overall response rate (ORR) on induction therapy. Aiming for an ORR of at least 65% and considering 50% as a too low ORR, with an optimal Simon 2-Stage design, α = 0.10 and β = 0.20, 60 unfit and 60 frail patients should be included, increased to 66 for both populations to account for ineligibility. A pre-specified safety analysis was planned when for the first 10 unfit and 10 frail patients separately the data of the first 4 cycles of induction therapy are available. Inclusion criteria were NDMM, either being unfit or frail according to the IMWG frailty index. Main exclusion criteria were severe cardiac dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with an FEV1 <50% of expected and a creatinine clearance of <20 ml/minute. We here report the results of the planned safety interim analysis of the first 10/32 included frail patients who completed the first 4 induction cycles. The safety interim analysis of the first 10 unfit patients is planned in September, of which the results will be available at the ASH meeting. In addition, we here report the severe adverse events (SAE) for 58 eligible patients (26 unfit, 32 frail) who were included in the study until July 16, 2018. Results The demographic data of the first 10 frail patients are described in Table 1. Median FU of the first 10 frail patients is 5.2 months (range 0.6-9) and of the 58 included patients 1.6 months (range 0-9). Toxicity is described in Table 2. Hematological toxicity was limited, being mainly thrombocytopenia; 3/10 grade 3, 1/10 grade 4, the latter being disease-related. Non-hematological toxicity was manageable, with only 2 grade 3 gastro-intestinal events and 1 pulmonary embolism. No infusion related reactions and neuropathy were reported. There were minor dose reductions only. The median and inter-quartile range of relative dose intensity (RDI) were 1.0 (0.9, 1.0) for ixazomib, 0.9 (0.9, 1.0) for daratumumab and 1.0 (0.9, 1.0) for dexamethasone. SAEs occurred in 9/26 unfit and 14/32 frail patients, mainly caused by prolongation of hospitalization (82% and 88% respectively). Two patients died during cycle 1, both not related to therapy. One 81-year old patient unexpectedly died at home at day 35 of cycle 1 (delay due to low platelet count) after having recovered from thrombocytopenia and a decreased renal function, grade 3, probably caused by cotrimoxazole and valaciclovir. The second 81-year old patient had a thrombocytopenia of 18x109/l related to MM and died of gastrointestinal bleeding for which he declined therapy at day 15 of cycle 1. In the first included 58 patients a total of 4 patients died (6.9%, 4/32 frail (12.5%) and 0/26 unfit (0%)), of whom 2 not related to therapy (see above) and 2 possibly therapy-related; 1 due to Influenza B and 1 acute pre-renal failure due to vomiting and diarrhea. Preliminary response during the first 4 cycles of therapy is promising is; ORR 70% of which 20% VGPR, 10% MR, 10% SD and 10% not evaluable. Conclusion This planned safety analysis of frail patients in the HOVON 143 showed that Ixazomib-Daratumumab-low dose dexamethasone is feasible with a low rate of therapy-related toxicity and mortality. Preliminary response rates are promising. Disclosures Levin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. van de Donk:Janssen Pharmceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Phase I Study to Assess the Safety and Tolerability of AZD1152 In Combination with Low Dose Cytosine Arabinoside In Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.656.656 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 656-656 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Mikkael A. Sekeres ◽

