Advancements in Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Frail and Elderly Myeloma Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction: About 60% newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) cases are above age of 60 years. The paucity of studies exclusively targeting management of frail patients has led to persistence of therapeutic uncertainties. With data on more than ten thousand patients, purpose of this review is to summarize the available therapeutic options with emphasis on recent advances for treatment of frail and elderly, transplant ineligible NDMM patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search on June 1st, 2019 on PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used the MeSH terms: 'Multiple Myeloma' and 'Frail Elderly', with associated entry words. Search yielded 71 studies regarding our topic of interest. Following PRISMA guidelines and subsequent screening by two reviewers, we shortlisted 19 ongoing/completed studies (n=10297) and included data from these studies in our systematic review. Results: Two/Three Drug regimens: Among the two drug regimens [Table 1], Lenalidomide (R) and Dexamethasone (D) (RD) combination has been most widely studied (n=1445). RD yielded objective response rate (ORR) of 81.3%, complete response (CR) or above of 24.9% and progression free survival (PFS) of 31.9 months in a phase III trial (Usmani, 2019) (n=369). Facon et al. (2019) [n=368] used Daratumumab (Dara)+R+D (DaraRD) which exhibited the best response overall with an ORR of 92.9%, CR of 47.6%, VGPR of 31.8% while the PFS was not reached till study end point. However, >grade 3 neutropenia developed in 50% patients. Three-drug regimen of Bortezomib(V)+Melphalan(M)+Prednisolone(P) (VMP) has been the most widely studied regimen (n=1059) in four phase II/III clinical trials. In a phase II trial (Kizaki, 2016) (n=87), VMP yielded a PFS of 36 months and CR of 25%. In a Phase II trial by Larocca et al (2016, n=148), 3 cohorts (VP, V+ Cyclophosphamide (C) +P and VMP respectively) were studied. Best response was achieved by VMP with ORR of 86%, PFS of 17.1 months and CR of 14%, compared with VCP (ORR=67%, PFS=15.2 months and CR=2%) and VP (ORR=64%, PFS=14 months, CR=8%). However, the discontinuation rate (DR) due to AEs for VMP was relatively high (20%). A phase III trial (San-Miguel, 2018) (n=955) compared Carfilzomib(K)+M+P (KMP) against VMP. Median PFS was found to be 22.3 months with KMP Vs 22.1 months with VMP. Grade ≥3 AE rates were 74.7% for KMP and 76.2% for VMP. Thus, the results showed no significant difference between both regimens. Thalidomide (T) has also been used in three drug combinations in two phase II/III trials (n=667). Ixazomib(I)+T+D (ITD) in a phase II trial (Abildgaard, 2017) (n=120) revealed an ORR of 75% compared to ORR of 62% in a phase III trial (Benboubker et al, 2014) (n=547) using MPT. Notable >grade 3 AEs with ITD were infections (15%) and cardiac abnormalities (10%) while with MPT were >grade 3 neutropenia (45%) and infections (17%). A retrospective analysis by Facon et al. (2015, n=1517) comparing RD Vs MPT demonstrated that RD reduced the risk of progression or death by 21% compared to MPT in frail patients. 2. Four Drug Regimens: Four drug regimens have also been used in transplant-ineligible patients in two phase II/III trials (n=583). Mateos et al. (2015, n=233) conducted a phase II trial in which patients were treated with VMP+RD (VMPRD). 49 frail patients based on Age >80 years (IMWG criteria) had ORR of 68%, PFS of 25 months and CR of 10%, with a DR of 63% due to toxicity or informed consent withdrawal. However, in the ALCYONE trial (San-Miguel, 2017) (n=350), use of Dara+VMP (DaraVMP) resulted in ORR of 90.9%, ≥CR of 42.6%, VGPR of 28.6% and PFS was not reached till study end point. Furthermore, the DR due to AEs for DaraVMP was also lesser (4.9%). Various trials [Table 2] are being conducted to establish correlation of frailty scores with parameters of efficacy. Conclusion: Management of frail and elderly NDMM patients is challenging as there is need to individualize therapy for this group. Novel agents such as lenalidomide, bortezomib and daratumumab have shown promising efficacy when used as combination therapies with other conventional agents. Intensity of treatment and efficacy goals should be tailored to the functional capacity and tolerance of each individual patient. There is need for focused clinical trials for this group in terms of greater recruitment into clinical trials to establish better correlation between frailty status and efficacy, and consolidating evidence for improved patient care. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Three Drug Regimens for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Transplant-Ineligible Elderly Patients - a Systematic Review

