Induction with New Drugs and Planned Autologous Followed by Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic Transplantation in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 4330-4330
Author(s):  
Luisa Giaccone ◽  
Moreno Festuccia ◽  
Roberto Sorasio ◽  
Nicola Mordini ◽  
Fabrizio Carnevale Schianca ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 4330 Introduction Immunomodulatory drugs have recently changed the treatment options in multiple myeloma. Moreover, thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide have also been used in the setting of allografting as post-transplant salvage therapy or as maintenance. We are currently evaluating the impact of new drugs as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma before a planned standard autograft followed by a non-myeloablative allograft (Tandem auto-allo). Patients and methods Twenty-five newly diagnosed patients (median age 55 years old, range 26-65) entered a recently designed prospective phase II program of tandem auto-allo which included the use of so-called new drugs during induction. Here, we report data on the first 11 evaluable patients with a follow up of at least 1 month after the allograft. Induction consisted of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=5), thalidomide and dexamethasone (n=4), or bortemomib-containing regimens (n=2), followed by G-CSF mobilized peripheral blood stem cell harvest. A standard autograft after melphalan 200 mg/m2 was planned 2-4 months before a low-dose (2 Gy) TBI-based allograft from an HLA-identical sibling. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil. Disease status at allografting and post-transplant outcomes were compared to those of 22 patients pair-matched for beta2microglobulin and age, who underwent tandem auto-allo after induction with VAD-based regimens without new drugs (Blood, 2009). Results At the time of allografting after induction with new drugs and the autograft overall response rate was 81% (9/11), including a immunofixation-negative complete remission (CR). Following allografting, all patients promptly achieved donor engraftment. After a median follow-up of 11 months (2-26), all patients are alive and the overall response rate was 91% (10/11). Incidence of grade II-IV GVHD was 34% (4/11), including 1 patient with grade III GVHD. Chronic GVHD was observed in 40% (4/10) of patients with at least 3 months of follow-up. The induction with new drugs did not increase allotransplant-related toxicity or incidence of acute GVHD (Table 1). We observed a higher response disease before allografting in patients treated with new drugs. Conclusions Induction with lenalidomide, thalidomide or bortezomib does not impact feasibility and safety of tandem auto-allo. Longer follow up and a larger cohort of patients are necessary to evaluate the impact of new drugs in improving disease control post-tandem auto-allo. Disclosures: Patriarca: Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmion: Consultancy, advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, advisory committees, Research Funding.

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3469-3469
Author(s):  
Luisa Giaccone ◽  
Andrea Evangelista ◽  
Francesca Patriarca ◽  
Roberto Sorasio ◽  
Massimo Pini ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Before the introduction of new drugs, we designed a trial where treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients with double autografts or autograft followed by nonmyeloablative allograft was based on the presence or absence of HLA identical siblings (Bruno B et al. N Engl J Med 2007) We reported an update with special focus on long term outcomes. Methods: From September 1998 to July 2004, 162 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed MM up to the age of 65 years and at least one sibling were enrolled at 5 Italian centers, and divided into 2 groups: donor (N=80) vs no donor (N=82). First-line treatments consisted of a cytoreductive autograft followed by a HLA identical sibling nonmyeloablative allograft or a second melphalan-based autograft (N=58 and N=46, respectively, completed the protocol). Results: Median follow-up was 12.3 years (range, 7.7-15.3) from allograft, and 12.1 years (range, 10.5-15.4) from second autograft. The 5-year cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality was 17.2% (95%CI: 7.4 to 27.1) in the allograft arm and 4.3% (95%CI:0 to 10.3) in the autograft arm. One of the main concern post allograft is the impact of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD): in our setting its 2-year cumulative incidence was 67.2% (95%CI: 54.9 to 79.5). We also evaluated the cumulative incidence of immunesuppression discontinuation in patients with cGVHD, considering both death and relapse as competing events: 26.8% of cGVHD patients (95%CI: 13 to 40.6) at 24 months and 39% (95%CI:23.6 to 54.4) at 60 months were alive and without therapy. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from second transplant were 137 and 43 months in the allograft arm and 46 and 18 months in the autograft one (p=0.006 and p=0.001, respectively). In the allograft arm, 33 out of 58 patients relapsed at least once, and first salvage treatments included donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI, N=13), thalidomide (N=10) and bortezomib (N=8). Of note, 2 patients lost complete remission status but did not require further therapy. Nineteen out of 33 patients required a second post-transplant salvage treatment: 1 received chemotherapy, 1 DLI, 1 received debulking treatment with bortezomib followed by a second allograft, and 16 patients were treated with new drugs containing regimens. In the autograft arm, 36/46 patients relapsed and received salvage treatments consisting of: allograft (N=1), 3rd autograft prepared with a new-drugs containing regimen (N=6), thalidomide (N=17), bortezomib (N=7), lenalidomide (N=1), chemotherapy alone (N=4). Among these, 19 required a third-line treatment: 1 received an allograft, and 18 a regimen containing new drugs. Median OS from 1st relapse was 89.8 months (95%CI: 33.3 to n.r.) in the allograft arm vs 23.5 months (95%CI: 12.5 to 50.5) in the autograft (p=0.009). Conclusions: Our update showed that more then a third of patients developing cGVHD were relapse-free and cGVHD-free at 5-years post-transplant and that the advantage in OS in the allograft arm is maintained also after relapse, suggesting a synergism between graft-vs-myeloma effect and new agents. Upfront allograft in MM remains a matter of debate, and it should be performed only within clinical trials. The main limit of the present study was the lack of novel agents as part of the pre-transplant approach, nevertheless our results suggested that allograft may have a role, and it might be considered in young patients with high-risk features such as del [13], t(4;14), del(17p), and t(14;16), who remain at poor prognosis even in the era of new drugs. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; Amgen: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: ADVISORY BOARD. Massaia:Janssen: Other: advisory board; Roche: Other: advisory board, research support; Gilead: Other: advisory board. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Boccadoro:CELGENE: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; SANOFI: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Abbivie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 860-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano J. Costa ◽  
Saurabh Chhabra ◽  
Kelly N. Godby ◽  
Eva Medvedova ◽  
Robert F. Cornell ◽  
...  

Background: The CD38-targeting antibody daratumumab, when combined with a proteasome inhibitor or with an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) increases depth and duration of response in multiple myeloma (MM). Depth of remission post initial therapy as assessed by MRD predicts long term outcome in NDMM. We hypothesized that the combination of daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-KRd) would be safe and highly active in patients with NDMM. In addition, we assessed the feasibility of using MRD by next generation sequencing (clonoSEQ® method, sensitivity 10-6) to inform the use and duration of post-transplant Dara-KRd consolidation. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had NDMM requiring treatment, creatinine clearance >40 ml/min, adequate liver and cardiac function, ECOG performance status 0-2 with no age limit. Treatment cycles consisted of daratumumab 16 mg/kg IV days 1,8,15,22 (with typical reduction in frequency with subsequent cycles), carfilzomib 56 mg/m2 IV days 1,8,15, lenalidomide 25 mg PO days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO/IV days 1,8,15,22 repeated every 28 days. Patients received 4 cycles of Dara-KRd as induction, autologous transplantation, and received 0, 4 or 8 cycles of Dara-KRd consolidation, according to MRD status at each phase of therapy. MRD was evaluated by clonoSEQ® (NGS-MRD; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) at end of induction, post-transplant, and during each 4-cycle block of Dara-KRd consolidation. Primary endpoint was achievement of MRD negative remission (<10-5) as defined by IMWG consensus. Secondary endpoints included MRD <10-6, complete response (CR) by IMWG criteria at end of induction and upon completion of consolidation, and rate of imaging (assessed by PET/CT scan) plus MRD-negative CR. Patients received therapy until achievement of two consecutive MRD reads <10-5 (confirmed MRD-negative remission; e.g., post-induction and post-transplant or post-transplant and during consolidation). Confirmed MRD-negative pts received no further therapy and were observed with surveillance for MRD resurgence 6 and 18 months after treatment discontinuation. Patients completing consolidation without confirmed MRD-negative remission received standard lenalidomide maintenance (NCT03224507). Results: Currently 69 pts have been enrolled, 38 have completed induction and 22 have completed post-transplant assessment. Median age was 61 (range 38-79) years, 13 (19%) had ISS 3, and 20 (29%) had high-risk chromosomal abnormalities [del17p, t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. Sixty-six (96%) pts had MRD trackable by clonoSEQ® and 100% of the expected MRD datapoints were successfully obtained. All patients responded by end of induction cycle 2, 92% of pts obtained VGPR or better after induction and 91% of patients who have reached transplant obtained CR/sCR as best response on therapy (Figure). MRD-negative remission (<10-5) rate was 34%, 70% and 80% after induction, transplant and at best response, respectively (Figure). Rates of MRD <10-6 were 28%, 45% and 65% respectively. No patient discontinued therapy due to toxicity. One patient died from metapneumovirus pneumonia post-transplant, considered not related to investigational agents. Most common grade 3 and 4 AEs were neutropenia (n=7), infection (n=6), insomnia (n=4), hyperglycemia (n=2) and rash (n=2). There were 15 serious AEs including pneumonia (n=5), fever and neutropenia (n=2), pulmonary embolism (n=1), and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=1). All 11 patients who have achieved confirmed MRD-negative remission and discontinued therapy also achieved imaging plus MRD-negative CR and none had relapse or resurgence of MRD with short follow up (0.8-7.3 months). Longer follow-up, post-induction and