Vincent Ribrag ◽

Philippe Rousselot ◽

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Febrile Neutropenia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Cytosine Arabinoside ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 656 Background: Aurora B kinase is a key mitosis regulator that is overexpressed in a range of malignancies, including AML. AZD1152 is a potent selective inhibitor of Aurora B kinase. This ascending dose cohort study was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of AZD1152 in combination with low dose cytosine arabinoside (LDAC), the only agent that has currently demonstrated a survival advantage over palliative care in older patients with AML. Methods: Patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML unfit for intensive induction chemotherapy were included. Cohorts of 6 patients received escalating doses of a 7-day continuous iv infusion of AZD1152, at doses of 800 mg up to the monotherapy maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 1200 mg, in combination with LDAC 20 mg sc injection twice daily for 10 days. AZD1152 and LDAC were administered in 28-day cycles. If 1 or fewer dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in a cohort, AZD1152 dose was escalated. A DLT was an adverse event (AE) or laboratory abnormality considered related to AZD1152, which was a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥3 non-hematological toxicity (despite adequate supportive care). If 2 or more of 6 patients had a DLT, the dose was reduced or enrollment was stopped into that cohort. The MTD was defined as the dose at which 0 or 1 of 6 patients experienced a DLT. Following determination, the MTD cohort was expanded to 12 patients. Objective response was evaluated by the investigators using AML International Working Group clinical response criteria. AEs and serious AEs (SAEs) were evaluated according to CTCAE version 3. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and at selected times post dose for 3 cycles to determine levels of AZD1152, its active metabolite AZD1152 hQPA and LDAC. Results: At the data cut-off on 02/08/10 (data validation ongoing), 22 patients had been treated with the combination of LDAC plus AZD1152 (n=6 800 mg; n=13 1000 mg; n=3 1200 mg). Mean age (range) across the 3 cohorts was 71.1 (61–82) years, 14 (64%) were male, 21 were Caucasian and 1 was African American. The mean age of the 800 mg cohort was older (75.2 years) compared with the 1000 mg and 1200 mg cohorts (70.3 and 67.3 years, respectively). At baseline, 8 (36%) patients had de novo AML, and 7 (32%), 2 (9%) and 1 (5%) had AML secondary to myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative disorder and chemotherapy, respectively. All 22 patients had newly diagnosed AML. All patients received at least 1 cycle of treatment, 10 received ≥2 cycles and 1 received 5 cycles. One patient received an AZD1152 dose reduction (1000 mg to 800 mg) for their second cycle due to a high creatinine level, which was present at pre-dosing. Two patients in the 1200 mg group had DLT episodes of CTCAE grade 3 mucositis. The MTD of AZD1152 in combination with LDAC was defined as 1000 mg. All patients had at least 1 AE, the most common were myelosuppression (febrile neutropenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia in 50%, 36% and 27% of patients, respectively), stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, nausea, diarrhea and infection (each in 45% of patients). The most common grade 3/4 CTCAEs were febrile neutropenia, infection, thrombocytopenia and anemia. There were 3 (13.6%) deaths, 1 in each cohort; 2 were due to SAEs of febrile neutropenia (multiple-organ failure) and hypoxia (fungal pulmonary infection) and 1 was due to an unknown cause. Nine of 21 patients (43%) were reported by the investigators to have had a clinical response (CR + CRi) (Table). Conclusion: The MTD of AZD1152 in combination with LDAC in older patients with newly diagnosed AML was 1000 mg. AZD1152 at a dose of 1000 mg combined with LDAC had an acceptable tolerability profile. Two patients had DLTs of mucositis at the monotherapy MTD of 1200 mg. AEs of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia were slightly higher than those in patients treated with either agent alone, although many patients experienced these AEs at study entry. The investigator-reported clinical response rate (CR + CRi) was 43%. The development of AZD1152 is continuing with a Phase II study in older patients with AML considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Disclosures: Kantarjian: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Low-dose cytosine arabinoside is an approved agent for the treatment of patients with AML; this study evaluated low-dose cytosine arabinoside in combination with AZD1152, an investigational agent that inhibits Aurora Kinase B . Sekeres:Celgene Corp: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ribrag:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LFB Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; LFB: Research Funding. Owen: AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stockman:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership. Oliver:AstraZeneca: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in >75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p<0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-121907 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4304-4304

Author(s):

Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽

Rudy Agius ◽

Arnon P. Kater ◽

Mark-David Levin ◽

Anders Österborg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Severe Infection ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Risk Of Infection ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Educational Grant ◽

Travel Grant ◽

Grade 3

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

Download Full-text

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3884.3884 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3884-3884

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Suzanne Hayman ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Francis Buadi ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide Plus Melphalan and Prednisone: A Case-Control Study in Newly Diagnosed Elderly Myeloma Patients.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2877.2877 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2877-2877