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-132095 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5574-5574

Author(s):

Abdul Aziz Siddiqui ◽

Kazi Najamus-saqib Khan ◽

Arafat Ali Farooqui ◽

Muhammad Saad Farooqi ◽

Muhammad Junaid Tariq ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Elderly Patients ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Low Dose ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Alkylating Agents ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Great Efficacy ◽

Drug Regimens

Introduction: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) tend to have comorbidities and/or advanced age that make this subset of patients difficult to manage with current drug regimens. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science was performed from inception and completed on 07/17/2019. Studies focusing on efficacy and tolerability of 3-drug regimens in patients with NDMM were included for the review. Results: Out of 3579 studies, a total of 10 (08 phase II and 03 phase III) clinical trials in last ten years (2010-2019) using 3-drug regimens in NDMM elderly pts (893M/807F) ineligible for ASCT (determined by investigators) were selected. A total of 1703/1740 NDMM pts were evaluated. Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) such as carfilzomib (C), bortezomib (V) and ixazomib (I) showed promising results in elderly transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. CLARION trial (phase III, n=955) compared two PIs (C and V) with melphalan (M) and prednisone. There was no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between two groups (median: 22.3 vs 22.1 months; HR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10, p = 0.159) as well as overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.82-1.43). Difference in the least square means of the HR-QoL (Health related- quality of life) was 4.99 (p<.0001) favoring C-group. M may not be an ideal drug to combine with carfilzomib in this setting given more AEs.(Facon et al 2019). V as 3-drug regimen in combination with lenalidomide (L) in 242 pts achieved statistically significant prolonged PFS (median 43 mo) and OS (median 75 mo) with great efficacy and acceptable risk-benefit profile. (Durie et al 2017; phase III). Multinational phase II trial (n=70) by Dimopoulos et al (2019) evaluated I, with different fixed doses of cyclophosphamide (Cy). Median duration was 19 cycles, indicating the long-term tolerability of regimen. With favorable toxicity profile and maintained QoL scores, trial concluded that this therapy is tolerable in elderly transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Tuchman et al (2017) in phase II trial (n=14) investigated (V-Cy-d) and achieved ORR of 64%, with ≥VGPR of 57%. Low dose V showed great efficacy with M yielding ORR of 86% and VGPR or better of 49% in phase II trial (n=101) that also evaluated Cy as 3-drug combination but results were more productive with M with longer PFS and OS which reduced when impact of frailty was examined on outcomes. Since toxicity was higher with M, trial suggested that 2-drug combination should be preferred in elderly frail patients. (Larocca et al 2015). Efficacy was quite promising when Bringhen et al (2014) trialed C with Cy-d; 87% OS and 76% PFS at 1 y in phase II trial (n=58) with much favorable safety profile. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) such as elotuzumab (E) and pembrolizumab (Pe) are also tested in elderly. First study conducted on NDMM pts using humanized mAb; E, in phase II trial (n=40) by Takezako et al (2017) attained primary endpoint of the study (ORR) of (88%) and VGPR or better of 45% in Japanese pts with tolerable toxicities in elderly. No subjects on this study experienced severe peripheral neuropathy. KEYNOTE-185; a phase III multinational trial by Usmani et al (2019) evaluated Pe with Ld in 151 pts. FDA halted this study due to unfavorable benefit-risk profile; 19 deaths, 6 due to disease progression (PD), and 13 due to treatment-related AEs. Median PFS and median OS were not reached in either group. Immunomodulators such as L achieved one of the longest PFS reported in a trial of transplant ineligible patients (35 mo) by using LVd regimen in phase II multicenter trial (n=50). (O'Donnell et al 2018) Alkylating agents like bendamustine (ben) and M have been tested in different novel regimens. Decreasing intensity and increasing duration of ben resulted in better outcomes in phase II trial (n=59) by Berdeja et al (2016) and can be given as first line treatment. Ben yielded great results with low dose dexa as compared to high dose achieving 92% ORR. Original regimen was effective but relatively more toxic. Incidence of herpes and neuropathy decreased dramatically with the treatment modifications. Conclusion: Three-drug regimens having PIs, mABs, immunomodulators and alkylating agents have shown desirable results in NDMM transplant (ASCT)-ineligible elderly patients and are likely the emerging standard of care for NDMM. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer: a Phase II study (RESOUND)

