Early Versus Late Discontinuation of Maintenance Therapy in Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Background: Indefinite maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is the current standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM). However, in the real world, patients often discontinue treatment due to various reasons. In this study, we sought to analyze the effect of and reasons for early discontinuation of maintenance therapy on survival outcomes, studying patients who received less than 3 years of maintenance therapy (short-term maintenance group) or more than 3 years (continuous maintenance group). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 340 patients who underwent ASCT from 2005-2016 and received maintenance therapy for at least six months without progression. The patients started maintenance therapy after 100 days of ASCT. Lenalidomide (89%) and bortezomib (10%) were the most commonly used agents for maintenance therapy. The primary endpoints included were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All the endpoints were measured from the time of ASCT. The discontinuation was defined as permanently stopping the maintenance therapy. Patient, disease, and transplant-related characteristics were compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and chi-squared or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The probabilities of PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and compared using log-rank test. Results: One hundred and two (n= 102; 30%) patients discontinued maintenance therapy in the first 3 years (short-term maintenance group), while 238 patients remained on maintenance therapy for ≥ 3 years (continuous maintenance group). The groups had similar baseline characteristics in terms of age, gender, ISS staging, cytogenetics, response before ASCT, and melphalan dosing. About 20% of patients in both groups were older than 65 years. Among those alive at the last contact, the median follow up were 5.4 years and 6.1 years for the short-term and continuous maintenance therapy group, respectively. At the time of the last follow-up, 131/238 (55%) patients in the continuous maintenance group were still on maintenance therapy. The median PFS in the short-term maintenance group was 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.4-7.4) and median OS was 9.8 years (95% CI: 8.2- to NR), whereas in the continuous maintenance group both median PFS (95% CI: 8.5- NR) and OS were not reached. This latter group had significantly longer PFS and OS than the short-term maintenance group with a 5-year estimated PFS of 80% (95%CI: 74-85%) vs. 50% (95% CI: 39-60%) (p<0.001) and OS of 96% (95% CI: 92-98%) vs. 79% (95% CI: 69-86%) (p<0.001) (Figure 1). This remained significant after adjusting for race, post-transplant remission status and ISS staging, with an hazard ratio for risk of relapse or death of 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45; and HR for risk of death of 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64. The most common reasons for early discontinuation of maintenance therapy (< 3 years) were adverse events related to maintenance therapy (58%). Four patient (4%) patients developed second primary malignancy (SPM) in this group. The most frequent hematological adverse events (AEs) were pancytopenia and isolated neutropenia. Fatigue and diarrhea were the most common non-hematological AEs. The reasons for stopping maintenance in the continued maintenance group were disease progression (24%) and adverse events (14%), while five patients (2%) developed SPM. Conclusion: In our institutional experience, 30 percent of MM patients discontinued maintenance therapy within 3 years of ASCT due to AEs or patient preference. These patients had inferior PFS and OS after ASCT compared to patients on continuous maintenance. Therefore, continuation of maintenance therapy should be strongly encouraged as safely possible and strategies like dose reduction or switching therapy are recommended. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bumma: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Thalidomide Maintenance Significantly Improves Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) of Myeloma Patients When Effective Relapse Treatments Are Used: MRC Myeloma IX Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.623.623 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 623-623 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Gareth J Morgan ◽

Faith E. Davies ◽

Walter M. Gregory ◽

Sue E. Bell ◽

Alex J. Szubert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mathematical Model ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Treatment ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Relapse Treatment ◽

