scholarly journals Ixazomib Based Maintenance Therapy for the Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in Real-World Practice

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2718-2718
Author(s):  
Liye Zhong ◽  
Yongqiang Wei ◽  
Baohong Ping ◽  
Xin Li ◽  
Hongling Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed

Abstract Background The Phase III TOURMALINE-MM4 Trial demonstrated that the oral proteasome inhibitor, Ixazomib maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing ASCT. However, patient recruitment for clinical trials is highly selective so the extent to which study populations represent real-world patients is unclear. Currently, data validating the use of ixazomib maintenance in clinical practice in Chinese landscape is scarce. Methods we conducted a retrospective, observational study of NDMM patients meeting International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria, who received ixazomib-based maintenance therapy. Data was collected from 26 medical centers in southern China. Enrollment was stratified by risk stage, transplant status and maintenance regimens. The characteristics, toxicities and survival outcomes were recorded. Results We included 105 NDMM patients who received ixazomib-based maintenance treatment. Mean age at diagnosis was 59.82 ± 9.80 years, with 62.9% male patients. MM International Staging System (ISS), stage 3 was the most common with 49.04% of patients; 62.86% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≥2, and 81.9% with concomitant diseases. By the end of over 70 months follow-up since initial diagnosis, median PFS was 69.45 (95%CI: 31.42-107.48) months, and median OS was not achieved yet. We explored potential influencing factors of progression at the post-maintenance evaluation with a crude model using logistic regression. Difference in PFS was not statistically significant by status at pre-maintenance response, transplantation, maintenance therapy regimens (single/two/three-agent) and dexamethasone in maintenance regimens (p >0.05). Eight patients (7.62%) had grade≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 5.7% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included fatigue (18.1%), diarrhea (16.19%), and peripheral neuropathy (11.43%). Conclusion Although there are certain differences in maintenance treatment options for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in real-world practice, the results of our retrospective study support that the ixazomib-based maintenance therapy was effective with acceptable toxicity and single-agent ixazomib maintenance provided enough clinical benefit compared to two or three agents. Keywords: multiple myeloma, ixazomib, maintenance therapy, real-world practice Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

TROPiCS-04: Study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic or locally advanced unresectable urothelial cancer that has progressed after platinum and checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS498-TPS498
Author(s):  
Petros Grivas ◽  
Scott T. Tagawa ◽  
Joaquim Bellmunt ◽  
Maria De Santis ◽  
Ignacio Duran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii

TPS498 Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress following prior platinum-based and checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti–Trop-2 monoclonal antibody coupled to SN-38 (an active metabolite of irinotecan, a topoisomerase-I inhibitor) via a unique hydrolyzable linker. A phase II registrational study, TROPHY-U-01 study, confirmed the initial positive efficacy signal in mUC. SG demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 27% and median overall survival (OS) of 10.5 months in patients with mUC (median 3 prior lines of therapy and 87% with ≥1 Bellmunt risk factors) who progressed after prior platinum-based and CPI therapies (n=113; Loriot ESMO 2020). The results compared favorably with historic single-agent chemotherapy (ORR ~10%; OS ≤7 months). A phase III trial has been initiated to confirm these findings. Methods: TROPiCS-04 (NCT04527991) is a global, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial in patients with locally advanced unresectable or mUC who progressed after prior platinum-based and CPI therapies (with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive SG 10 mg/kg intravenously (IV) on day 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, docetaxel 75 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 IV on day 1 of 21-day cycles) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment beyond progressive disease may be permitted in patients deemed to be receiving clinical benefit per investigator assessment. Approximately 482 patients will be enrolled to provide 90% power on the primary endpoint of OS. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, ORR, clinical benefit rate, duration of response (all per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1), safety, and quality of life. Study initiation is ongoing and enrollment begins in Q4 2020 across ~90 sites. Clinical trial information: NCT04527991.

