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

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

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Requiring Dialysis: Dialysis Independence Is Associated with Rapid Myeloma Response and Predicts for Longer Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4492.4492 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4492-4492

Author(s):

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Maria Roussou ◽

Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽

Despina Fotiou ◽

Dimitrios Ziogas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Failure ◽

High Risk ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Light Chain ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone

Abstract Renal failure (RF) is a common severe complication of symptomatic myeloma and may be severe enough to require extrarenal dialysis in approximately 1-5% of newly diagnosed patients. Severe RF is associated with high risk of early death and increased morbidity. Immediate effective anti-myeloma therapy and vigorous supportive care are the cornerstones of management. The use of high cutoff hemodialysis to rapidly reduce the load of nephrotoxic light chains seems to offer limited additional benefit in patients requiring dialysis when treated with bortezomib-based therapies (Cook M et al EHA 2016, Abs P270). However, outside clinical trials, there are limited data focusing on the management and outcomes of NDMM patients requiring dialysis. Thus, we analyzed the outcomes of consecutive newly diagnosed patients with RF requiring dialysis, who were managed and treated in a single center. Between 1995 and 2016, 50 patients (6.2% of 796 consecutive NDMM) who were treated in the Department of Clinical Therapeutics (Athens, Greece) presented with severe RF requiring dialysis. The analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of any therapy. All patients received similar supportive care and dialysis with regular filters. The median age of patients requiring dialysis was 69 years (37-88), 68% were >65 years of age. At presentation 92% had Hb <10 g/dl, 5 (10%) had platelet count <100x109/l, 12 (24%) had hypeprcalcemia (Ca ≥11.5 mg/dl) and 24 (48%) had elevated LDH (≥250 IU/l). All patients had elevated β2-microglobulin (median 21.7 mg/L, range 6-60 mg/l) and all were ISS stage 3. High risk cytogenetics (N=40) were present in 38% and per R-ISS, 75% were R-ISS-3 and 25% R-ISS-2. Myeloma was light chain only in 42%, IgA in 26%, IgG in 30% and IgD in 1 patient (2%); light chain was κ in 38 (64%) and λ in 18 (36%). Among patients who retained urine flow at presentation, median 24h Bence Jones proteinuria was 2.2 gr (range 0.1-8.8 gr). Among patients with available FLCs, median level of involved free light chain (iFLC) was 9080 mg/l (range 119-201000 mg/l). Treatment was bortezomib-based in 41 (82%) patients: 11 (22%) had bortezomib + dexamethasone (VD), 21 (42%) VD + cyclophosphamide (VCD), 8 (16%) VD + thalidomide (VTD), 1 (2%) VD + doxorubicin (PAD). Nine (18%) patients received non-bortezomib containing regimens: 5 (10%) thalidomide plus high dose dexamethasone and 4 (8%) VAD with high dose dexamethasone. Twenty-five (50%) patients became dialysis independent at a median time of 158 days from start of therapy (range 4-336 days). Age ≤65 years was associated with higher probability (75% vs 38%) and shorter time to dialysis independence (51 vs 336 days; p=0.027); no other baseline factors were associated with dialysis independence in univariate analysis. Among patients treated with bortezomib, three-drug combinations (n=30) vs VD alone (N=11) were associated with higher probability of dialysis independence (57% vs 27%; p=0.06). Among patients who became dialysis independent 12 received VCD, 4 VTD, one PAD, 3 VD, 2 MDT, 2 VAD and one T-VAD. Median follow up for all patients was 33 months and median survival was 29 months. Early mortality (within 2 months from start of therapy) was 16%, mostly due to infectious complications. On intent to treat, 64% achieved ≥PR (CR: 6%, VGPR: 32%, PR: 26%); among patients who survived >2 months, ≥PR was achieved by 76%. At 2-month landmark, patients who achieved ≥PR within the first 2 months had higher dialysis independence rates (68% vs 27%, p=0.004). Becoming dialysis independent was associated with a significant improvement in survival (median OS of 63 vs 22 months of patients who remained on dialysis; p=0.002), even after exclusion of early deaths. Notably, the survival of patients who discontinued dialysis was similar to that of the rest of patients (57 months). High dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation was performed in five patients while on dialysis. Four of them (80%) become dialysis independent approximately one month after HDM. In conclusion, about 6% of NDMM present with renal failure requiring dialysis but half of them can become dialysis independent after bortezomib-based therapy, without the use of special filters, especially if they achieve a rapid myeloma response. VD-based triplets increase the probability of renal response over VD alone and independence from dialysis is associated with a significant improvement in prognosis. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; 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. Terpos:Celgene: Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Carfilzomib Combined with Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (CARTHADEX) As Induction Treatment Prior to High-Dose Melphalan (HDM) in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM). A Trial of the European Myeloma Network EMN