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

Patrizia Falco ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Case Control Study ◽

Case Control ◽

High Dose ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Control Study

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: 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, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide (POM) with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDEX) in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Outcomes Based on Prior Treatment Exposure

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4070.4070 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4070-4070 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Craig C. Hofmeister ◽

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Prior Exposure ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 4070 Background: There are currently limited effective treatment options for patients (pts) with RRMM with prior exposure to lenalidomide (LEN), bortezomib (BORT) and chemotherapy. In a multicenter, randomized phase 2 study, POM with or without LoDEX (n=221) was active in RRMM pts who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634); activity was also observed in those with disease refractory to LEN, BORT, or both (Vij R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:abs 8016). Here we characterize outcomes in the POM+LoDEX group (n=113) according to the prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT, and had progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At randomization, pts were stratified by age, prior number of treatments, and prior thalidomide exposure. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. All pts received thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). The endpoints in this study were progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (using European Bone Marrow Transplantation [EBMT] criteria), duration of response, time to response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Response data according to prior therapy were assessed by investigator assessment. Results: All 113 pts assigned to POM+LoDEX had prior exposure to LEN (100%), BORT (100%), and steroids (100%). Most pts had also received prior alkylator therapy (93%), stem cell transplant (SCT) (73%), and thalidomide (THAL) (68%); 49% had received prior anthracyclines. Regimens immediately prior to study entry included BORT (50%), LEN (39%), cyclophosphamide (13%), THAL (8%), vorinostat (8%), carfilzomib (5%), and melphalan (5%). The median number of exposures to LEN and BORT in prior lines was once (range 1–4) and twice (range 1–6), respectively. The majority of pts (80%) had received >3 prior therapies. The overall response rate (ORR) was 48% and 30% in pts who had received ≤3 and >3 prior therapies, respectively. Of the pts who had ≤3 vs > 3 prior therapies, 9% vs 1% pts achieved complete response (CR), 39% vs 29% pts achieved partial response (PR), 9% vs 12% pts achieved minimal response (MR) and 44% vs 36 % pts achieved stable disease (SD), respectively. ORR was 34% and appeared similar regardless of prior exposure to alkylators (33%), anthracyclines (35%), SCT (35%), or THAL (35%). Median duration of response was also similar in pts who had received prior alkylators (8.4 mos), anthracyclines (10.1 mos), SCT (7.7 mos), and THAL (7.7 mos). Of the 69 pts who had a best response of SD or PD to their last prior antimyeloma therapy, 21 pts (12 SD and 9 PD) achieved a PR and 3 pts (1 SD and 2 PD) achieved a CR with POM+LoDEX treatment. Responding pts had longer time to progression (TTP; 11.1 mos) with POM+LoDex compared with the TTP (4.4 mos) observed with their last antimyeloma regimen prior to study. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the POM+LoDEX group were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and fatigue (14%). The incidence of at least 1 grade 3–4 adverse event was 100% in pts with ≤ 3 prior therapies, and 88% in pts with >3 therapies. Conclusions: The combination of POM+LoDEX has demonstrated an ORR of 34% in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM who have been previously exposed to LEN, BORT, steroids, and other treatments. Early treatment of POM+LoDEX (≤3 prior therapies) achieved better ORR (48%) compared with pts who received POM+LoDex later (>3 prior therapies; ORR, 30%). Disclosures: Vij: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other. Jagannath:Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharma: 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. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

ENESTxtnd: Impact Of Nilotinib Dose Re-Escalation In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.4009.4009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 4009-4009

Author(s):

Jeff H. Lipton ◽

Luis Meillon ◽

Vernon Louw ◽

Carolina Pavlovsky ◽

Lee-Yung Shih ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Dose Intensity ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Study Dose ◽