Optimizing Treatment for Elderly Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Personalized Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (30) ◽  
pp. 3600-3604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
Antonio Palumbo
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Bone Lesions ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Personalized Approach

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors’ suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. An 84-year-old woman presented with bone pain and lytic bone lesions in April 2010. Diagnosis of multiple myeloma was based on the presence of an immunoglobulin G lambda serum M protein (4,784 mg/dL) and confirmed by the findings of bone marrow plasma cell infiltration, with t(11;14) chromosomal abnormality detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. The patient’s medical history was significant for hypertension; she had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1, International Staging System (ISS) stage of 1, and Durie–Salmon stage of IIIA. In May 2010, the patient was enrolled in a randomized phase III trial comparing different lenalidomide-based treatments and received induction with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (nine cycles) followed by lenalidomide maintenance. The patient started treatment with lenalidomide 25 mg per day for 21 days and reduced-dose dexamethasone 20 mg per week per protocol because of age. Induction was well tolerated; no relevant complications occurred, except for grade 1 fatigue and grade 1 diarrhea. Best response was partial response. In March 2011, she started maintenance with lenalidomide 10 mg per day. A dose reduction of lenalidomide 5 mg per day was required because of grade 2 diarrhea. In July 2015, the patient experienced relapse, with painful collapse of L3 vertebral body.

DUO-O: A randomized phase III trial of durvalumab (durva) in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (bev), followed by maintenance durva, bev and olaparib (olap), in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS5598-TPS5598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Harter ◽  
Mariusz Bidziński ◽  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
Anne Floquet ◽  
Maria Jesús Rubio Pérez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

TPS5598 Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancers in US women. Despite high response rates to first-line treatment, ~70% of patients (pts) relapse within 3 years and then remain largely incurable. First-line treatment needs to be improved to achieve long-term remission in pts and improve the cure rate. The Phase III SOLO1 trial showed a meaningful clinical benefit for olap maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed OC pts with a BRCA mutation (Moore et al N Engl J Med 2018). Preliminary data suggest that combining a PD-L1 inhibitor, anti-angiogenic and PARP inhibitor (triplet therapy) may achieve a synergistic antitumor effect. The DUO-O study (NCT03737643) evaluates the efficacy and safety of treatment combinations involving standard-of-care platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo), VEGF inhibitor bev, anti-PD-L1 antibody durva and PARP inhibitor olap, in women with newly diagnosed advanced OC. Methods: Eligible pts for this double-blind, randomized, Phase III study must have newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade epithelial OC and either have completed primary surgery or plan to have interval debulking surgery. Depending on their tumor BRCA mutation (tBRCAm) status (determined by central test), pts will join one of two independent cohorts. Pts in the non-tBRCAm cohort (n~906) will be randomized (1:1:1) before cycle 2 to: a) chemo + bev + placebo (for 6 cycles) followed by bev (15 mg/kg [total 15 months]) + placebo maintenance treatment (IV and tablets); b) chemo + bev + durva (6 cycles) followed by bev + durva (1120 mg q3w [total 15 months]) + placebo (tablets) maintenance treatment; or c) chemo + bev + durva (6 cycles) followed by bev + durva + olap (300 mg bd tablets [24 months]) maintenance treatment. Pts in the open-label tBRCAm cohort (n~150) will receive 6 cycles of chemo + durva followed by durva + olap maintenance therapy, with optional use of bev. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival will be assessed by modified RECIST 1.1. Key secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate and duration of response. Enrollment began in January 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03737643.