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.633.633 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 633-633 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Emilie Hacker ◽

Sonja Zweegman ◽

Marie Jose Kersten ◽

Edo Vellenga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Tumor Lysis Syndrome ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Tumor Lysis ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Cell Harvest

Abstract Abstract 633 Introduction: This independent phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate carfilzomib (C) combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone during induction and consolidation for feasibility, response and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM, who were candidates for high-dose therapy. Patients with symptomatic MM and measurable disease, age 15 to 65 and no significant co-morbidity were eligible. At diagnosis Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) was performed of recurrent translocations, trisomy 9, del(17p), del (13q) and add(1q) Patients received 4 cycles of carfilzomib at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 & 2 followed by 27mg/m2 on days 8,9,15,16 of cycle 1 and on days 1,2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of all subsequent 28-day cycles, thalidomide 200 mg days 1 – 28 of a 28 day cycle and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15 & 22 of a 28 day cycle. Stem cell harvest was performed with cyclophosphamide 2 g/m2 and G-CSF. Following HDM (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), consolidation therapy consisted of 4 cycles of carfilzomib 27 mg/m2 days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of a 28 day cycle, thalidomide 50 mg days 1–28 of a 28 day cycle and dexamethasone 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 of a 28 day cycle. The primary endpoint was response, other endpoints were complete response (CR) according to IMWG criteria, immunofixation-negative CR (sCR), VGPR all pre-and post HDM, PFS and overall survival (OS). An interim analysis was planned after 20 evaluable patients, primarily to guard against excessive toxicity and/or lack of response. Results: While recruitment is still ongoing, 34 patients have been included, of which the first 20 patients were are evaluated for response and toxicity, with a median follow-up of 5 months. One patient was excluded because unavailability of data. Median age was 60 yr and ISS stages I/II/III were 8/6/5, respectively. Four patients went off treatment because of intolerance to thalidomide (n=1), tumor lysis syndrome with renal failure (n=1) or respiratory infections (n=2). Adverse events CTC grade 3+4 included tumor lysis syndrome (n=2), metabolic disorders (n=4), cardiovascular including DVT (n=5), gastrointestinal (n=2), skin rash (n=2) and reversible renal failure (n=3). Peripheral polyneuropathy grades 1+ 2 was observed in 7 (35%) of patients, but no grade 3 or higher. Responses after cycle 1 were CR + sCR 5%, VGPR 32%, PR 47%, SD 10%, NE 5% and after induction overall CR + sCR 21%, VGPR 47%, PR 16%, SD 10%, NE 5%. Median time to maximum response was 1 cycle. Secondary analysis revealed that responses occurred across cytogenetic subgroups as determined by FISH, i.e. add (1q) (n=2), t(4;14) (n=2), del(17p) (n=1) and del(13q) (n=5). Stem cell harvest was accomplished with standard CD34+ yield in all patients and HDM/ASCT was performed with complete hematologic recovery in 4/4 patients. Conclusion: Carfilzomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone during induction and consolidation is feasible and effective. The complete data including response after consolidation will be reported at the ASH meeting. This EMN trial was registered as NTR2422. Carfilzomib and an unrestricted grant was provided by ONYX Pharmaceuticals. Disclosures: Sonneveld: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Combined with 3 Cycles of High Dose Dexamethasone Improves Response in Patients with Newly-Diagnosed, Persistent, and Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.3345.3345 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 3345-3345

Author(s):

Rebecca L. Elstrom ◽

Caroline Seery ◽

Christina Moll ◽

Allison Miller ◽

Julia Gabor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Wild Type ◽

Tubulin Gene ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Optimal Response ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone

Abstract Abstract 3345 Introduction: Adults with newly-diagnosed ITP usually respond to initial prednisone treatment but typically relapse upon its tapering or discontinuation. Patients with persistent/chronic ITP treated with prednisone have an even lower likelihood of a lasting response. Dexamethasone (Dex) has been reported to have curative effects in newly diagnosed patients. Rituximab (Ritux) is thought to be effective in newly diagnosed patients but only yields a long term response in 20–25% of chronic ITP patients. Recently, newly-diagnosed previously-untreated patients received a single cycle of 4 days of Dex 40 mg/day or 4 infusions of 375mg/m2 Ritux combined with Dex. R+Dex in that study yielded a 63% response at 6 months and 34% at 3 years without additional treatment, which was more effective than Dex alone. Methods: Given the additive activity of these two drugs, 59 patients at Weill-Cornell Medical College with ITP of any duration were treated with 4 infusions of 375mg/m2 rituximab and three 4-day cycles of high-dose dexamethasone at 2-week intervals (R+Dex). Optimal response was assessed after 8 weeks as complete remission (CR, platelet count≥100×109/L) or partial remission (PR, 50–100×109/L). Long term outcome was also assessed and both were related to clinical variables. Data was compared to that of rituximab alone using the previous study from our center (Cooper BJH 2004). AIPF values were gathered prior to treatment until 12 weeks after treatment initiation. Results: All but 5 patients had been previously treated with a median of 2 therapies (range 0–7). Assessing optimal response achieved, 44/59 (74.5%) patients responded, with a CR in 64% and a PR in 10%. Only 1/28 patients with ITP < 1yr relapsed (at 12 months). Duration of ITP less than 24 months (p=0.0426) and being an adult predicted better optimal responses (p=0.0154). Of the original 44 responders, 33/59 patients [74% of responding adults and 77% of responding children] had ongoing responses at last f/u at a median of 14 months without the need for further ITP treatment (Figure). Eleven of the 44 relapsed (25%) including the one at 12 months mentioned above. Two additional patients relapsed who had ITP for 1–2 years prior to R+Dex and the other 8 patients who relapsed had ITP for greater than 3 years, 5 of whom had had ITP for 6+ years. Additionally, 53 of the 59 patients were genotyped for β1-tubulin gene. Of the ten patients with heterozygote genotypes, 9 (90%) responded to combination R+Dex treatment and 32 of the 43 wild type patients responded to treatment (p=0.46). There were no overt differences in the AIPF levels over the first 12 weeks between responders and non-responders. No AIPF differences were seen between the heterozygote and wild type patients for the β1-tubulin gene. In our previous study of rituximab alone, 54% of the 57 adult patients responded to rituximab treatment, compared to 86% of the 36 adult patients who responded to R+Dex treatment. R+Dex responders were found to have a longer duration of lower B cell numbers when compared with responders to rituximab alone, preliminarily demonstrating the additive effect of the 2 medications. Adverse events related to R+Dex generally were mild but one patient was hospitalized with colitis, two others experienced serum sickness reactions and dexamethasone was sometimes difficult to tolerate. Conclusion: R+Dex is active and appears clearly superior to rituximab alone in this single-center, pilot study. Adults and patients who have a shorter duration of ITP (< 1–2 years) fare better but children and those with a longer duration of ITP still have a 1/3 chance of a lasting response. The absence of homozygote β1-tubulin SNP's in this population made interpretation of its effect difficult. High dose Dex is not always easy to tolerate but helps maintain the count during the treatment course of 32 days. A prospective, randomized trial is planned. Disclosures: Basciano: Alexion: Consultancy. Ghanima:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Bussel:Amgen: Family owns Amgen stock Other, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Family owns GSK stock, Family owns GSK stock Other, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; IgG of America: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sysmex: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy. Off Label Use: The use of romiplostim in pediatric patients was examined in this study.

Download Full-text

Clarithromycin (Biaxin)-Lenalidomide-Low-Dose Dexamethasone (BiRd) Versus Lenalidomide-Low-Dose Dexamethasone (Rd) as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2868.2868 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2868-2868 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

David S Jayabalan ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Tomer Mark ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Response Rate ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Bird Group

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.

Download Full-text

Retrospective Evaluation of Rituximab, Methotrexate, Procabazine, Vincristine and Etoposide Followed By Consolidation with Rituximab, Aracytine and Ifosfamide for Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Primary CNS Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139946 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 6-7

Author(s):

Gabriel Antherieu ◽

Edith Julia ◽

Emmanuelle Nicolas-Virelizier ◽

Marie-Charlotte Laude ◽

Violaine Safar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Hematological Toxicity ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Favorable Toxicity Profile