post-transplant MRD assessment for at least 69 and 41 pts, respectively, will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This is the first report of monoclonal antibody-based quadruplet regimen with MRD-based response-adapted therapy in NDMM. Dara-KRd induction, autologous transplant and Dara-KRd consolidation guided by MRD is feasible, safe and leads to high proportion of patients achieving CR/sCR, IMWG MRD-negative CR, imaging plus MRD-negative CR and MRD <10-6. This approach can form the basis for clinical efforts to reduce the burden of continuous therapy in those with confirmed MRD-negative remissions. Figure Disclosures Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy. Silbermann:Janssen, Sanofi: Other: Consultant/Advisor. Dhakal:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Omel:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Other: Patient Advisory Committees. Hari:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Carfilzomib for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma


Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1874-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna E. Reece ◽  
Esther Masih-Khan ◽  
Arooj Khan ◽  
Saima Dean ◽  
Peter Anglin ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1874 Poster Board I-899 Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) and dexamethasone is an effective regimen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts), with an overall response rate of 60.6% and median time to progression (TTP) of 13.4 months (Dimopoulos MA, et al, Leukemia 2009 Jul 23 [Epub ahead of print]). Oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone is an older regimen with excellent patient tolerance, and we sought to enhance the efficacy of lenalidomide by adding oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone in this phase I-II trial. The CPR regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide on days 1, 8 and 15; lenalidomide on days 1–21; and prednisone 100 mg every other day in a 28 day cycle. ASA 81 mg/day was given to all pts as DVT prophylaxis. Three dose levels were evaluated using a 3 by 3 dose escalation design. Between 11/2007–07/2009, 31 pts with relapsed/refractory MM who had not previously received lenalidomide were entered onto study. Median age was 61 (40–78) years and 61% were male. Immunoglobulin subtype was IgG in 19 pts (61%), IgA in 8 pts (26%) and light chain only in 4 pts (13%). Median number of prior regimens was 2 (1–5) and 28 pts had undergone previous ASCT, including double transplants in 6 pts. Prior therapy included thalidomide in 9 (29%) and bortezomib in 15 (48%). FISH cytogenetics were available in 13 pts; one had 13q deletion but none had t(4;14) or p53 deletion. At the time of protocol entry, median β 2-microglobulin level was 246 (92–767) nm/L, albumin 39 (34–48) g/L, creatinine 83 (50–126) μmol/L, platelet count 230 (75–337) × 109/L and ANC 2.5 (1.1–6.1) x 109/L. Protocol treatment is summarized in Table 1. Dose limiting toxicity was not observed during cycle 1 at any dose level. Grade 3–4 toxicities included thrombocytopenia in 5 pts (16%) and neutropenia in 9 pts (29%). These were managed with dose reduction and/or growth factor support. Four episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Other grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities included abdominal pain/bacteremia in 1 pt in cohort 1; hypokalemia in 1 pt in cohort 2; and DVT in 2 pts, dizziness in 2 pts and fatigue in 1 pt in cohort 3. Using the International uniform response criteria (Durie BG, et al, Leukemia 2006; 20:1467–1473), the best response was documented at a median of 6 (1–5) cycles and included the following: dose level 1 (1 CR, 2 PR); dose level 2 (1 VGPR, 2 PR); dose level 3 (5 CR, 9 VGPR, 9 PR, 1 MR and 1 stable disease). At a median follow-up (F/U) of 12 (8–21) months, 20 pts remain on study, 2 have withdrawn and 9 pts have progressed at a median of 9 (4–13) months; only 1 one has died (due to MM). We conclude: 1) the combination of full doses of the agents in CPR can be given in a 28 day cycle with minimal toxicity; 2) the overall response rate (CR + VGPR + PR) in 31 pts to date is 93%; 3) at a median F/U of 1 year, only 9 pts (29%) have progressed; 4) longer follow-up is required to assess the TTP and survival of the CPR regimen. Disclosures: Reece: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in combination with drugs other than dexamethasone. Anglin:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Mikhael:Celgene: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3061-3061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikhil C. Munshi ◽  
Saem Lee ◽  
Suman Kambhampati ◽  
Abid Mohiuddin ◽  
Michal Rose ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3061 The current bortezomib schedule involves administration of the drug twice a week at 1.3 mg/m2 for 2 weeks every 21 days. This regimen although effective is inconvenient and associated with side effects including neuropathy and gastrointestinal toxicities that limits its use in a proportion of patients. Therefore, to improve convenience and compliance, we have investigated efficacy and safety of a weekly regimen of bortezomib. In this one-stage phase II multi-center, open-label single-arm study bortezomib is administered once a week at 1.6 mg/m2 in combination with dexamethasone in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not considered for autologous stem cell transplant in participating Veterans Hospitals nationwide. The objective is to evaluate overall response rate and toxicity of this regimen. Patients received bortezomib at 1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly for 4 weeks followed by 1 