Fish Group

Abstract Abstract 623 Background: Although a meta-analysis has suggested that a consistent PFS benefit is seen with maintenance thalidomide therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, the impact on OS remains unclear (Hicks LK, et al. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34:442-452). This could be due to a lack of effect, differing biological subgroups in relatively small studies with short follow-up, or lack of effective relapse treatment. Aims: The study was set up to evaluate the effect of thalidomide maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed MM patients aged ≥ 18 years with OS and PFS as end points, and to examine differential effects in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) identified molecular subgroups. Methods: Following induction treatment in an intensive pathway for younger fitter patients and a non-intensive pathway for the remaining patients, eligible patients were randomized to open-label thalidomide maintenance until progression (50 mg/day escalating to 100 mg/day after 4 weeks assuming good tolerance) or no maintenance. Patients of all ages were included in the randomization. FISH was performed using standard approaches. Adverse FISH groups were defined as any of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 1q+, 17p−, or 1p32− (in the intensive pathway only); the remainder were defined as favorable. Results: Overall, 820 patients were eligible of which 818 were evaluable. Median patient age was 65 years (range, 31−89). Median follow-up from maintenance was 38 months (range 12−66 months). Median time on maintenance was 7 months (range 0−50 months). Maintenance thalidomide significantly improved PFS, with a difference between the curves of 13% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6%−20%) established by 24 months and maintained till the current maximum follow-up at 66 months (hazard ration [HR] 1.36; 95% CI 1.15−1.61; logrank P < 0.001). However, in the initial analysis there was no apparent impact on OS (P = 0.40). These findings were consistent regardless of prior intensive or non-intensive induction treatment. At 66 months follow-up, a PFS benefit was seen in the favorable FISH group (P = 0.004) with no effect on OS (P = 0.6). In the adverse FISH group there was no effect on PFS (P = 0.48) and a negative effect on OS (P = 0.009). Subsequently, we evaluated the effect of relapse treatment on outcomes and used this data in a mathematical model to determine if OS benefit would have accrued from the prolonged PFS if all patients had received effective treatment at relapse. A total of 523 patients have progressed to date and of these, 47% received thalidomide as initial relapse treatment (either as a single agent or in combination), 30% received novel agents (either bortezomib or lenalidomide), and 27% received alkylating agents or steroids. Median survival after progression was significantly worse in patients who received thalidomide maintenance than those who did not (P < 0.005); this could, at least partly, be attributed to patients who received thalidomide at progression. In those patients, the median OS after progression was significantly greater in the no maintenance group versus the thalidomide maintenance group (P = 0.004). Among patients treated with novel agents at progression, prior thalidomide maintenance therapy had no impact on OS and these patients were effectively salvaged. The mathematical model employed to examine the effect of effective salvage therapy at progression suggested that a significant survival benefit of 5.5% at 3-years in favor of thalidomide maintenance would have accrued if all patients had received effective therapy at progression (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99; P = 0.04). Next, we examined whether continuous thalidomide therapy was associated with a consolidation or maintenance effect. Upgrading of response with thalidomide maintenance was not common. Importantly, there was no difference in response over time between maintenance therapy and no maintenance. In contrast to what has been reported previously, these findings suggest a maintenance effect. Conclusions: Maintenance thalidomide significantly improves PFS and if effective relapse treatment is available this translates into an OS advantage. The median duration of maintenance thalidomide therapy of 7 months in the present study was short. The clinical impact of maintenance would be improved if patients could remain on therapy for longer, suggesting that the use of other agents such as lenalidomide, with better tolerability profiles, may produce better results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: THALOMID (thalidomide) in combination with dexamethasone is indicated for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Davies:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing Carfilzomib-Dexamethasone Vs Observation As Maintenance after Induction with Carfilzomib-Cyclophosphamide-Dexamethasone in Salvage ASCT in Multiple Myeloma: A Trial By the Nordic Myeloma Study Group

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122141 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 601-601 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Henrik Gregersen ◽

Valdas Peceliunas ◽

Kari Remes ◽

Fredrik H. Schjesvold ◽

Niels Abildgaard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Observation Group ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase 2 Trial ◽

First Relapse ◽

Maintenance Group

Background: Salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is used in selected patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after up-front ASCT. However, there are limited data on the optimal induction therapy before salvage ASCT. There is strong support for the use of maintenance therapy after upfront ASCT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma whereas data on maintenance therapy after salvage ASCT are sparse. The Nordic Myeloma Study Group (NMSG) initiated the CARFI trial (NCT02572492), an open randomized phase II study, to investigate the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib as part of induction and conditioning in salvage ASCT and to evaluate the role of carfilzomib/dexamethasone maintenance after salvage ASCT. Methods: Patients with first relapse after up-front ASCT were treated with an induction regime containing four cycles of CAR-CY-DEX (iv carfilzomib 20 mg/sqm → 36 mg/sqm on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16, tablet cyclophosphamide 300 mg/sqm on days 1, 8 and 15 and tablet dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 in each 28-days cycle). The subsequent conditioning regimen contained iv carfilzomib 27 mg/sqm on day -2 and -1, and iv melphalan 200 mg/sqm on day -2. The patients had not received any maintenance therapy after upfront ASCT. Two months after ASCT patients were randomized (1:1) to observation or maintenance therapy with iv carfilzomib 27 mg/sqm → 56 mg/sqm every second week and tablet dexamethasone 20 mg every second week. The randomization was stratified according to relapse 1 - 2 year or > 2 years after up-front ASCT, ISS stage and standard versus high-risk cytogenetics. Primary endpoint was comparison of time to progression (TTP) after up-front ASCT and TTP after salvage ASCT with CAR-CY-DEX induction. Another primary endpoint was to compare TTP between carfilzomib-dexamethasone maintenance and observation in patients treated with salvage ASCT. Results: 200 patients were enrolled in the study and 32 of these went off study during the induction and after ASCT. The remaining 168 patients were randomized to carfilzomib-dexamethasone (82 patients) or observation (86 patients). The median age was 62 (interquartile range: 56; 66) years and the median follow-up from time of inclusion was 20.1 (14.1 - 27.6) months. The median TTP after up-front ASCT was 33.2 (31.0-37.8) months compared with 28.1 (24.9-31.5) months after salvage ASCT. The two groups randomised to maintenance therapy or observation were balanced regarding age, time from myeloma diagnosis, treatment at diagnosis, performance status, ISS stage and high-risk cytogenetics (Table 1). The median TTP from randomisation was 28.8 (95% CI: 24.4-NR) months in the maintenance group and 18.5 (95% CI: 14.3-22.0) months in the observation group (hazard ratio 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26-0.68, P = 0.0003)) (Figure I). For the maintenance group TTP from inclusion was 35.4 (30.9-NR) months compared with TTP of 31.3 (29.4-37.8) months (P = 0.71) after up-front ASCT for these patients. A total of 53 serious adverse events (SAE) were reported in 25 patients on carfilzomib-dexamethasone maintenance and 33 SAEs in 21 patients in the observation group. The majority of the SAEs were infections; 39 in the maintenance group and 25 in the observation group, divided into viral infection (10 versus 3), septicemia (2 versus 0) and pneumonia (12 versus 7). Three SAEs classified as cardiac-pulmonary were observed in the maintenance group (syncope, atrial fibrillation and pulmonary embolism) in contrast to three in the observation group (atrial fibrillation and dyspnea(2)). Conclusion: In this randomized phase 2 trial, maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone prolonged median TTP with approximately 10 months following salvage ASCT in multiple myeloma. The difference between TTP after upfront ASCT and TTP after salvage ASCT with carfilzomib based induction therapy was small which supports the use of salvage ASCT followed by maintenance in selected patients at first relapse. Disclosures Remes: Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Congress Support; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Congress Support; Amgen: Other: Congress Support; Celgene: Other: Congress Support; Sanofi: Other: Congress Support. Schjesvold:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; SkyliteDX: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abildgaard:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Vangsted:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria. Blimark:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Patients Progressing on Lenalidomide Maintenance