Introduction Primary cerebral lymphoma (PCNSL) is an uncommon subtype of diffused large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a particular poor outcome as compared to systemic DLBCL, especially in elderly. For patients older than 60 years, standard treatment consists of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) chemotherapy without consolidation brain radiotherapy to reduce the risk of leukoencephalopathy. Rituximab in combination with HD-MTX, procarbazine, vincristine followed by HD-cytarabine consolidation is one of standard of treatments for PCNSL patients with a 2-year PFS rate of 47% for patients aged of 60 or older in prospective trial (Morris JCO 2013). Etoposide and Ifosfamide are two drugs that can diffuse across blood-brain barrier and commonly used for relapsed/refractory PCNSL. To improve efficacy of R-MPVA protocol, we developed a new regimen which consisted in adding etoposide and ifosfamide for patients with a newly diagnosed PCNSL aged between 60 and 75 years old. Patients & Methods The protocol consisted of 3 cycles every 28 days of rituximab (375mg/m2, J1 and J15), MTX (3.5 g/m2, J1 and J15), vincristine (1.4 mg/m2, J1 and J15), vepeside (100mg/m2, J2) and procarbazine (100mg/m2, J1-7). Consolidation therapy consisted of 2 cycles every 21 days rituximab (375mg/m2, J1) in combination with cytarabine (3g/m2, J1-2) with ifosfamide (1.5 g/m2, J1-3). Response evaluations were planned after the 3 cycles of induction (R-MPV-VP16) and after consolidation (R-AraC-Ifo). We retrospectively reviewed treatment modalities, toxicities, response and outcome with this protocol and compared results with a matched group of patients with the same range age (60 - 75 years) treated with R-MPVA. Results Between 2013 and 2018, 28 PCNSL patients were treated with this protocol. The median age was 67.5 years old (range, 61-74). Poor performance status (PS 3-4) was presented in 9 patients (32%). As compared to 31 patients treated between 2007 and 2018 with R-MPVA, patients treated with intensive protocol were younger (66 vs. 69 years, P=0.01) and had less frequently a poor PS 3-4 (32% vs. 61%, P=0.04). In intent-to-treat analysis, 27 patients received 3 cycles of R-MPV-VP16 but one received only 2. Among them, five patients achieved PR and then received 1 to 2 additional cycles of R-MPV-VP16. Following this induction, 25 patients underwent 2 cycles R-AraC-ifo consolidation, 3 of them did not received ifosfamide for the second cycle because of hematological toxicity and poor PS. One patient in complete response (CR) after whole treatment received high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. After R-MPV-VP16, 10 patients (36%) achieved CR and 14 partial responses (50%) (PR) as compared to 12 CR (39%) and 12 PR (39%) for patients treated with R-MPVA. After consolidation phase, 23 patients (82%) achieved CR after R-AraC-Ifo as compared to 21 CR (68%) after R-AraC in the historical arm. Differences were not statistically significant. R-MPV-VP16 regimen was associated with favorable toxicity profile with 13 (46%) grade 4 hematological toxicity, 8 (28%) grade 3 and one grade 4 (3%) renal toxicity, 3 (10%) grade 3 and one grade 4 (3%) hepatic toxicity, 6 (21%) grade 3 and 4 grade 4 (14%) and infectious toxicity. With a median follow-up of 46.5 months, patients treated with R-MPV-VP16 followed by R-AraC-ifo had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 33.2 months (95%CI, 17.6 - not reached [NR]) with a 2-year EFS rate of 52%; the median overall survival (OS) was not reached (95%CI, 58.6-NR) with a 2-year OS rate of 70%. With a median follow-up of 94.2 months, patients treated with R-MPVA had a median EFS of 18.3 months with a 2-year EFS rate of 39% (P=0.14, Fig 1); the median OS was 65.9 months with 2-year OS rate of 64% (P=0.33, Fig 1). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis of two HD-MTX and HD-AraC based regimens for PCNSL patients aged between 60 and 75 years performed in real-life setting, R-MPVA was more frequently proposed for older patients with a poorer PS. Combination of vepeside to R-MPV and ifosfamide to R-AraC was feasible with a favorable toxicity profile. Despite not statistically different, we observed a trend for an improvement of response rate at the end of treatment (82% vs. 68% of CR) and reduced rate of relapses (2-year EFS rates: 52% vs. 39%) with the intensified protocol. These first results deserve a confirmative larger prospective study of R-MPV-VP16 followed by R-AraC-ifosfamide for elderly PCNSL patients. Disclosures Ferrant: AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Sanofi: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: 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, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support. Bachy:Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche, Gilead: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.901.901 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 901-901

Author(s):

Sara Bringhen ◽

Massimo Offidani ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Anna Marina Liberati ◽