week off and dexamethasone 40mg PO on the day of and day after each dose of bortezomib. Patients may receive 6 such 5-week cycles. At the current time 32 patients (median age - 73; range 50–88) have been enrolled at 11 Veterans Administration Hospital across the U.S. Patients had significant co-morbidities including 61% with cardiovascular problems, 58% with diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia, 58% with elevation of serum creatinine, 26% with respiratory problems and 23% with previous history of cancer. All patients were at least on 5 daily medications. Of the 32 patients enrolled, 25 patients have received at least one cycle of therapy and were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy, while 6 patients have received less than one cycle of therapy and one patient has inadequate data. With a median of 4 cycles administered, this regimen was well tolerated. None of the patients have developed grade 3 neuropathy, while grade 1 neuropathy was observed only in 2 patients and one patient with grade 1 neuropathy at diagnosis had increase to grade 2. Dexamethasone dose was reduced in 29% patients while 6% required reduction in bortezomib dose to 1.3 mg/m2. Additionally, Grade ≥1 asthenia was observed in 42%, diarrhea in 35%, and thrombocytopenia in 26%. Four patients have died of co-morbidities which were considered unrelated or probably unrelated to the treatment with bortezomib. The partial response or better was achieved in 68% patients receiving at least 1 cycle of therapy; 20% patients achieved CR/nCR and additional 12% achieved VGPR. Including MR in the analysis, overall response was observed in all evaluable patients. On intent to treat analysis including all 32 patients, overall response rate (≥ MR) was observed in 78% patients and PR or better in 53% patients. These preliminary results suggest that the once a week bortezomib regimen is effective and tolerable with reduced toxicity even in this older patient population with significant co-morbidities. Disclosures: Munshi: Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roodman:Millennium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2074-2074
Author(s):  
Annamaria Brioli ◽  
Charlotte Pawlyn ◽  
Walter Gregory ◽  
Samantha Hinsley ◽  
Samantha Marshall ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction New drugs have significantly improved the outcome of MM patients (pts) increasing both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Among new drugs lenalidomide (LEN) due to its oral availability and favourable toxicity profile is an attractive option both as an induction and as a maintenance treatment, with different studies demonstrating its effectiveness. Long term therapy with LEN, however, has been associated with an increased risk of developing SPMs. Aims We are conducting a large phase III study to evaluate the use of LEN as induction and/or as maintenance therapy. The primary end points of the study are OS and PFS. Secondary end points are response and toxicity. Methods Pts are treated following an intensive or a non intensive pathway based on their eligibility for high dose Melphalan (HDM) and stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and are randomised to receive induction therapy with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone combined with either LEN (CRD) or thalidomide (CTD). Pts failing to achieve an optimal response are randomised to receive additional therapy with cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone and bortezomib (CVD) or no extra therapy. Pts with minimal or no response will automatically receive further therapy with CVD. A randomisation between LEN maintenance and no maintenance is also performed. Data on the occurrence of SPMs are being routinely collected as part of safety assessment during all protocol phases and follow up. Analyses were performed on treatment actually received. Results As per cut off of the 23rd July, 2371 pts have undergone the induction randomisation, of which 2368 are eligible for the safety analysis; 794 pts entered maintenance randomisation. The median follow up is 1.36 years from initiation of the study and 1.06 years from maintenance randomisation. Localised skin cancer other than melanoma were considered as non-invasive SPMs. At the time of the present analysis 17 SPMs have been reported with a cumulative incidence rate of 0.7% (cumulative rate of 0.6% for invasive SPMs and 0.1% for non-invasive SPMs); four additional patients, reported as having a SPM, were excluded, after central review of the data, either due to a previous history of malignancy or because of the evidence of a pre-existing tumour other than MM at the time of study entry. The median age at the time of SPMs development is 72 years (range 61-92), and the median time from trial entry to development of SPMs is 11 months (range 2.1-27.0). The most common SPMs reported were squamous cell carcinoma (4 pts, 2 invasive and 2 non invasive), breast cancer (3 pts), colon cancer (2 pts) and prostate cancer (2 pts). No haematological SPM has so far been reported. One patient, treated according to the intensive arm with LEN both as induction and maintenance, was reported as having a suspect myelodysplasia (MDS) due to anaemia and thrombocytopenia 2.7 months after entering the maintenance randomisation. No clear histological sign of MDS was found and the values improved after stopping maintenance treatment; these data fit with treatment related toxicity and not with the development of a MDS, and the patient was excluded from this analysis. Ten out of 17 SPMs developed during maintenance treatment or follow up phase, with 7 patients having received LEN maintenance. Median time from maintenance