Dose Reductions

Abstract Background Frontline nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) provides superior efficacy vs imatinib in pts with CML-CP, with good tolerability. Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials—Extending Molecular Reponses (ENESTxtnd) is evaluating the kinetics of molecular response to frontline nilotinib 300 mg BID in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP, as assessed in national and local laboratories, and is also the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nilotinib dose optimization (including dose re-escalation in pts who require dose reductions due to adverse events [AEs] and dose increase in pts with less than optimal response). Here, we present results of a preplanned, interim analysis (IA) based on the first 20% of pts who completed 12 mo of treatment or discontinued early. Methods ENESTxtnd (NCT01254188) is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3b clinical trial of nilotinib 300 mg BID in adults with CML-CP newly diagnosed within 6 mo of study entry. The primary endpoint is rate of MMR by 12 mo. Molecular responses were monitored by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) at local laboratories at baseline, at 1, 2, and 3 mo, and every 3 mo thereafter. Bone marrow cytogenetic analyses were performed locally at baseline, 6 mo, and end of study. Dose reductions were allowed for grade ≥ 2 nonhematologic AEs and grade 3/4 hematologic AEs. Pts with dose reductions could attempt to re-escalate (successful re-escalation defined as ≥ 4 wk on nilotinib 300 mg BID with no dose adjustments for any AE) and remain on study. Dose increase to nilotinib 400 mg BID was allowed in cases of BCR-ABL > 10% on the International Scale (BCR-ABLIS) at 3 mo or later, no major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) at 12 mo, loss of MMR, or treatment failure. Results This IA includes 85 pts treated in 12 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Taiwan, and South Africa). Median age was 49 y (range, 19-85 y), and 58% of pts were male. Median time since diagnosis was 35 days (range, 2-157 days). Prior to study entry, 64 pts (75%) received hydroxyurea, and 3 pts (4%) received imatinib (all for ≤ 2 wk). At the data cutoff, 68 pts (80%) had treatment ongoing, and the remaining 17 had discontinued due to AEs/laboratory abnormalities (n = 8; nonhematologic AEs [n = 5], biochemical abnormalities [n = 2], and hematologic abnormalities [n = 1]), loss to follow-up (n = 2), administrative problems (n = 2), intolerance to the protocol-proposed dose (n = 2), suboptimal response (n = 1), withdrawal of consent (n = 1), or protocol deviation (n = 1). Median time on treatment was 13.8 mo (range, 1 day-18 mo). Median actual dose intensity of nilotinib was 597 mg/day (range, 165-756 mg/day), and 85% of pts had an actual dose intensity of > 400 mg/day to ≤ 600 mg/day. Of 30 pts with dose reductions due to AEs, 19 (63%) successfully re-escalated to nilotinib 300 mg BID. Nine pts (11%) dose escalated to nilotinib 400 mg BID due to lack of efficacy. The primary endpoint of MMR by 12 mo was achieved by 57 pts (67%; 99.89% CI, 49%-82%). Complete cytogenetic response by 6 mo was achieved by 48 pts (56%). Median BCR-ABLIS decreased over time, with a median value of 0.05% (range, 0.00%-41.36%) at 12 mo (Figure). Most pts (91%) achieved early molecular response (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Of the 8 pts (9%) with BCR-ABLIS > 10% at 3 mo (4 of whom were then dose escalated), 3 achieved MMR by 12 mo (1 of whom had been dose escalated). By the data cutoff, no pt had progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and there had been no deaths on study. Nilotinib was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that seen in other frontline studies. Drug-related nonhematologic AEs (≥ 10% of pts) were rash (31%), constipation (13%), and headache (13%). Newly occurring or worsening grade 3/4 hematologic or biochemical abnormalities (≥ 10% of pts) were neutropenia (17%), thrombocytopenia (17%), increased lipase (13%), and increased bilirubin (12%). Conclusions These results demonstrate that dose-optimized nilotinib affords high rates of molecular response in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Further, they support the feasibility of nilotinib dose re-escalation in pts who require temporary dose reductions due to AEs, with 63% of dose-reduced pts able to successfully re-escalate to nilotinib 300 mg BID and safely continue therapy. Disclosures: Lipton: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Meillon:Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Louw:Novartis: Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Congress attendance support, Congress attendance support Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Pavlovsky:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Jin:Novartis: Employment. Acharya:Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Employment. Woodman:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Turkina:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Andrew Spencer ◽