Future Oncology ◽

10.2217/fon-2019-0480 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (35) ◽

pp. 4009-4017

Author(s):

Silvia Bozzarelli ◽

Lorenza Rimassa ◽

Laura Giordano ◽

Simona Sala ◽

Maria Chiara Tronconi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Clinical Trial Registration ◽

Free Survival ◽

End Point ◽

Best Response ◽

Cancer Types ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Experienced Grade

Aim: Regorafenib may be active in different cancer types. This Phase II trial included patients with various refractory cancer types treated with regorafenib. Here, we report the results of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma cohort. Methods: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 8 weeks; further investigation of regorafenib would be warranted with a PFS rate ≥50%. Results: A total of 20 patients were enrolled. The best response was stable disease in four patients (20%). The 8-week PFS rate was 25% with a median PFS of 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.5–2.0). A total of 13 patients (65%) experienced grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events. Conclusion: The study did not meet its primary end point. Further investigation of regorafenib monotherapy in this setting is not recommended. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02307500

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Daratumumab Based Regimens Compared to Standard of Care for Transplant Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in Phase III Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-137141 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 32-33

Author(s):

Zahoor Ahmed ◽

Karun Neupane ◽

Rabia Ashraf ◽

Amna Khan ◽

Moazzam Shahzad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Standard Care ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Control Group ◽

Two Phase ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials

Introduction: Daratumumab (Dara) is a human anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. Dara has a promising efficacy and a favorable safety profile in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients. This study is focused on the efficacy and safety of Dara when added to the standard care regimen in transplant ineligible NDMM in phase III clinical trials. Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search on four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov). Our search strategy included MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and key words for multiple myeloma and Dara including trade names and generic names from date of inception to May 2020. Initial search revealed 587 articles. After excluding review articles, duplicates, and non-relevant articles, two phase III clinical trials were included which reported overall response rate (ORR), and progression free survival (PFS) of transplant ineligible NDMM patients with Dara addition to standard care regimen. Odds ratios (OR) of ORR were computed and hazard ratios (HR) of PFS (along with 95% confidence intervals; CI) were extracted to compute a pooled HR using a fixed effect model in RevMan v.5.4. Results: A total of 1453 transplant ineligible NDMM patients were enrolled and evaluated in two phase III randomized clinical trials. Seven hundred and eighteen patients were in Dara group and 735 patients were in control group. Bahlis et al. (2019) studied Dara + lenolidamide (R) and dexamethasone (d) vs Rd in NDMM pts (n=737) in MAIA phase III trial. Similarly, Mateos et al. (2018) reported the role of Dara + bortezomib (V) + melphalan (M), and prednisone (P) vs VMP in NDMM pts (n=706) in a phase III trial (Alcyone). A pooled analysis of these phase III trials showed ORR (OR: 3.26, 95% CI 2.36-4.49; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and progression free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.65; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status was significant in Dara based regimen as compared to control group (OR: 4.49, 95% CI 3.31-6.37; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Dara addition to standard care regimen (Rd and VMP) decreased the risk of progression/death to 42% (HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.70; p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). The addition of Dara increased the risk of neutropenia (OR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.85; p < 0.02, I2 = 44%), and pneumonia (OR: 2.25, 95% CI 1.54-3.29; p < 0.0001, I2 = 37%) vs control group. However, decreased risk of anemia (OR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85: p < 0.002, I2=30%) was observed in Dara group vs control group (Figure 1). Conclusion: Addition of Dara to the standard care regimen for transplant ineligible NDMM achieved the surrogate end points with improved efficacy and MRD negative status with manageable toxicity. However, data from more randomized controlled trials is needed. Table Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Randomized phase II trial of the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib versus interferon (IFN) in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.4501 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 4501-4501 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