randomisation to SPMs development is 7 months (range 2-20.6 months). The remaining 7 were diagnosed during or immediately after induction. About half of the patients (8/17) were randomised to receive LEN induction; 3 patients received LEN both as induction and as maintenance. Interestingly only one of those 3 pts had been treated according to the intensive arm. With a median follow up of 1.36 years the estimated incidence rate at 1 and 2 years are 0.70% (95% CI .40-1.22)and 1.17% (95% CI .70-1.96) respectively (Figure 1). Conclusions Our data do not confirm previous findings of an excess risk of SPMs in association with the use of LEN and HDM in presenting patients, with 12/17 pts developing SPMs treated on the non intensive pathway that does not contain HDM. Most importantly only 0.4% of the patients enrolled within the intensive pathway developed a SPM, with only 2 of them receiving LEN maintenance. Longer follow up will help to further elucidate the risk of LEN associated SPMs. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-Oncology subgroup Disclosures: Brioli: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: The presentation include the use of Lenalidomide as induction and as maintenance treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Cook:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4229-4229
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Mohit Narang ◽  
Jayesh Mehta ◽  
Howard R. Terebelo ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Triplet therapies are used for treatment (Tx) of both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Actual patterns and outcomes of Tx are not fully understood. Connect MM® is the first and largest multicenter, US-based, prospective observational cohort study designed to characterize Tx patterns and outcomes for pts with NDMM. This analysis describes demographic and disease characteristics of pts who received triplet Tx as an induction regimen and for whom transplant was or was not intended. The analysis explores the relationship of these factors with overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints. Patients and Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 y with NDMM within 60 days of diagnosis were eligible for enrollment regardless of disease severity, medical history, or comorbidities. Data including transplant intent (yes/no) was collected at baseline; follow-up data was collected quarterly thereafter. Based on the initial intent, 2 groups were identified: patients with intent to transplant who received transplant (TT) and pts with no intent to transplant who did not receive a transplant (NT). Triplet Tx was defined as the combination of ≥ 3 concurrent therapeutic agents in the first course of Tx (within 56 days of study entry). KM analysis adjusted for age was conducted for OS. Because decisions on use of transplant and triplet therapy are influenced by multiple factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of the triplet therapy (yes/no) to OS and was adjusted for other variables, including age, comorbidities, and ISS staging. Results: Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 pts were enrolled. This analysis was on 1436 pts: 650 pts with transplant intent and 786 pts without transplant intent. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2014, and the median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 33.8 mos. Of pts with transplant intent, 451 (69%) received transplant (TT) and 199 (31%) did not. Of pts without transplant intent, 62 (8%) received transplant and 724 (92%) did not (NT). The abstract focuses on TT and NT groups only. NT pts tended to be older and have more advanced ISS staging and higher β2-microglobulin levels than TT pts (Table). The most common triplet regimen given during the first course treatment (within 56 days) was lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). RVd was administered to 34% of the NT pts (76/225) and 59% of the TT pts (152/257). The most common non-triplet regimen was bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), which was given to 31% of NT pts (156/499) and 38% of TT pts (73/194). Within the NT group, pts given triplet Tx had a lower risk of death than those who did not receive triplet Tx (P = .0013). The multivariable analysis found triplet Tx to be associated with a 36% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.82]; P = .001). ISS disease stage (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.69]; P < .001) and history of diabetes (HR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.78]; P = .012) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Within the TT group, pts who received triplet Tx did not attain an OS benefit (P = .8993), and no baseline characteristics were significantly associated with OS. These results may be limited by other factors not considered that may have influenced physicians' choice of treatment, including the use of maintenance therapy and a short follow-up period of 33.8 months. Conclusions: Triplet Tx as a first regimen is associated with longer OS in pts without transplant intent who did not receive a transplant. RVd and Vd were the most common first Tx regimens, respectively. Continued follow-up of these pts and enrollment of an additional cohort will provide additional data with mature follow-up. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Other: Export Board Committee, Speakers Bureau. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Srinivasan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4569-4569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frits van Rhee ◽  
Sharmilan Thanendrarajan ◽  
Carolina D. Schinke ◽  
Jeffery R. Sawyer ◽  
Adam Rosenthal ◽  
...  