Giulia Benevolo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Grade 3 ◽

To Receive

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

Download Full-text

VTE Rates and Safety Analysis of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Receiving Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (KRD) with or without Rivaroxaban Prophylaxis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124403 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1835-1835 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Katrina M Piedra ◽

Hani Hassoun ◽

Larry W. Buie ◽

Sean M. Devlin ◽

Jessica Flynn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cancer Trial ◽

Oncology Research ◽

Increased Risk

Introduction Immunomodulatory agents (IMiD's) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly when combined with high dose steroids. Studies evaluating the use of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) and carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRD) in the frontline setting for multiple myeloma (MM) have reported a 6% and 24% incidence of thrombosis, respectively, despite primary thrombotic prophylaxis with aspirin (ASA) (Richardson, et al. Blood. 2010; Korde, et al. JAMA Oncol 2015). Recent data, including the Hokusai VTE Cancer Trial, have suggested that safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preserved in the setting of treatment of solid malignancy-associated thrombosis (Raskob, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018; Mantha, et al. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017). Despite this data, there is limited experience and use of DOACs in prevention of thromboses in the setting of hematologic malignancies, specifically MM. After careful review of literature, since early 2018, we changed our clinical practice and routinely placed newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients receiving KRD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) on concomitant rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily, regardless of VTE risk stratification. In the following abstract, we present VTE rates and safety data for newly diagnosed MM patients receiving RVD with ASA vs. KRD with ASA vs. KRD with rivaroxaban prophylaxis. Methods This was an IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective chart review study. All untreated patients with newly diagnosed MM, receiving at least one cycle of RVD or KRD between January 2015 and October 2018 were included. The period of observation included the time between the first day of therapy until 90 days after completion of induction therapy. Patients were identified by querying the pharmacy database for carfilzomib or bortezomib administration and outpatient medication review of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban or ASA. VTE diagnoses were confirmed by ICD-10 codes and appropriate imaging studies (computed tomography and ultrasound). Descriptive statistics were performed. Results During the observation period, 241 patients were identified to have received RVD or KRD in the frontline (99 RVD with ASA; 97 KRD with ASA; 45 KRD with rivaroxaban). Baseline characteristics were well distributed among the three arms, with a median age of 60 (30-94) in the RVD ASA arm, 62 (33-77) in the KRD ASA arm, and 60 (24-79) in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Patients had International Staging System (ISS) stage 3 disease in 13% (N=13), 9.3% (N=9), and 11% (N=5) of the RVD ASA, KRD ASA, and KRD rivaroxaban arms, respectively. Median weekly doses of dexamethasone were higher in both KRD arms, 40 mg (20-40) vs. 20 mg (10-40) in the RVD ASA arm. The average initial doses of lenalidomide were 22 mg in the RVD ASA arm compared to 25 mg in both the KRD ASA and KRD rivaroxaban arms. After querying the pharmacy database, no patients were identified to have a history or concomitant use of erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) use. Treatment-related VTE's occurred in 4 patients (4.0%) in the RVD ASA arm, 16 patients (16.5%) in the KRD ASA arm, and in 1 patient (2.2%) in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Average time to VTE was 6.15 months (Range 5.42, 9.73) after treatment initiation in the RVD ASA group, while it was 2.61 months (Range 0.43, 5.06) in the KRD ASA group and 1.35 months in the KRD rivaroxaban group. Minor, grade 1 bleeding events per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) were identified in 1 (1.1%) patient in the RVD ASA arm, 5 (5.2%) patients in the KRD ASA arm, and 1 (2.2%) patient in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Conclusion More efficacious MM combination therapies have been found to increase the risk of VTE when using ASA prophylaxis, indicating better thromboprophylaxis is needed. We found patients receiving ASA prophylaxis with KRD were more likely to experience a VTE and these events occurred earlier compared to patients receiving ASA prophylaxis with RVD. Importantly, the rate of VTE was reduced to the same level as ASA prophylaxis with RVD when low-dose rivaroxaban 10 mg daily was used with KRD, and without necessarily increasing bleeding risk. Our retrospective data support the development of prospective clinical trials further investigating DOAC use in thromboprophylaxis for NDMM patients receiving carfilzomib-based treatments. Figure Disclosures Hassoun: Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Lesokhin:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; GenMab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Serametrix Inc.: Patents & Royalties; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mailankody:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; CME activity by Physician Education Resource: Honoraria. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics and Precision Biosciences: Consultancy. Landgren:Theradex: Other: IDMC; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: IDMC; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: 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, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off-label use of rivaroxaban for outpatient prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) will be explicitly disclosed to the audience.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-121907 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4304-4304