Phase III Clinical Trial of Thalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Compared With Dexamethasone Alone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Clinical Trial Coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Emily Blood ◽  
David Vesole ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
Philip R. Greipp
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Monoclonal Protein ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To determine if thalidomide plus dexamethasone yields superior response rates compared with dexamethasone alone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive thalidomide plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. Patients in arm A received thalidomide 200 mg orally for 4 weeks; dexamethasone was administered at a dose of 40 mg orally on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks. Patients in arm B received dexamethasone alone at the same schedule as in arm A. Results Two hundred seven patients were enrolled: 103 were randomly assigned to thalidomide plus dexamethasone and 104 were randomly assigned to dexamethasone alone; eight patients were ineligible. The response rate with thalidomide plus dexamethasone was significantly higher than with dexamethasone alone (63% v 41%, respectively; P = .0017). The response rate allowing for use of serum monoclonal protein levels when a measurable urine monoclonal protein was unavailable at follow-up was 72% v 50%, respectively. The incidence rates of grade 3 or higher deep vein thrombosis (DVT), rash, bradycardia, neuropathy, and any grade 4 to 5 toxicity in the first 4 months were significantly higher with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone (45% v 21%, respectively; P < .001). DVT was more frequent in arm A than in arm B (17% v 3%); grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy was also more frequent (7% v 4%, respectively). Conclusion Thalidomide plus dexamethasone demonstrates significantly superior response rates in newly diagnosed myeloma compared with dexamethasone alone. However, this must be balanced against the greater toxicity seen with the combination.

scholarly journals Real-world validity of randomized controlled phase III trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erlend Skaga ◽  
Marthe Andrea Skretteberg ◽  
Tom Børge Johannesen ◽  
Petter Brandal ◽  
Einar O Vik-Mo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Abstract Background The survival rates in population-based series of glioblastoma (GBM) differ substantially from those reported in clinical trials. This discrepancy may be attributed to that patients recruited to trials tend to be younger with better performance status. However, the proportion and characteristics of the patients in a population considered either eligible or ineligible for trials is unknown. The generalizability of trial results is therefore also uncertain. Methods Using the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Brain Tumor Database at Oslo University Hospital, we tracked all patients within a well-defined geographical area with newly diagnosed GBM during the years 2012–2017. Based on data from these registries and the medical records, the patients were evaluated for trial eligibility according to criteria employed in recent phase III trials for GBM. Results We identified 512 patients. The median survival was 11.7 months. When we selected a potential trial population at the start of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy [RT]/ temozolomide [TMZ]) by the parameters age (18–70 y), passed surgery for a supratentorial GBM, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≤2, normal hematologic, hepatic and renal function, and lack of severe comorbidity, 57% of the patients were excluded. Further filtering the patients who progressed during RT/TMZ and never completed RT/TMZ resulted in exclusion of 59% and 63% of the patients, respectively. The survival of patients potentially eligible for trials was significantly higher than of the patients not fulfilling trial eligibility criteria (P &lt; .0001). Conclusions Patients considered eligible for phase III clinical trials represent a highly selected minority of patients in a real-world GBM population.

Effect of Venous Thrombotic Events on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of Thrombotic Events Occurring in E4A03A Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Plus High-Dose Dexamethasone (RD) Versus Lenalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone (Rd) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma, a Trial Coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG).

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1740-1740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanna Jacobus ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Natalie Scott Callander ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are a common complication of therapy with the lenalidomide plus dexamethasone regimen. The incidence of VTE with RD is approximately 20%, and can be lowered with the use of effective thromboprophylaxis, avoidance of erythropoietin, and the use of lower doses of dexamethasone. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of VTE on overall survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma by studying events occurring in ECOG E4A03 phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The trial initially did not mandate routine thromboprophylaxis, but recommended that such treatment be considered. After the first 264 patients were enrolled the trial was amended to require mandatory thromboprophylaxis of aspirin for all patients, with a recommendation to use stronger thromboprophylaxis with either warfarin (target INR 2–3) or low molecular weight heparin among patients in the RD arm. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 30 months. Overall VTE including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 18.5% of patients; 25.6% in Arm A and 11.4% in Arm B. Rates for the first 4 cycles of treatment were 20.2% in Arm A and 8.2% in Arm B, P&lt;0.01. Rates did not change substantially before and after the prophylaxis amendment. A partial response (PR) or higher was seen in 82.1% of pts who experienced VTE compared with 74.6% of pts who did not experience VTE, P=0.19. Overall VGPR rates also were not inferior. Pts who had VTE, however, had significantly higher other grade 3–5 toxicities such as hyperglycemia (14.6% vs 7.5%, P=0.051), cardiac ischemia (4.9% vs 0.8%, P=0.002), non-neuropathic weakness (13.4% vs 6.4%, P=0.039), infection/pneumonia (17.1% vs 11.1%, P=0.138) and fatigue (18.3% vs 10.5%, P=0.060). In a Cox PH model, VTE status as a time-varying covariate was marginally significant: HR 1.54 95%CI (0.96–2.47), P=0.074, suggesting patients that develop VTE have a higher hazard of death. Conclusions: The occurrence of VTE may adversely affect the survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma receiving Rev-Dex. VTE was associated with a higher frequency of other serious adverse events. Prevention of VTE events is a priority. Besides lowering the dose of dexamethasone, studies investigating optimum thromboprophylaxis are needed.