Background. The TT approach has significantly improved the outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) by combining new drugs with a regimen that comprises induction, tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), consolidation and maintenance. However, a group of 15% of patients with high risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) have derived little benefit despite similar response rates to induction chemotherapy and ASCT when compared to low risk MM. The poor outcome of HRMM is explained by early relapse post ASCT resulting in a short progression free survival (PFS) with only 15-20% of patients surviving long-term. Daratumumab (Dara) is a human IgG1k anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody that has shown favorable results in early single-arm studies and more recently in phase III studies for relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed MM. In TT7, we introduced Dara during all phases of therapy, including immune consolidation early post ASCT, to improve responses rate and PFS in HRMM. Methods. Patients had newly diagnosed HRMM as defined by high risk cytogenetic abnormalities, presence of extramedullary disease, >3 focal lesions on CT-PET, elevated LDH due to MM, or ISS II/III with cytogenetic abnormality. Dara (16mg/kgx1) was added to induction with KTD-PACE (carfilzomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone; and four-day continuous infusions of cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide). Conditioning for tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was with fractionated melphalan (50mg/m2x4) (fMEL) based on prior observations that patients with adverse cytogenetics fare better with fMEL rather than single high dose MEL200mg/m2.In the inter tandem ASCT period immunological consolidation with Dara (16mg/kg) alone for 2 doses was followed by Dara (16mg/kg) on day 1 combined with K (36mg/m2) and D (20mg) weekly for 2 cycles. DaraKD was administered to avoid treatment free periods allowing for myeloma regrowth. The 2nd ASCT was followed by further immunological consolidation with Dara (16mg/k) for 2 doses, and maintenance therapy for 3 yrs with 3-months block of alternating Dara-KD (dara 16mg/kg day 1; K 36mg/m2 and dex 20mg weekly) and Dara-lenalidomide (R)D (dara 16mg/kg day 1; R 15mg day 1-21 q28 and D 20mg weekly). Results. TT7 enrolled 43 patients thus far. The median follow-up was 11 months (range: 1-22). The median age was 61 yrs (range 44-73). Sixteen patients were ≥65 yrs (37.2%). A mean of 29.4x106 CD34+ cells/kg (range: 4.6-86.4) were collected. 36 patients completed ASCT #1 (83.7%) and 18 (41.9%) ASCT #2, whilst 14 patients have proceeded to the maintenance phase. R-ISS II/III or metaphase cytogenetic abnormalities were present in 85.1 and 58.1% of patients, respectively. Elevated LDH or >3FL on CT-PET were noted in 30 and 41.8%. The 1-yr cumulative incidence estimates for reaching VGPR and PR were 87 and 83%, respectively. A CR or sCR was achieved in 68 and 46%. The 1-yr estimates of PFS and OS were 91.6 and 87.2%. 40 subjects are alive, whilst 5 progressed on study therapy and 3 subsequently died. 38 patients are progression free at the time of reporting. Dara was well-tolerated and no subjects discontinued therapy due to dara-related side effects. The CR and sCR rates compared favorably to the predecessor HRMM TT5 protocol where CR and sCR rates were 59 and 27%. Conclusion. The early results of TT7 point to increased response rates of HRMM to a dara-based TT regimen with especially higher rates of CR and sCR. Longer follow-up is required to determine if these early results translate into superior PFS and OS. Figure Disclosures van Rhee: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Adicet Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Castleman Disease Collaborative Network: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy. Walker:Celgene: Research Funding. Morgan:Amgen, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: research grant, Research Funding. Davies:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Consultant/Advisor; Janssen, Celgene: Other: Research Grant, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 123-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Nitya Nathwani ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Abhinav Deol ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free and overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM) and has largely become the standard of care. Consolidation therapy, a brief duration of more-intensive chemotherapy administered prior to maintenance, has been shown to further deepen responses and may improve long-term outcomes. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an all oral regimen that has been shown to be active in newly diagnosed MM as well as relapsed disease. In this study, we are analyzing the safety and efficacy of IRd as consolidation therapy after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, are being consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients receive 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. The primary end point is minimal residual disease (MRD) status. MRD is being assessed by ClonoSEQ where possible and by multi-color flow where not. Toxicity, IMWG response rate, PFS, and OS are secondary end points. One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients are randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15) or lenalidomide (15 mg daily). In total, 240 patients will be enrolled on the trial. This presentation coincides with planned interim analysis 2 which included data from the consolidation phase only. Results: As of July 2018, 172 patients with NDMM have been enrolled from 10 centers within the US. The median age was 57 (range 28-70) and 67% were male. 76% were white, 10% African-American/Black, and 13% were another race. 39% were ISS Stage I, 30% were Stage II, and 20% were Stage III. All patients received proteasome inhibitors and/or IMIDs as front-line induction and melphalan as conditioning for ASCT. IRd consolidation started at a median of 110 days post-ASCT (range 80-138). IRd has been well tolerated. Only 4% (6/154) of patients have been unable to complete the 4 cycles of consolidation to date due to toxicity. Grade 3 hematologic toxicity has been uncommon; 4% neutropenia, 3% thrombocytopenia, and 2% anemia. There has been no grade 4 hematologic toxicity. Non-hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities have included: infection (8%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (3%), and transaminitis (1%). No grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy has been reported. One case of grade 5 pneumonia was reported but was not considered related to study treatment. Following ASCT, the MRD-negative rate was 26% and this improved to 37% following consolidation. In the subset of patients with Clonoseq results available, the MRD negative rate improved from 19% to 27%. Clinical response rate improved similarly; prior to consolidation the VGPR or better rate was 76% including 39% CR/sCR. Following consolidation, the VGPR or better rate was 85% including 56% CR/sCR. 137 patients went on to receive maintenance with either ixazomib (n = 71) or lenalidomide (n = 66). At time of submission, the median follow-up from start of IRd is 14 months and 28 patients have relapsed/progressed and 6 have expired. An interim analysis is planned for 2019, representing the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. Conclusion: IRd consolidation following ASCT appears to be safe and effective. The all oral regimen is convenient for patients which greatly simplifies follow-up in the peri-transplant period. Study enrollment is scheduled to complete in Q1 of 2019. Disclosures Vij: Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Deol:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gregory:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Chari:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; The Binding Site: Consultancy.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2146-2146
Author(s):  
Meagan Jacoby ◽  
Reetom Bera ◽  
Theresa Fletcher ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Kathryn Trinkaus ◽  
...  

Abstract Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematologic malignancy in the US. The current standard of care for transplant eligible patients is therapy with high-dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Although ASCT improves progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), it is not curative and virtually all patients will relapse. Attempts to improve upon HDM by adding other agents to transplant protocols have largely resulted in unacceptable increases in toxicity. Preclinical studies performed by our group suggest that granulocyte-stimulating factor (G-CSF) disrupts the bone marrow microenvironment, resulting in a striking loss of plasmablasts, plasma cells, and decreased expression of chemokine/cytokines contributing to plasma cell maintenance. Tbo-filgrastim (Granix, Teva Pharmaceuticals) is a recombinant methionyl human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. We hypothesized that tbo-filgrastim treatment may provide a potent and well-tolerated method to disrupt the 'myeloma cell niche', rendering patients more sensitive to HDM. Methods: Here, we report results from an open label, single center, phase II randomized study to test the efficacy and safety of tbo-filgrastim plus HDM (tbo-filgrastim arm) versus HDM alone (SOC arm) prior to ASCT (NCT02112045). Patients were randomized 1:1 to tbo-filgrastim on Day -7 through Day -2 (480 or 960 mcg/day, based on weight) and melphalan on Day -2 prior to ASCT (140 or 200 mg/m2, based on age) or melphalan alone. The primary objective was to compare CR rate at day 100. Secondary objectives included comparison of the toxicity, overall response rate, PFS, OS, and rate of neutrophil and platelet engraftment between the two arms. Eligible patients were ≥18 years with symptomatic multiple myeloma enrolled within 12 months of receiving at least 2 cycles of any systemic therapy, were undergoing their first ASCT, and had an adequate ASCT collection product (at least 2 million CD34+ cells/kg). Target enrollment was 176 patients, with an interim analysis of efficacy and futility planned after 88 patients reached Day 100 post-ASCT. Early stopping rules for unacceptable toxicity