Francesco Di Raimondo ◽

Adam Zdenek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase 1/2 Study of G-CSF, Cladribine, Cytarabine, and Dose-Escalated Mitoxantrone (G-CLAM) in Adults with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1068.1068 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1068-1068 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anna B. Halpern ◽

Megan Othus ◽

Emily M Huebner ◽

Kaysey F. Orlowski ◽

Bart L. Scott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Chemotherapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Dose Levels

Abstract Introduction:"7+3" with standard doses of cytarabine and an anthracycline has remained the mainstay of induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Since some studies have shown improved outcomes with high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, or escalated doses of anthracyclines, we conducted a phase 1/2 study (NCT02044796) of G-CLAM using escalated doses of mitoxantrone for newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS (>10% blasts). Methods: Patients≥18 years were eligible if they had treatment-related mortality (TRM) scores of ≤6.9 (corresponding to a predicted risk of early death with standard induction chemotherapy of ≤6.9%) and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, bilirubin ≤2.5 times upper limit of normal). Excluded were patients with uncontrolled infection or concomitant illness with expected survival <1 year. In phase 1, cohorts of 6-12 patients were assigned to 1 of 4 total dose levels of mitoxantrone (12, 14, 16, or 18 mg/m2/day, days 1-3, compared to 10 mg/m2/day used in standard dose G-CLAM previously established in relapsed/refractory AML). Other drug doses were G-CSF 300 or 480 μg/day (for weight </≥76 kg; days 0-5), cladribine 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), and cytarabine 2 g/m2/day (days 1-5). In phase 2, patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of mitoxantrone. A second identical course of G-CLAM was given if complete remission (CR) was not achieved with cycle 1. Up to 4 cycles of consolidation with G-CLA (mitoxantrone omitted) were allowed if CR or CR with incomplete platelet or blood count recovery (CRp/i) was achieved with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were: 1) grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity lasting >48 hours that resulted in >7-day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle; 2) grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days, both excluding febrile neutropenia, infection or constitutional symptoms. Results: Among 33 patients (median age of 57.3 [range: 26-77], median TRM score 2.31 [0.16-5.90]) treated in phase 1, one DLT occurred at dose levels 3 and 4 (respiratory failure in both cases), establishing G-CLAM with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2/day as the MTD. Sixty-two patients, including 6 treated in phase 1, received G-CLAM at MTD. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age 58 (21-81) years, median TRM score 2.85 (0.06-6.73), with AML (n=52) or high-risk MDS (n=10). Cytogenetics were favorable in 6, intermediate in 44, and adverse in 12 (MRC criteria); 11 patients had NPM1 and 6 had FLT3 mutations. Fifty-two patients (83.9%, 95% confidence interval: 72.3-92.0%) achieved a CR (n=48 [77.4%: 65.0-87.1%]), or CRp/i (n=4 [6.5%: 1.8-15.7%]) with 1-2 cycles of therapy. Only 3 patients required 2 cycles to best response. Among the 48 CR patients, 43 (89.6%) were negative for measurable residual disease (MRDneg) by flow cytometry. Four patients had morphologic leukemia free state, 1 patient with myeloid sarcoma had a partial remission, 4 had resistant disease, and 1 died from indeterminate cause. One patient died within 28 days of treatment initiation (septic shock). Median times to an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/μL and a platelet count of ≥50,000/μL were 26 and 23 days. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, maculopapular rash, and hypoxia (fluid overload/infection-related) were the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. In addition to the phase 1/2 MTD cohort, there were 15 patients treated in an expansion cohort and 3 eligible patients treated off protocol with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2. For these 80 patients combined treated at MTD, the CR and CR/CRp/i rates were 76.3% and 81.2%. After multivariable adjustment, compared to 300 patients treated with 7+3 on the SWOG S0106 trial, G-CLAM with mitoxantrone 18mg/ m2 was associated with an increased probability of CR (odds ratio [OR]= 3.08, p=.02), CR/CRp/i (OR=2.96, p=.03), a trend towards improved MRDnegCR (OR= 3.70, p=.06), and a trend towards improved overall survival ([OS]; hazard ratio=0.34, p=.07). For the entire study cohort, the 6 and 12-month relapse-free survival were 73% (64-83%) and 62% (42-74%) and the 6 and 12-month OS were 89% (82- 96%) and 77% (67-88%). Conclusions: G-CLAM with mitoxantrone up to 18 mg/m2/day is well tolerated and has potent anti-leukemia activity. This regimen may warrant further randomized comparison with 7+3. We also plan to examine the addition of sorafenib to G-CLAM in newly diagnosed AML patients regardless of FLT3 status. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Development and Testing of a Lymphoma Clinical Trials Specific Frailty Index: A Secondary Analysis of the LY.12 Clinical Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153037 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4076-4076