Author(s):

Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽

Rudy Agius ◽

Arnon P. Kater ◽

Mark-David Levin ◽

Anders Österborg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Severe Infection ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Risk Of Infection ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Educational Grant ◽

Travel Grant ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

A Pilot Study of Acalabrutinib with Bendamustine/Rituximab Followed By Cytarabine/Rituximab (R-ABC) for Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-143095 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 8-9

Author(s):

Daniel Guy ◽

Marcus Watkins ◽

Fei Wan ◽

Nancy L. Bartlett ◽

Amanda F Cashen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Complete Response ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mantle Cell ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Stem Cell Collection

Introduction The management of younger fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) varies widely with no consensus on an optimal induction therapy. To date, the treatments with the longest progression-free survival incorporate a chemotherapy backbone that includes high dose cytarabine, followed by consolidation with an autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) (Hermine et al. Lancet 2016, Eskelund et al. Br J Haematol 2016). Recent data showed that a regimen of bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab achieved high complete response rates with high minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (Merryman RW et al. Blood Adv 2020). We hypothesized that adding the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib to the same chemotherapeutic backbone would be safe and increase complete response rates as well as minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity pre-transplant, and potentially improve clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a single arm, single institution pilot study registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03623373). Patients with untreated MCL, who were between ages 18-70 and were candidates for ASCT, were eligible. Patients received six 28-day cycles of treatment. Cycles 1-3 consisted of bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 and acalabrutinib 100mg BID on days 1 through 28. Cycles 4-6 consisted of rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, cytarabine 2 g/m2 (1.5 g/m2 if age>60) q12 hours on days 1 and 2, and acalabrutinib 100mg BID on days 1 through 7 and 22 through 28. Restaging PET/CT and response assessment based on the Lugano classification were obtained following cycles 3 and 6. After cycle 6 patients underwent leukapheresis and stem-cell collection as preparation for ASCT. Blood for MRD status was collected after cycles 2, 4 and 6 and will be evaluated using the ClonoSeq assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). The primary objective was to determine the stem cell mobilization success rate. Secondary objectives included safety and tolerability, overall response rate (ORR), pre-transplant complete response rate (CR), and the MRD negativity rate during and after completion of therapy. Results The trial enrolled 14 patients from December 2018 to February 2020. One patient withdrew consent prior to start of treatment and another was found to have an undiagnosed adenocarcinoma shortly after starting MCL treatment. Both are excluded from the analysis. The median age was 57 years (range 52-66). 11 patients were males (92%), all patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-1. 11 patients (92%) presented with stage IV disease. The mean MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) score was 6.3 (25% high-risk, 42% intermediate-risk and 33% low-risk). Of the 12 patients who began treatment, 9 completed all 6 cycles. Three patients did not complete therapy due to: insurance issues (n = 1), and thrombocytopenia (n = 2) following cycle 5 and 4. The side effect profile showed expected hematologic toxicities with grade 3-4 cytopenias in all patients, mostly during cytarabine cycles. In total, 100% of patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and 83% of patients developed grade 3-4 neutropenia. Three episodes of febrile neutropenia were observed. One patient had a grade 3 transaminase increase, and one patient had grade 3 diarrhea. No bleeding events or treatment related deaths occurred. The remainder of the side effects were low grade and the treatment was generally well tolerated. Of the 12 evaluable patients, 10 responded (ORR 83%) with 9 achieving CR (75%). One patient achieved PR prior to being removed from the study due to thrombocytopenia and then achieved CR off study. Two patients experienced PD during induction. With a median follow up of 9 months, no responding patients have relapsed. The median CD34+ stem cell collection was 3.84x106 cells/kg (range 2.77 - 5.9). MRD results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions This is the first study attempting to combine BTK inhibition with a high dose cytarabine containing regimen. The addition of acalabrutinib to a regimen of bendamustine/rituximab followed by cytarabine/rituximab appears to be safe. The R-ABC combination will be further tested in the recently activated intergroup trial EA4181. Disclosures Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Fehniger:ImmunityBio: Research Funding; HCW Biologics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Indapta: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Orca Biosystems: Consultancy; Compass Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; WuGen: Consultancy. Mehta-Shah:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Genetech/Roche: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Corvus: Research Funding. Kahl:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; BeiGene: 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; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2877.2877 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2877-2877

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

Patrizia Falco ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Case Control Study ◽

Case Control ◽

High Dose ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Control Study

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

Download Full-text