were in place. Responses were evaluated by IMWG criteria. Results: Ninety patients were enrolled (median age 59.5, range 33 to 77) and 89 were evaluable for response. The early stopping rules for toxicity were not met. The planned interim analysis showed that the proportion of patients in CR at Day 100 was similar between the arms and the study was halted for futility (39.5% on the tbo-filgrastim arm vs. 37.8% on SOC arm). The overall response rate (CR + VGPR + PR) between the tbo-filgrastim and the SOC arm was 95% vs 93%, respectively. At the interim analysis, with median follow-up time for the study of 21.7 months, (range 8.8 to 25.8), the median PFS and OS had not been reached for either arm. There was no difference in PFS between the tbo-filgrastim and the SOC arm (84% vs 80%, respectively, p=0.60). There was no difference in OS between the tbo-filgrastim and the SOC arm (90.9% vs 95.6%, respectively, p=0.43). All patients in the study achieved neutrophil (ANC > 0.5 K/cumm) and platelet (> 20 K/cumm) engraftment. The median time to neutrophil engraftment for the tbo-filgrastim arm was 5 days (range, 3-9) vs 4 days (range, 3-7) in the SOC arm, p<0.001. There was no difference in the median time to platelet engraftment between the arms (11 days in the tbo-filgrastim arm, range 2-23, and 10 days in the SOC arm, range 1-24, p=0.67). Adverse events for both arms were typical of those observed in the ASCT population. Conclusions: The administration of tbo-filgrastim in the setting of HDM prior to ASCT is feasible, without excess toxicity or loss of engraftment. There was no difference in Day +100 CR or ORR rates, PFS, or OS in patients treated with tbo-filgrastim plus HDM versus HDM alone with a median follow-up of 21.7 months. The lack of efficacy may be secondary to the high pre-ASCT response rates seen with modern agents. Disclosures Jacoby: Celgene: Speakers Bureau; NovoNordisk: Consultancy. Schroeder:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1676-1676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Surapol Issaragrisil ◽  
Richard E Clark ◽  
Josy Reiffers ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1676 Background: Pts treated with nilotinib in the ENESTnd phase 3 trial achieved higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular responses (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 1, 2, and 3 y. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 3 y; efficacy and safety data based on longer follow-up of 4 y will be presented to further assess the impact of nilotinib vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Methods: Adult pts (N = 846) with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 by 3 y were achieved in nilotinib- vs imatinib-treated pts (Table). Nilotinib led to the achievement of higher rates of molecular responses regardless of Sokal risk group or age. The difference in the rates of both MR4 and MR4.5 continued to be significantly higher for nilotinib, with the difference in favor of nilotinib increasing from 1 to 3 y (MR4: 9%-14% difference by 1 y, 18%-24% difference by 3 y; MR4.5: 6%-10% difference by 1 y, 13%-17% difference by 3 y). Among patients who achieved MMR, more pts achieved MR4 or MR4.5 on nilotinib 300 mg BID (68%) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (62%) compared with imatinib (49%). No pt in any arm progressed after achieving MR4.5. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). No new progressions occurred on core treatment between the 2-y and 3-y analyses. When events occurring after treatment discontinuation were included, the rates of progression to AP/BC were also significantly lower with nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Nearly twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 21) vs either nilotinib arm (n = 11 in each arm), with 5 pts overall developing mutations between 2 and 3 y. OS remained similar in all groups at 3 y, but fewer CML-related deaths occurred in both the nilotinib 300 mg BID (n = 5) and 400 mg BID (n = 4) arms vs imatinib (n = 14). Both drugs were well tolerated. Few new adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were observed between 2 and 3 y. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 10%, 14%, and 11% in the nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID, and imatinib arms, respectively. Conclusions: Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib, yielding faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. Results of ENESTnd support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP and should be considered to replace imatinib as the standard-of-care frontline therapy for patients with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding; II-Yang: Research Funding. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reiffers:BMS: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other; Novartis: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses, Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Hochhaus:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kemp:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Fan:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Waltzman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document