B. Escudier ◽

C. Szczylik ◽

T. Demkow ◽

M. Staehler ◽

F. Rolland ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Kinase Inhibitor ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Phase Iii ◽

First Line ◽

First Line Therapy ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Grade 3

4501 Background: Sorafenib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that targets tumor growth and vascularization, significantly prolonged PFS in a Phase III trial with previously treated mRCC patients. This randomized Phase II trial investigated the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib compared with IFN in first-line therapy of patients with clear-cell RCC. Methods: Untreated patients with mRCC were stratified by MSKCC prognostic score and randomized to receive continuous oral sorafenib 400 mg bid or IFN 9 million units tiw, with an option of dose escalation (600 mg bid sorafenib) or crossover from IFN to sorafenib upon disease progression. The study assessed PFS at 99 events as primary objective, best response (RECIST), overall survival, health-related quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Baseline characteristics of 188 patients (sorafenib n=97; IFN n = 91) were: median age 62.0 years; MSKCC score: 57% low, 41% intermediate, 1% high; prior nephrectomy: 82%; ECOG 0:1, 55.3%:44.7%. As of January 6, 2006, PFS events have been reported for 64 (34%) patients. Preliminary data showed drug-related AEs of any severity (sorafenib vs IFN) in 50.5% vs 51.6% of patients (≥grade 3: 8.2% vs 11.0%), including diarrhea (24.7% vs 5.5%), fatigue (14.4% vs 20.9%), fever (2.1% vs 18.7%), hypertension (13.4% vs 0%), nausea (5.2% vs 13.2%), flu-like syndrome (1.0% vs 6.6%), hand-foot skin reaction (6.2% vs 0%), and rash/desquamation (4.1% vs 0%). Drug-related metabolic/laboratory abnormalities at grade 3 (no grade 4) comprised hypophosphatemia (21.7% vs. 0%), lipase elevation (5.6% vs. 11.1%), anemia (0% vs. 5.3%) and hypoalbuminemia (0% vs. 3.6%). Five patients receiving IFN withdrew from treatment due to AEs, whereas only one patient withdrew from sorafenib. Conclusions: Sorafenib was generally well tolerated in RCC patients in the first-line setting, with relatively infrequent drug-related AEs ≥grade 3. Full PFS data will be presented at the meeting. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Phase II Trial of N,N-Diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine.HCl and Doxorubicin Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1999.17.11.3431 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 17 (11) ◽

pp. 3431-3437 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

K. Khoo ◽

L. Brandes ◽

L. Reyno ◽

A. Arnold ◽

S. Dent ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽

Phase Ii ◽

National Cancer Institute ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Single Agent ◽