scholarly journals Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (PVd) for Chinese Multiple Myeloma Patients at First Relapse

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4781-4781
Author(s):  
Lugui Qiu ◽  
Gang An
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: The phase 3 OPTIMISMM（NCT01734928） trial done at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries but no Chinese site involved in this study. In the OPTIMISMM study ,pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) demonstrated excellent efficacy in patients at first relapse, including immediately after upfront lenalidomide treatment failure and other common first-line treatments, the mPFS was 20.73 months, the ORR was 90.1%, and no new safety signals were observed. Building on these promising results, we decided to explore PVd in Chinese patients at first relapse. Study Design/Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, single-arm phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PVd in Chinese patients at first relapse. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and had a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were required to have had only 1 prior antimyeloma regimen. Key exclusion criteria included creatinine clearance&lt;30 mL/min requiring dialysis, grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy, or grade 2 peripheral neuropathy with pain. Patients with prior exposure to bortezomib were eligible, provided they were not refractory to a bortezomib-containing regimen dosed at 1.3 mg/m 2 twice weekly. Patient（n=62,Figure 1）will receive pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1-14 of each cycle. Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9 and beyond. Dexamethasone was given on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 of cycles 9 and beyond; patients received 20 mg of dexamethasone if aged ≤75 years and 10 mg otherwise. The primary endpoint is ORR, the secondary endpoints are≥VGPR, MRD(-) rate, PFS, OS and safety. ORR will be assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group criteria after each cycle until PD. The Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate PFS and OS. Safety analysis will be conducted in the safety population, which are composed of all patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication. The trial is currently enrolling and will be open in 7 sites of China. Disclosures: Research Sponsor: CHIATAI TIANQING PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Upfront Daratumumab Combination Regimen in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3158-3158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyaw Zin Thein ◽  
Thura Win Htut ◽  
Myint Aung Win ◽  
Sriman Swarup ◽  
Anita Sultan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Standard Risk

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), which accounts for 1% of all cancers, is an area in dire need of therapeutic innovation. In recent years, the introduction of novel agents is one of the major advances in the management of patients with NDMM, in both transplant- eligible and transplant- ineligible candidates. Studies have combined daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38 which is highly expressed on myeloma cells, with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents-based regimens in the first-line treatment of NDMM. The purpose of our study is to explore and consolidate the efficacy of upfront daratumumab combination regimen in patients with NDMM. Methods: We systematically conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts from inception through June 2019. Phase III RCTs utilizing daratumumab in patients with newly diagnosed/ untreated multiple myeloma were incorporated in the analysis. A generic inverse variance method was used to calculate the estimated pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR), including stringent complete response (sCR), CR and very good partial response (VGPR). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q -statistic. Random effects model was applied. Results: Three phase III RCTs with a total of 2,528 patients with NDMMwere included.Studies compared daratumumab (D) + bortezomib (V) + melphan (M) + prednisone (P) vs VMP, D + lenalidomide (R) + dexamethasone (d) vs Rd, and DVd + thalidomide (T) vs VTd. The randomization ratio was 1:1 in all studies. The I2statistic for heterogeneity was 0, suggesting homogeneity among RCT. The pooled HR for PFS was statistically significant at 0.52 (95% CI: 0.44-0.61; P < 0.0001). The PFS benefit was observed in all ISS categories, types of immunoglobulin (Ig) and standard risk cytogenetic; ISS I cohort (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37- 0.82; P = 0.003), ISS II cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33- 0.55; P < 0.0001), ISS III cohort (HR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48- 0.82; P = 0.0006), IgG cohort (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.77; P = 0.0003), non-IgG cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28- 0.97; P = 0.04), and standard risk cytogenetic cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35- 0.53; P < 0.0001). The pooled HR for PFS in high risk cytogenetic cohort was not statistically significant at 0.76 (95% CI: 0.53- 1.10; P = 0.15). The pooled RR for ORR was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.26; P = 0.03), sCR was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.33-3.08; P = 0.001), CR was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.20-1.79; P = 0.0002),and VGPR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.82-1.25; P = 0.93). The pooled RR for negative minimal residual disease (MRD) was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.24-5.20; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Upfront combination regimen with daratumumab significantly improved PFS, ORR, sCR and CR along with negative MRD, compared to control arm in patients with NDMM. The improvement in PFS was noted across all subgroups except in high-risk cytogenetic group. More randomized studies are required to explore further novel agents and to formulate optimal combination regimen to improve survival in this high-risk cytogenetic subset. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Randomized Trial Comparing Pomalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (PVd) Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone（Vd） in NDMM with Renal Impairment（RI）