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128441 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1779-1779

Author(s):

Larysa Sanchez ◽

Erin Moshier ◽

Alexander Coltoff ◽

Ali Mustafa ◽

Darren Pan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Single Agent ◽

Total Change ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Of Therapy

Introduction: Lenalidomide (R) maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Even in the transplant ineligible population, R until progression is associated with improved PFS. The ever-increasing use of R maintenance therapy, however, eventually leads to refractoriness to R at maintenance doses. Moreover, clinical trials with len-dex (Rd) backbone regimens including daratumumab, elotuzumab, ixazomib, and carfilzomib have all excluded such patients (pts). This is particularly an issue for elotuzumab and ixazomib, which have no single agent approval. There are currently no published data on the outcomes of full dose Rd or Rd backbone containing regimens in pts refractory to R maintenance. A prospective randomized trial would be difficult to perform given variability in pt factors (i.e. R tolerance, age, renal function) and disease factors (i.e. molecular risk and clinical vs biochemical progression). We therefore performed a retrospective study to characterize outcomes of pts on R maintenance therapy. Methods: This is a single-institution, retrospective study in which we reviewed the records of all consecutive pts with a diagnosis of MM at the Mount Sinai Hospital between February 2010 and October 2016. There were 465 pts identified who had maintenance R as a single agent or in combination with low-dose dexamethasone or prednisone. Pts were excluded if insufficient data were available or < 3 month (mo) follow up from time of initiation of R maintenance. Time to progression (TTP) on R maintenance, next line of therapy, and PFS on next line of therapy were determined using Kaplan Meyer analysis. Results: A total of 350 pts were included in this study. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median follow up time was 59 mos and median time on R maintenance was 21.0 mos. 172 pts (49%) progressed while on R maintenance or within 60 days of R discontinuation. 51 pts (15%) remain on R maintenance as of last follow up. The remaining 127 pts (36%) discontinued R for reasons other than progression and either progressed after 60 days (median 658 days, range 91-2053 days) or have not progressed. The median TTP on R maintenance was 34.2 mos (Fig 1A) and the majority of these were characterized by the treating physician as biochemical (65% during maintenance and 56% after R discontinuation). Of the patients with serologic and symptomatic progression, the majority were by bone disease (24% and 37%, respectively). 234 pts had data available on next line of therapy and the median PFS on this next line was 16.8 mo (95% CI: 13.2-20.1), however the PFS was shorter for those who had progressed while on R maintenance versus those who had progressed after R maintenance had been discontinued (13.2 mos vs. 28.9 mos, respectively, p 0.0001). The median PFS according to next line of therapy for those who received an increase in R dose + dex vs 3rd agent added to Rd backbone vs total change in therapy was 9.5 mos vs 21.0 mos vs 14.2 mos, respectively (Fig 1B). The most common drugs added to an Rd backbone were bortezomib and elotuzumab with an associated PFS of 19.0 and 40.1 mos, respectively. The majority of those receiving elotuzumab + Rd had progressed on R maintenance (15/18 = 83%). The most common regimens for those with a total change in therapy are summarized in Table 2. Conclusions: The median TTP on R maintenance was 34.2 mos and while most progression was felt to be biochemical, of those with symptomatic progression as well, the primary manifestation was bone disease (approximately 30% of patients), highlighting the importance of surveillance osseous imaging in MM. While an increase in R dose with steroids was associated with an additional 9.5 mos PFS and a total change in regimen with 14.2 mos PFS, those who received an Rd containing triplet had impressive results. In particular, Rd + elotuzumab resulted in a PFS of 40.1 mos. Multivariate analysis accounting for the potential confounding patient and disease factors inherent to treatment selection in retrospective studies will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Cho: BMS: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Employment; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agenus: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Madduri:Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; undation Medicine: Consultancy. Parekh:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm Inc.: Research Funding; Foundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy. Richter:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chari:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Survivorship with Active Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-120152 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1912-1912