Metastatic Breast ◽

Phase Iii

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase II trial investigated the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of the novel intracellular histamine antagonist, N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine.HCl (DPPE), and doxorubicin in patients with anthracycline-naïve metastatic breast cancer. Preclinical models and early single institutional studies suggested DPPE could potentiate the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two women, 32 to 77 years old (median, 59 years), with anthracycline-naïve metastatic breast cancer were treated. Patients may have had one previous regimen of nonanthracycline chemotherapy, either in the adjuvant or metastatic disease treatment setting. DPPE (6 mg/kg) was administered as an 80 minute intravenous infusion with doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) given intravenously over the last 20 minutes of the DPPE infusion. Patients were premedicated with an antiemetic and sedating regimen. The DPPE/doxorubicin treatment was given every 21 days for a maximum of seven cycles. RESULTS: All 42 patients were assessable. Overall, toxicity was comparable to that expected with doxorubicin alone, with the exception of DPPE-related motion sickness, mild hallucinations, and cerebellar signs at the time of the infusion. These CNS side effects were manageable in an ambulatory care setting, improved with subsequent cycles of treatment, and did not usually require hospitalization. Four patients developed febrile neutropenia. Thirty-five patients received four or more cycles of chemotherapy. The overall response rate was 52.5% (95% confidence interval, 36% to 68%), with 9.5% complete responses (n = 4), 43% partial responses (n = 18), and 38% of patients with stable disease (n = 16). CONCLUSION: The antitumour effects of DPPE/doxorubicin the 52.5% response rate seems encouraging, particularly in consideration of the fact that a recently reported randomized National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group trial using single-agent doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 in one of the treatment arms achieved a 31% response rate. Thus, a randomized phase III trial of doxorubicin versus doxorubicin plus DPPE is being conducted in this clinical setting.

Download Full-text

Concurrent chemotherapy plus cetuximab or chemotherapy followed by cetuximab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A randomized phase II selectional trial SWOG 0342

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.7015 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 7015-7015 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

K. Kelly ◽

R. S. Herbst ◽

J. J. Crowley ◽

J. McCoy ◽

J. N. Atkins ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Kinase Inhibitors ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Performance Status ◽

Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Egfr Signaling Pathway ◽

Randomized Phase Ii

7015 Background: Randomized clinical trials have failed to show a survival benefit for small molecule EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. In contrast, pilot trials of EGFR targeted antibodies plus chemotherapy have suggested enhanced anti-tumor activity. This large randomized phase II trial was designed to select a cetuximab -chemotherapy regimen for future evaluation in a phase III setting. Methods: Untreated patients (pts) with stage IIIB (by pleural effusion) or IV (without brain metastases) NSCLC, with a performance status of 0–1 and adequate organ function were randomized to received paclitaxel (P) 225 mg/m2 and carboplatin (Cb) AUC=6 every 3 weeks plus cetuximab (C) 400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2, weekly for 4 cycles followed by maintenance C or the same doses of PCb for 4 cycles followed by C. C was continued until disease progression or 1 year of therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival; the statistical design required a median survival of ≥ 10 months for a regimen to be selected for subsequent phase III trial evaluation. The probability of correctly choosing the superior arm is 91% when the true hazard ratio is 1.3. Results: From July 2004 to June 2005, 225 eligible pts were enrolled into the study. Preliminary results are described below: Conclusions: At the time of this analysis, efficacy and toxicity were similar in the two treatment arms; both regimens were well tolerated. Assuming these results are sustained, the concurrent regimen of PCb + cetuximab has met the criteria for continued evaluation. A phase II trial of PCb + cetuximab + bevacizumab (B) is in development in anticipation of a phase III trial testing PCbB ± cetuximab. Molecular correlative studies of the EGFR signaling pathway are ongoing. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

A phase II trial of thalidomide (Thal) and procarbazine (Pro) in adults with recurrent or progressive malignant gliomas (MG)

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.2067 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 2067-2067

Author(s):