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1660-1660
Author(s):  
Jian Hou
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Renal Response

Abstract Background: RI is one of the most common complications of multiple myeloma (MM). The incidence of RI at diagnosis ranges from 20% to 50%, Bortezomib-based regimens remain the cornerstone of the management of myeloma-related RI, and the addition of a third drug to Vd seems to be beneficial，but not for sure. Pomalidomide is extensively metabolized by liver, with only approximately 2% of active substance eliminated in the urine, which suggests that RI may not affect pomalidomide exposure in a clinically relevant manner. The MM013(phase 2, NCT02045017) trial confirmed that Pomalidomide could be safely used in RRMM with RI and achieved good response in MM and Renal function. The OPTIMISMM (phase 3, NCT01734928) trial Subgroup analysis reported efficacy and safety of PVd vs Vd at first relapse by renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl] &lt; 60 vs ≥ 60 mL/min) before. The ORR significantly improved with PVd vs Vd regardless of renal status (P &lt; .001 for both renal groups): 91.4% vs 53.6% (≥ VGPR,54.3% vs 21.4%) in the CrCl &lt; 60 mL/min group and 89.5% vs 55.2% (≥ VGPR, 64.5% vs 23.0%) in the CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min group. Since RVd is the standard treatment for NDMM patients, We believe that standard dose Pomalidomide plus Vd will be very promising for NDMM patients with RI Study Design/ Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PVd Versus Vd in Patients With NDMM and Renal Impairment（RI）. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and had a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were required to have had no prior antimyeloma regimen. The definition of RI is based on reduced creatinine clearance (15 mL/min≤CrCl＜60 mL/min) without indication for hemodialysis, which have to be the result of myeloma. Key exclusion criteria included previous course of chemotherapy; uncontrolled malignant disorder, infection, or peripheral neuropathy, patients on dialysis will be excluded too. Approximately 79 patients will be randomized 2:1(Figure 1) to Arm A (PVd) or Arm B (Vd), both Arms will have induction therapy for 4 cycles. In Arm A, patients will receive pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1-14 of each cycle. Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each cycle. Dexamethasone 20mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of each cycle (21-day cycles); In Arm B, patients will receive the same bortezomib and dexamethasone as Arm A. The primary endpoint is ≥VGPR, the secondary endpoints are MRD(-) rate,renal response,Immune function,Renal tubular function, and safety. Myeloma response and renal response will be assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group criteria after each cycle. Eficacy analyses will be performed on the intent-to-treat population; Safety analysis will be conducted in the safety population, which are composed of all patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication. The trial is currently enrolling and will be open in 8 sites in China. Disclosure：Research Sponsor : CHIATAI TIANQING PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. OffLabel Disclosure: Pomalidomide which was approved in RRMM will be used in NDMM with RI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document