Author(s):

Brett Grieb ◽

Jithma Prasad Abeykoon ◽

Saurabh Zanwar ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Short Term ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Entire Cohort ◽

Long Term Survivors

Abstract Background The survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved significantly over the past two decades with the introduction of novel treatment agents. However, MM is still largely considered an incurable malignancy with a relapsing-remitting course. A follow-up of at least 10 years from active disease is required to determine whether a plateau in progression-free survival has been attained. Prior literature has used 10 years as a cutoff for "long-term survivorship". In this study, we have assessed the biological disease characteristics and outcomes of long-term survivors with MM (≥10 years from active disease). Methods All patients with active MM evaluated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1, 1999 and July 1, 2008 were included in the study after approval of the Institutional Review Board. Patients with smoldering multiple myeloma were excluded. The overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of symptomatic disease requiring treatment. Patients were then divided into two cohorts: (1) long-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of at least 10 years; and (2) short-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of less than 5 years from the diagnosis of active MM. The baseline characteristics between these two groups were compared using Wilcoxon, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test as applicable. All time-to-event analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the survival curves were compared using Log-Rank test. Results During the time frame of the study, 2,125 patients were identified who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for active MM. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 12.6 years (95% CI: 12.5-13.4).The median OS for the entire cohort was 4.4 years (95% CI: 4.2-4.7 years). Three-hundred and ninety nine (18.7%) patients survived at least 10 years whereas 872 patients (41%) survived less than 5 years from the date of initial diagnosis. The median OS was 14.1 years for the long-term survivors (95% CI: 13.9-14.6 years) and 2.1 years for the short-term survivors (95% CI: 1.8-2.2 years). The clinical features at diagnosis comparing long-term survivors and short-term survivors are shown in Table 1. Among long-term survivors (n=399), based on the available data regarding remission and ongoing treatment status, 331 patients were categorized into 6 cohorts (Table 2). The MM specific survival data of these 6 cohorts is depicted in Table 2.Figure 1 shows survival outcomes from the 10-year landmark. Of the 6 cohorts, 38 patients in Cohort 1 and 19 patients in Cohort 2 (total 57; 17% of long term survivors, ~3% of the entire cohort ) have been off therapy for at least 5 years and remain in remission, representing a distinct group of patients with 100% 15-year survival. Conclusion In our large database with prolonged follow-up, long-term survivors appear to have distinct baseline characteristics, but also constitute a heterogenous group of patients with disparate outcomes. A small subset (17% of long-term survivors) was identified that may represent patients closest to being considered as 'operationally cured'. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Teva: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: 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: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Impact of Maintenance Therapy on Nature of First Relapse in Multiple Myeloma Patients Underwent Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113833 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2130-2130

Author(s):

Petra Martin ◽

Rebecca Ye ◽

Merle Kolk ◽

Nicole Ferrari ◽

Paolo Caimi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Clinical Relapse ◽

Secretory Function ◽

Biochemical Relapse ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Myeloma Cells ◽

The Impact ◽

Maintenance Group

Abstract Lenalidomide maintenance therapy, initiated around day 100 after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), has been associated a significantly longer time to disease progression and significantly improved overall survival (OS) among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) (McCarthy et al. NEJM 2012). However, the impact of maintenance therapy on the nature of MM relapse is largely unknown. Generally relapse can be categorized in two broad categories as symptomatic, or biochemical relapse. Symptomatic relapse is characterized mostly by high calcium, renal failure, anemia and bony lesions, i.e., CRAB criteria. Biochemical relapse is defined by a resurgence of secretory function of malignant plasma cells without CRAB criteria. We hypothesized that long-term continuous exposure to lenalidomide induces crucial changes in the myeloma microenvironment leading to a discordance between the resurgence of secretory function and the recurrence of aggressive behavior of myeloma cells leading to a higher frequency of biochemical. To define the impact of maintenance therapy on the pattern of disease recurrence and determinants of a more aggressive or indolent relapse course, we retrospectively analyzed two cohorts of MM patients that underwent ASCT. Methods: All MM patients with measurable disease who received ASCT at the University Hospital, Cleveland, OH from 2007 to 2016 were reviewed (Fig. 1). Patients that had received an allogeneic transplant or tandem ASCT, those transplanted more than one year after induction therapy, and those that died during the first three months post-transplantation were excluded. Baseline and treatment characteristics, response status, and monitoring data prior to relapse were extracted. If the serologic relapse had coincided with clinical relapse, defined as per CRAB criteria, patient was categorized as clinical relapse, and otherwise as biochemical relapse. Type of MM was categorized as paraprotein only (PO), paraprotein and light chain (PL), light chain escape (LE) and clinical only (CO) relapse (Table 1). Baseline and treatment characteristics are detailed in Table 2. The univariate association between the type of relapse and key patient and clinical characteristics were assessed using t-test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Results: Study population included 124 pts who relapsed after ASCT (Fig. 1), divided in two cohorts based on history of receiving any maintenance therapy or no maintenance (77 vs. 47 patients, respectively). 21 pts were excluded based on the above criteria. Median age was 59.8 years old (range: 36-79). The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 10 months. There was only one CO relapse in the maintenance cohort. There was no difference in rate of high risk disease between two cohorts. The maintenance agents included immunomodulatory drugs in 70 pts (91%), proteasome inhibitors in 5 pts (6%) and a combination of both in 2 pts (3%). PFS was 40.1 months in the maintenance group vs. 29.2 months in the no maintenance group (p=0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in serum paraprotein values at diagnosis or relapse between the two cohorts (Fig. 1A). LCE was more common in the maintenance group. Thirteen patients (28%) in the no maintenance cohort had CRAB relapse compared to 35 patients (45%) in the maintenance cohort (hazard ratio: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.51-0.92, p=0.031). The type of end organ dysfunction at clinical relapse is shown in bar graphs in Fig. 2B. Conclusions: Taken together, our results suggest that although maintenance therapy postpones disease relapse in the post-HSCT setting, it also impacts dynamics of the resurgence of secretory function within myeloma cells and shifts the nature of recurrence toward less biochemical relapse. Future studies will employ next generation sequencing prior to and during maintenance therapy combined with high sensitivity flow cytometry to identify the molecular basis of relapse. Genomics and cell surface markers may then more accurately predict relapse in MM patients on maintenance therapy. Disclosures Caimi: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Malek:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Supermobilizers with High CD34 + Cell Collection for Autologous Transplant and Impact on Survival Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-151862 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1837-1837