Author(s):

Abi Vijenthira ◽

Xinzhi Li ◽

Michael Crump ◽

Annette E. Hay ◽

Lois E. Shepherd ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Frailty Index ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Frail Patients ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Frailty is common in older patients with lymphoma. However, it remains unknown whether frailty is prevalent in patients included in clinical trials of lymphoma, as those with frailty may meet inclusion criteria of a trial which do not include functional information beyond performance status (PS). Understanding the prevalence and impact of frailty in clinical trials is important to direct future stratification criteria, as well as to have robust data to counsel frail patients on their potential outcomes. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using data from the phase III LY.12 clinical trial in which patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin or dexamethasone-high dose cytarabine-cisplatin chemotherapy prior to autologous stem cell transplant. The primary objective of our study was to construct a lymphoma clinical trials specific frailty index (FI) using previously described methods (Searle. BMC Geriatr. 2008;8:24). Secondary objectives were to describe the association of frailty (binary variable) with overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), hospitalization, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and proceeding to transplant, and to describe the association of frailty with these outcomes, controlling for important covariates (age, sex, immunophenotype, revised international prognostic index score (rIPI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, stage, and response to previous chemotherapy). Results: 619 patients in the LY12 trial were used to construct the frailty index (Table 1). Using a binary cut-off for frailty (<0.2), 15% (N=93) of patients were classified as frail. There were no differences in age or sex between frail and non-frail patients; however they differed in terms of other lymphoma-related characteristics (Table 2). Frailty was strongly associated with OS (HR 2.012, 95% CI 1.57-2.58), EFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53-2.46), frequency of the worst overall Grade >3 AE (OR 2.65 (15% vs. 6%), p=0.003), and likelihood of proceeding to ASCT (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.43), but not hospitalization (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.97-2.40) or SAE (6% vs. 4%, p=0.3). In multivariable analysis, frailty was not significantly associated with OS, EFS, likelihood of proceeding to ASCT, nor hospitalization (Table 3), though there was a trend to significance for ASCT. However, rIPI remained significantly associated with OS and EFS, ECOG remained significantly associated with OS (Table 3) Conclusion: A potentially broadly applicable lymphoma clinical trials specific FI was constructed through secondary analysis of LY12 data. 15% of patients were classified as frail. Frailty was significantly associated with OS, EFS, frequency of grade >3 AE and likelihood of proceeding to transplant. However, this relationship no longer was significant when controlling for lymphoma-related prognostic variables, suggesting that the impact of poor prognostic features of lymphoma supersede the impact of frailty alone in this younger clinical trial population. Interestingly, rIPI and ECOG demonstrated their value as simple predictors that are highly associated with OS and/or EFS even when controlling for other important covariates including frailty. These findings require further testing in an external data set, and would be particularly valuable to test in an older population. Calibration of the FI against clinical frailty assessment (e.g. Clinical Frailty Scale, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment) would also be meaningful to confirm its ability to classify frail versus non-frail patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crump: Epizyme: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Kyte/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hay: Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Prica: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Kite Gilead: Honoraria.

Download Full-text