G. J. Lesser ◽

V. Stieber ◽

D. Case ◽

G. Enevold ◽

R. Rosdhal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Malignant Gliomas ◽

Normal Liver ◽

Individual Response ◽

Brain Scans ◽

Best Response ◽

Odd Cycle ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Phase Ii And Iii

2067 Background: Thal and Pro are among the few agents with demonstrated activity against MG. A two-stage, phase II trial was initiated within the WFURB to establish the response rate of combination Thal-Pro in patients (pts) with recurrent or progressive MG. Methods: Eligibility included pt age = 18 with measurable tumor on contrast enhanced brain scans; KPS = 60; normal liver, kidney and hematologic function; and treatment with = 2 prior regimens. Pts were required to participate in the S.T.E.P.S. Program and mandated to comply with agreed upon measures to avoid conception. Protocol therapy included Pro 250mg/m2/d x 5d q 28days and Thal 200mg/day continuously. Intrapatient dose escalation of Thal was attempted (increase by 100mg/day weekly as tolerated) to a maximum of 800mg/day. All pts received daily pyridoxine(100mg), warfarin(1mg) and stool softeners/laxatives. MRI/CT scans were performed prior to each odd cycle (every 8 weeks) to assess response based upon changes in the products of the largest bidimensional tumor diameters. Quality of life questionnaires including the FACT-Br were performed at baseline and prior to each odd cycle in all treated pts. Results: 18 pts (11 male) were enrolled (median age 50, range 27–63). One pt refused any therapy and is excluded from the analysis. The 17 treated pts received 36 cycles (median 2) of therapy. The median maximum Thal dose achieved was 400mg (range 200–800). No complete or partial responses were seen; 1 pt (6%) experienced stable disease, 14 (82%) progressed as best response and 2 (12%) were not evaluable for response. Median time to progression was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.5–2.5). 14 pts have died; median survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 3.5–9.4). Grade 3/4 drug related toxicity was minimal. Conclusions: Despite modest individual response rates in multiple prior phase II and III trials, the combination of Pro and Thal demonstrated no efficacy in this trial and this combination is unworthy of further investigation in pts with MG. Supported by NCI 1 U10 CA81851 and Celgene. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

PROPEL: A randomized, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of olaparib combined with abiraterone as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.tps340 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽

pp. TPS340-TPS340 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Noel W. Clarke ◽

Andrew J. Armstrong ◽

Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin ◽

Mototsugu Oya ◽

Dingwei Ye ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Parp Inhibitor ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽

First Line ◽

Double Blind ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Metastatic Setting

TPS340 Background: A Phase II trial showed olaparib (tablets, 300 mg bid) in combination with abiraterone (1000 mg od plus prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg bid) significantly prolonged radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS) compared with abiraterone alone (median 13.8 vs 8.2 months; hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.44–0.97, P=0.034) in patients (pts) with mCRPC in the second-line metastatic setting who received prior docetaxel (Clarke et al. Lancet Oncol 2018). Treatment benefits were achieved irrespective of homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation status, suggesting potential synergy between the two treatments that could impact a broader patient population. PROpel (EudraCT: 2018-002011-10) is the follow-on study to this, and the first Phase III trial to assess a PARP inhibitor in combination with abiraterone as first-line treatment in a genetically unselected mCRPC pt population. Methods: PROpel is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter study of pts randomized (1:1), as for the Phase II trial, to abiraterone (1000 mg od plus prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg bid) plus either olaparib (tablets, 300 mg bid) or placebo. Pts must not have received prior chemotherapy, new hormonal agents or other systemic treatment at mCRPC stage (except docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage [mHSPC]). Randomization is stratified according to site of metastases (bone only vs visceral vs other) and docetaxel treatment at mHSPC stage (yes, no). The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed rPFS (RECIST v1.1 [soft tissue] and Prostate Working Cancer Group 3 [PCWG-3 criteria; bone]). Secondary objectives include time to first subsequent therapy or death, time to pain progression, overall survival, and health-related quality of life. Safety and tolerability will also be described. Exploratory endpoints include HRR subgroup analyses to confirm that efficacy is independent of HRR status. Screening across ~200 sites in 20 countries is being conducted to identify a target sample of ~720 pts. Enrollment is expected to begin in October 2018. (Study 8, NCT01972217). Clinical trial information: NCT03732820.