Author(s):

Eyal Lebel ◽

Katherine Lajkosz ◽

Esther Masih-Khan ◽

Donna E. Reece ◽

Suzanne Trudel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Survival Outcomes ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells

Abstract Introduction: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard therapy for selected patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Studies in MM and lymphoma have suggested that ability to mobilize and collect a higher yield of CD34 + cells predicts for improved survival outcomes, perhaps reflecting better bone marrow reserve (Bolwell 2007, Raschle 2011). We aimed to validate this hypothesis by correlating high CD34 + cell collection ("supermobilizers") and survival outcomes in a large myeloma cohort with long follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MM patients (pts) who underwent ASCT at our centre 2000-2010, correlating number of CD34 + cells collected with post-transplant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Stem cells were mobilized using cyclophosphamide 2.5 g/m 2 IV (day 1), G-CSF 10 ug/kg/day SC (starting on day 4), and leukapheresis (day 11), targeting 4x10 6/kg but accepting a minimum of 2x10 6/kg to support a single transplant. Using a cut-off used in previous studies, pts were categorized as "supermobilizers" if ≥8x10 6/kg CD34+ cells were collected. Results: 621 pts were analyzed. Most pts (422/605; 70%) received high dose dexamethasone (HDD) alone or in combination with vincristine and adriamycin (VAD) for pre-transplant induction therapy (pre-dating the novel agent era) with only 18% (110/605) receiving more contemporary bortezomib-based induction (mostly cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone; CyBORD). The median number of CD34 + cells collected for all pts was 13.9x10 6/kg (range 2.1-61.8). The median CD34 + cells re-infused was 6.2x10 6/kg (range 2.1-25), as some cells were reserved for 2 nd ASCT, but median CD34+ cells collected correlated with CD34 + cells infused (Pearson coefficient 0.81, p<0.001). At a median follow-up of 74 months (m), we were surprised to report an inferior PFS of 24.1m for the supermobilizers collecting ≥8x10 6/kg vs 33.7m for the <8 group (p=0.038, Figure 1a), without differences in OS (p=0.612, Figure 1b). No further discrimination in PFS was observed when using a more extreme supermobilizer cut-off of 15x10 6/kg. To further understand the counterintuitive result of shorter PFS with higher mobilization capacity, we explored the continuous relationship between CD34 + cells and PFS, identifying another optimal cut-off of 4.5x10 6/kg. Pts collecting in the mid-range (4.5-8; n=129) achieved the best PFS of 34.5m, significantly improved over 24.1m in the ≥8 group (n=478) and 11.4m in the small group at the extreme lower collection range (n=14; ≤4.5x10 6/kg)(Figure 1c). A similar pattern was seen with OS (Figure 1d). Clinical and laboratory parameters that may impact both collection capacity and survival, such as age, ISS, and kidney dysfunction, were investigated as confounders but were similar between collection groups and did not predict for PFS in multivariable analyses. Treatment variables, however, differed between groups: the lower collection groups more often received bortezomib-based induction (29%, 31% and 14% in the ≤4.5, 4.5-8 and ≥8 groups, respectively, p<0.001) resulting in deeper responses pre-transplant (VGPR 50% in the ≥8 group vs 43% in the 4.5-8 group, p=0.024) (Table 1). Use of maintenance therapy post-ASCT also differed (50%, 40% and 28% in the ≤4.5, 4.5-8 and ≥8 groups, respectively, p=0.006). Discussion: In this large cohort of 621 MM patients, we report that "supermobilizers" who collected ≥8 x 10 6 CD34 + cells/kg exhibit inferior PFS from transplant than those with less robust mobilization. We suspected that this unexpected observation was due to confounding variables, and identified differences in treatment, primarily greater use of bortezomib-based induction and post-transplant maintenance therapy in the lower collection group. This group was able to achieve deeper responses (≥VGPR) even before transplant than the supermobilizer group, leading to improved PFS. Although bortezomib is routinely used as induction therapy pre-transplant currently and is not felt to be stem cell toxic, it may impair mobilization to a lesser degree, leading not to abject failure of collection but lowered capacity to achieve "supermobilizer" status. Although more research is needed to validate this hypothesis, we can at minimum conclude that high stem cell collection does not appear to predict for a long-term survival advantage. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Reece: Millennium: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Trudel: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Prica: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Kite Gilead: Honoraria. Chen: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of Lenalidomide-Elotuzumab As Maintenance Therapy Post-Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.840.840 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 840-840

Author(s):

Sheeba K. Thomas ◽

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Hans C. Lee ◽

Elisabet E. Manasanch ◽

Donna M. Weber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Best Response ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (LEN) monotherapy has been effective in extending progression free survival (PFS) and after myeloablative AuSCT in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) (Attal et al. NEJM 2012, McCarthy et al. NEJM 2012,). Elotuzumab (ELO), a humanized IgG1 immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody against signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), is FDA approved in combination with LEN and dexamethasone (DEX) for treatment of pts with MM who have received 1-3 prior therapies. The objective of this phase 2 trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding ELO to LEN as maintenance therapy post-myeloablative AuSCT. We report preliminary results of the primary (PFS) and secondary (overall survival and toxicity) endpoints. Patients and Methods: Between 4/15/2015-1/27/2016, 28 evaluable pts were treated on 28 day cycles with ELO, 10 mg/kg iv weekly for cycles 1-2 and q2weeks for cycles 3-6, then 20 mg/kg once monthly for cycles 7+. Pts enrolled after 1/28/2016 (n=27 pts) have received ELO, 10 mg/kg IV weekly for cycles 1-2, and 20 mg/kg on day 1 from cycle 3 until progression. LEN has been dosed at 10 mg/day for cycles 1-3, with a dose increase to 15 mg/day at physician discretion starting with cycle 4, in the absence of non-hematologic toxicity > grade 1 and significant cytopenias (ANC < 1000/mL, platelet count < 100,000/ml). For the 1st 8 weeks, pts <75 yrs receive 28 mg of DEX 3-24 hours pre-infusion, while pts ≥75yrs receive 8mg; pts receive 4-10 mg iv DEX immediately pre-infusion for all cycles. Pts also receive herpes zoster prophylaxis and thromboprophylaxis commensurate with standard recommendations. The primary endpoint of the study is PFS, defined as the time from AuSCT to clinical progression or death (whichever occurs first), or the time of last contact. Secondary objectives include best response, overall survival, incidence of second primary malignancies and adverse event (AE) profile. Total enrollment of 100 pts is planned. Pts will be followed for 48 months after the last patient is enrolled in the trial. Eligible pts had received no more than 2 lines of induction therapy, and were between 60-210 days post-AuSCT. Results: Patients (n=55) have been treated for a median of 14 cycles (2-30). At study entry, 13 pts (24%) had complete response (CR), 27 (49%) had very good partial remission (VGPR), 14 (25%) had partial remission (PR) and 1 (2%) had minor remission (MR). Best response achieved to date on study is CR in 28 pts (51%), VGPR in 23 pts (42%) and PR in 4 pts (7%). For those who have converted to CR on study, median time to CR has been 5 months. Of 14 pts in CR who have been tested for MRD while on study, 13 are negative by flow cytometry (minimum of 2 million cells evaluated; sensitivity 10 -4-10-5). Two of these 13 have converted from VGPR to MRD negativity at 4 and 14 months on study, respectively. With a median follow up of 21 months, 95% of pts (n=52) remain alive. Three pts (all with high risk disease) had disease progression at 4 (del 17p), 9 (t [4;14]), and 13 (gain 1q) months; of these, 2 have died of progressive disease while receiving salvage therapy. One patient, in VGPR, died on study after developing acute cerebral encephalopathy with refractory status epilepticus of unclear etiology. Two pts withdrew for logistical reasons; 2 have been taken off study per physician discretion (prolonged cytopenias (1), drug rash (1)). Grade 3-4 Hematologic AEs (no. of pts) were: neutropenia 35% (16), thrombocytopenia 9% (4), febrile neutropenia 7% (3), and anemia 7% (3). Grade 3-4 non-Hematologic AEs (no. of pts): diarrhea 17% (8), fatigue 17% (8), pneumonia 15% (7), other infections 15% (7), peripheral neuropathy 11% (5), myalgias 9% (4), nausea/vomiting 7% (3), maculopapular rash 4% (2), dizziness 4% (2), edema 2% (1), memory impairment 2% (1). Renal cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 1 patient, 15 months after removal from study for disease progression. Conclusions: Lenalidomide-elotuzumab is a well-tolerated maintenance therapy on which 44% of 55 pts have had improvement in quality of response while on therapy, including 28% who have converted to CR and 24% who have tested MRD negative. The number of pts who have experienced improvement on study may, in fact, be underestimated in this analysis due to elotuzumab interference with measurement on electrophoretic studies. Additional follow up is required to determine if the improved quality of responses translate into improvements in PFS and OS. Disclosures Thomas: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Shah: Kayopharm: Employment. Lee: Pimera Inc: Consultancy; Eutropics Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Manasanch: merck: Research Funding; adaptive biotechnologies: Consultancy; sanofi: Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; quest diagnostics: Research Funding. Patel: Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Orlowski: BioTheryX: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Maintenance Therapy With Lenalidomide Significantly Improved Survival Of Yong Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2089.2089 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2089-2089 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Tommaso Caravita ◽