Download Full-text

Phase II Trial of Initial Safety and Toxicity Prior to the Phase III Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation Alone in Patients with Asymptomatic High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (E3A06): A Trial Coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4079.4079 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4079-4079 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sagar Lonial ◽

Susanna Jacobus ◽

Matthias Weiss ◽

Rafael Fonseca ◽

Madhav V. Dhodapkar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

Plasma Cells ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Trial Testing ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Smoldering Myeloma

Abstract Abstract 4079 The treatment and natural history of asymptomatic or smoldering myeloma has been an area of intense preclinical and clinical study. Historical attempts to treat these patients have not demonstrated significant benefit, likely as a consequence of limited therapeutic options as well lack of attention to the vast heterogeneity contained within the diagnosis of smoldering myeloma. More recent risk criteria from both US and Spanish investigators have identified a cohort of smoldering myeloma patients at high risk for progression to myeloma in a short time. Recently the PETHEMA group has conducted a randomized clinical trial testing lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs observation among high risk smoldering patients and has demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of progression free survival and hints towards improvement in overall survival favoring early intervention. To further evaluate the potential benefit of early intervention in a high risk smoldering cohort, the ECOG myeloma group designed a phase II trial testing the safety and efficacy of single agent lenalidomide with the intent of broadening to a randomized phase III trial if toxicity was acceptable. We report here on the safety portion of the phase II trial. The phase II group of patients received lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg days 1–21 every 28 days to evaluate the early toxicity and tolerance of this dosing. The dose of lenalidomide could be adjusted based on toxicity using a defined dose-modification guideline in the protocol. The primary endpoint for the safety study was the rate of any treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity plus grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) observed within 6 cycles of treatment. The goal was to enroll 34 patients; if 9 or more patients experience toxicity as defined, then the study would not continue. In terms of eligibility, patients were to be diagnosed with asymptomatic high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) within the past 12 months, as confirmed by both of the following: bone marrow plasmacytosis with >= 10% plasma cells or sheets of plasma cells and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio (<0.125 or >8.0) by serum FLC assay. Further, patients must have measurable levels of monoclonal protein (M-protein): >=1g/dL on serum protein electrophoresis or >=200 mg of monoclonal protein on a 24 hour urine protein electrophoresis. Patients must have no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia. Among the 36 patients enrolled in the phase II study, 56% were female, and 44% were 65 years and older. Treatment and toxicity data at a minimum through cycle 6 is complete as of August 2, 2102. The last patient enrolled completed cycle 6 treatment on June 7, 2012. The median treatment duration of the entire cohort is 9 cycles (range 1–18 cycles), with 86% of patients completing at least 6 cycles of treatment. Ten patients are off treatment for the following reasons: disease progression (n=1), AE/complication (n=5), death (n=1) and patient withdrawal/refusal (n=3); 5 of the 10 patients ended treatment before completing 6 cycles. Of 36 patients assessed for toxicity, 8 patients [22.2%, 90% CI: (11.6%-36.5%)] experienced worst grade treatment-related non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Separately, 6 patients experienced unrelated non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Three patients [8.3%, 90% CI: (2.3%-20.2%)] experienced a serious adverse event as defined for the purposes of the phase II toxicity analysis (treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity or grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events). Based upon this analysis of the study, the phase II portion of the trial met the prespecified safety benchmark established to allow for phase III expansion, and accrual to the phase III portion of this study will begin. Efficacy data will be presented at the time of presentation. Disclosures: Lonial: Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corp: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for treatment of smoldering MM. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Binding site: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene : Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties. Dhodapkar:Celgene: Research Funding; KHK: Research Funding.

Download Full-text