Maide Cavalli ◽

Arnon Nagler ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Solid Tumors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplant improves outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in comparison to conventional chemotherapy. The incorporation of new drugs into induction, consolidation and maintenance therapy is changing the treatment paradigm and is questioning the role of HDT in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients <65 years. Previous finding have been presented (Boccadoro, ASCO 2013) and this analysis provides a longer follow-up. Aims To compare in a prospective randomized trial melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) both followed by maintenance with lenalidomide or no maintenance in NDMM patients. Methods A 2x2 factorial randomized trial was designed. The induction treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg d 1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg d 1,8,15,22) (Rd). As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/k g d 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d 1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d 1-21)] or MEL200 (N=200)[tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support]. Patients were further randomized, within each group, to receive lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg, days 1-21, N=198) or no maintenance (N=204). Primary study endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The secondary study endpoints included response rates, safety and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results From November 2007 to July 2009, 402 patients with NDMM <65 years of age were enrolled. All patients were stratified according to International Staging System (ISS) and age. Patient characteristics were well balanced in all groups. In the MPR group, the Very Good Partial Response (VGPR) rate was 50% with 13% of Complete Response (CR) while the VGPR rate was 52% including 19% of CR in the MEL200 group. In the MPR group the CR rate improved from 13% after consolidation to 17% after maintenance. In the MEL200 group the CR rate improved from 19% after consolidation to 25% after maintenance. After a median follow-up of 48 months, the median PFS was 24.2 months in MPR group and 38.6 months in MEL200 group ( P< 0.0001). A multivariate analysis confirms the PFS benefit associated with MEL200 across all subgroups of patients defined by stratification factors and baseline characteristics. The 5-year OS rate was similar between MPR (62%) and MEL200 (71%; P= 0.27). In a landmark analysis, lenalidomide maintenance significantly extended PFS from the start of maintenance (median 42,7 months) compared with no maintenance (median 17.5 months; P<.0001). The 4-year OS rate from the start of maintenance was higher in patients who received lenalidomide maintenance (80%) compared with patients who did not (62%; P= 0,01). No significant interaction was detected between MPR/MEL200 (P=0.704) and maintenance/observation (P=0.984) effects. During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) between MPR and MEL200 were as follow: neutropenia (50% vs. 90%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 89%), infections (1% vs. 15%) and gastrointestinal (0% vs. 18%), with complications being higher with MEL200. During the maintenance phase, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were reported in 17% of patients receiving lenalidomide (16% neutropenia). For individual group comparisons during maintenance, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were observed in 20% of patients receiving MPR plus lenalidomide maintenance compared with 15% receiving MEL200 plus lenalidomide maintenance. Second primary malignancies were observed in 11 patients (3%), and were mainly solid tumors. Four solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and one in the MPR group in the maintenance arm, while three solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and three in the MPR group in no maintenance arm. Conclusion The administration of MPR was significantly inferior to MEL200 in terms of PFS. Toxicities were significantly higher in MEL200 group, but manageable. OS is similar between MPR and MEL200. Lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression and of death independently from the previous treatment. Disclosures: Gay: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Melphalan-Based Autologous Transplantation in the Octogenarian Multiple Myeloma Patient Population

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-110241 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4608-4608 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Neeraj Y Saini ◽

Romil Patel ◽

Ankur Varma ◽

Qaiser Bashir ◽

Ruby Delgado ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Stem Cell Transplantation ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Hematopoietic Stem

Abstract Abstract: Background: Upfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) combined with novel anti-myeloma drugs is considered the standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, this treatment is generally avoided in older patients due to concerns about toxicity. MM is primarily a disease of the elderly, with >35% patients being older than 70 years of age at diagnosis. We have previously reported on the role of auto-HCT in MM patients >70 years1. In this study, we evaluate the safety and feasibility of auto-HCT in patients ≥80 years who received auto-HCT at our institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of MM patients with age ≥80 years who underwent auto-HCT between January, 2007, and June, 2018. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from the date of auto-HCT to the last follow up or the censored date. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. Results: Between January, 2013, and December, 2017, out of a total of 1465 MM patients referred for evaluation for auto-HCT at our institution, only 10(0.68%) were of age ≥80 years. Also, between January, 2016, and June, 2018, a total of 210 MM patients with age ≥80 years were treated at our institution, and only 3(0.14%) underwent auto-HCT. Overall among 1740 patients with MM who received an auto-HCT at our institution between the beginning of 2007 to June, 2018, 9(0.5%) patients were ≥ 80 years of age (range 80-83). Table 1 summarizes the patient characteristics of these nine patients. All patients had an ECOG performance status of either 0 or 1. The median hematopoietic stem cell transplant - comorbidity index for the cohort was 3 (range, 0-5). Eight (89%) patients were in first remission, and 1 (11%) patient had relapsed disease at auto-HCT. All patients received melphalan at a reduced dose of 140 mg/m2 as the conditioning regimen. Eight patients (89%) received maintenance therapy with lenalidomide. The median follow-up from auto-HCT was 18 months (range 0.5 - 50 months). No (0%) patient died within 100 days of auto-HCT. Out of 8 evaluable patients, 4 (50%) achieved a complete response, 2 (25%) very-good partial, and 2 (25%) achieved a partial response with an overall response rate of 100%. Eight (89%) patients were alive until the last follow-up. Median PFS was 31.5 months, while the median OS has not been reached (Fig1). 2-yr PFS and OS were 62.5% and 75% respectively. One patient died 22 months post-transplant due to non-transplant related cause. Conclusions: In selected MM patients ≥80 years old, auto-HCT was feasible, with 0% TRM, 100% response rate, and 2-year OS of 75%. Almost 90% of these patients went on to receive maintenance therapy. References: Qazilbash, M. H. et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation is safe and feasible in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplantation39, 279-283 (2007). Disclosures Shpall: Affirmed GmbH: Research Funding. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Array Pharma: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen Inc: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb Inc.: Research Funding. Lee:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioTheryX, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy. Champlin:Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Evolving Unmet Need in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide: Overview of the Clinical Trials in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142642 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 22-23

Author(s):

Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽

Rohan Medhekar ◽

Istvan Majer ◽

Mehmet Turgut

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Literature Review ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Unmet Need ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Of Therapy

Introduction: The majority of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients are currently treated with lenalidomide-based regimens as their first line of therapy. This trend is likely to continue in the coming years. Typically, lenalidomide is administered until disease progression and has significantly contributed to better outcomes in these patients. However, most patients relapse, and prognosis worsens with each relapse. The choice of optimal treatment for patients who relapse while receiving lenalidomide as first line of therapy is unclear. Moreau et al (Blood Cancer J. 9, 38 [2019]) concluded that there is limited data on approved combinations for treating these patients and are restricted by the low number of lenalidomide-refractory patients enrolled in the pivotal trials. Results from the ongoing clinical trials of the combination of carfilzomib and anti-CD38 antibodies were not available at the time of the Moreau et al publication. The aim of this targeted literature review was to include this new data and to summarize currently available evidence on progression-free survival (PFS) for the treatment of RRMM patients who progressed on lenalidomide-based regimens. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify registrational clinical trials in patients with RRMM reporting PFS outcomes. PubMed, congress proceedings, and product labels were searched between Jan 2014 to July 2020. In addition to PFS, demographic, disease characteristics and treatment history were extracted for the trial populations to contextualize potential variations in study outcomes. The regimens studied in these trials were classified as lenalidomide-based, proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based and pomalidomide-based. Number of prior lines of therapy, prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide and bortezomib were reported. Results: Twelve registrational trials were identified based on the search criteria (Table 1). Most pivotal trials assessing lenalidomide-based regimens (POLLUX, ELOQUENT-II, TOURMALINE-MM1) except the ASPIRE trial excluded patients who were refractory to lenalidomide. Trials evaluating PI-based regimens (e.g., CANDOR) or pomalidomide-based regimens (e.g., OPTIMISMM) included these patients, with more recent studies enrolling a larger proportion. Percentage of lenalidomide-exposed (and lenalidomide refractory) ranged from 40% (32%) in CANDOR to 98% (90%) in ELOQUENT III. These studies also enrolled a larger proportion of patients who were bortezomib-exposed, although most of these patients were at first relapse, with the exception of ELOQUENT III and ICARIA where most patients were at third relapse. Among lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median-PFS (mPFS) observed for the pomalidomide-based regimens ranged from 9.5 to 10.1 months and that observed for PI-based regimens ranged from 4.9 to 25.7 months. PFS in the lenalidomide-refractory subgroup was considerably shorter than in the ITT population. The mPFS for patients receiving carfilzomib/daratumumab/dexamethasone (KDd; CANDOR) and isatuximab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone (IsaKd; IKEMA) was not reached at median follow-up of 16.9 and 20.7 months respectively. While the mPFS for (KDd) for lenalidomide-refractory patients in CANDOR trial was not yet reached at median follow up of 16.9 months; the mPFS of 25.7 months for KDd in the MMY-1001 trial appears to be the longest among the assessed regimens. Conclusion: Patients refractory to lenalidomide have shorter PFS and represent a population with high unmet need. This targeted literature review suggests that the PI-based KDd regimen provides longer PFS compared to other lenalidomide-sparing regimens in lenalidomide-refractory populations. Heterogeneity across trial populations may limit the comparability of these treatments. Disclosures Mateos: Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Medhekar:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Majer:Amgen (Europe) GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Download Full-text