Tolerance and Response to Initial Systemic Therapy In Older Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): Observations From 276 Unselected Recent Cases In the Practices of US-Based Medical Oncologists (MOs)

Abstract Abstract 1516 Background: MM is generally considered incurable, but the rapid integration of IMiDs.. and proteasome inhibitors into systemic anticancer treatment (SAT) has resulted in clinically important improvements in response rates, disease control and overall survival. A number of factors — including age and comorbidities — influence selection of an initial SAT and whether autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is planned. A paucity of information exists on selection of specific SATs for patients in different age groups and resultant outcomes. We attempted to address this issue by aggregating and examining clinical information on individual patients receiving initial treatment for MM. Methods: US community-based MOs were recruited from a database of past participants in our CME activities to provide anonymous information on the presenting symptoms, diagnostic workup, treatment selection, side effects and clinical antitumor response for all patients in their practices with a new diagnosis of MM since January 1, 2008. Modest, per-patient honoraria were provided to each MO for this work. Results: From April 14 to July 9, 2010, 43 MOs entered a total of 276 cases of MM into a web-based data bank (minimum 1 case, maximum 14, median 6). 54% of the patients were men. The median age was 68, with 34% under age 65, 36% from 65 to 74 and 30% age 75 or older. 88% of patients had their tumors evaluated by FISH and/or metaphase cytogenetics. 73% of the evaluated specimens were considered to be “standard risk” and 27% were determined to be “poor risk.” 67% of patients were considered very or moderately symptomatic from the disease at the time treatment was initiated (Table 1), and similar fractions of patients presented with various levels of symptomology across the three age groups. 128 patients (46%) were deemed eligible for ASCT (maximum age 78), and 59 of these patients had already received ASCT after induction treatment. The median age of patients eligible for ASCT was 62, and the most common induction SATs for these patients were Rd or RD (29%), RVD (26%) and VD (23%). The median age of patients considered ineligible for transplant was 76.5, and the most common induction SATs were VD (22%) Rd or RD (21%) MPT (17%) and MPV (17%). Overall, these treatments resulted in CR and PR rates of 22% and 64% respectively, and “things went very well with expected or fewer toxicities” in 38% and minor or moderate toxicity in 44%. These outcomes are similar to what has been reported in published trial data from randomized Phase III studies of these regimens. No major differences were observed in reported levels of efficacy and side effects among the three age groups (Table 1). Conclusions: This unselected case series produced, in a rapid manner, useful information addressing a variety of clinical issues in newly diagnosed MM, including the impact of age and transplant status on treatment selection and outcomes. These data suggest that MOs are able to individualize SATs for older patients and match the short-term outcomes of the therapies they select for younger patients. This risk-benefit differential is of particular palliative importance as these data demonstrate that at diagnosis most patients present with tumor-related symptoms. Additional work of this kind is needed to better understand how physicians adjust doses and schedules of SATs to prevent and ameliorate toxicity, particularly in older patients. Disclosures: Lonial: Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Anderson:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onxy Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Medtronic Inc: Consultancy; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Tolerance and Response to Initial Systemic Therapy In Older Patients with Follicular Lymphoma (FL): Observations From 186 Unselected Recent Cases In the Practices of US-Based Medical Oncologists (MOs).

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.3842.3842 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 3842-3842

Author(s):

Neil Love ◽

Stephanie A. Gregory ◽

Bruce D. Cheson ◽

Myron S. Czuczman ◽

Melanie Elder ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Age Groups ◽

Treatment Selection ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Published Data ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Presenting Symptoms ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 3842 Background: Advanced-stage FL is generally considered incurable, but the disease often responds to systemic anticancer treatment (SAT). A number of factors influence the selection of a specific SAT, which must be administered judiciously to older patients, particularly those with known comorbidities. A paucity of information exists to document which SATs are chosen for this population in clinical practice and the resultant clinical outcomes. We attempted to address this issue by aggregating and examining clinical information on individual patients receiving initial treatment for FL. Methods: US community-based MOs were recruited from a database of past participants in our CME activities to provide anonymous information on the presenting symptoms, diagnostic workup, treatment selection, side effects and clinical antitumor responses for all patients in their practices with a new diagnosis of FL since January 1, 2008. Modest, per-patient honoraria were provided to each MO for this work. Results: From April 14 to July 9, 2010, 38 MOs entered a total of 186 cases of FL into a web-based data bank (minimum 1 case, maximum 15, median 4.5). The median age was 66, with 45% under age 65, 26% from 65 to 74 and 29% age 75 and older. 53% of the patients were women. 42% of patients were minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic at diagnosis (Table 1), and across each of the three age groups the presence of various symptomology was similar. A number of SATs were initiated, including R-CHOP (26%), RCVP (25%), and rituximab monotherapy (13%). 15% of patients were observed without SAT. For patients first treated in 2010, an increase in the use of bendamustine/rituximab was observed, representing 8 of 26 patients (31%) versus 3 out of 80 patients (4%) in 2009. The choice of regimen differed by age, with, for example, more R-CHOP (37%) used for patients under age 65 and more R-CVP (38%) and rituximab monotherapy (28%) selected for patients age 75 and older. Overall, these treatments resulted in complete clinical responses in 57% of patients and “things went very well with expected or fewer toxicities” in 58%. These outcomes are similar to what has been reported in published data from randomized Phase III trials of these regimens. No major differences were observed in the levels of efficacy and side effects between the three age groups (Table 1). Conclusions: This unselected case series produced, in a rapid manner, information addressing a variety of clinical issues in newly diagnosed FL, including the impact of age on treatment selection and resultant outcomes. These data suggest that MOs are able to individualize SATs for older patients and match the short-term outcomes and tolerability of the therapies selected for younger patients. This risk-benefit differential is of particular palliative importance as this dataset demonstrates a majority of patients present with clinically significant tumor-related symptoms at diagnosis. Additional work of this kind is needed to better understand how physicians adjust the dose and schedule of SATs to prevent and ameliorate toxicity, particularly in older patients. Disclosures: Gregory: Cephalon Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Genentech BioOncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Cheson:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Cephalon Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Czuczman:Amgen Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biogen Idec: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cephalon Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech BioOncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly USA LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-125449 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2609-2609

Author(s):

Muhned Alhumaid ◽

Georgina S Daher-Reyes ◽

Wilson Lam ◽

Arjun Law ◽

Tracy Murphy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Age Groups ◽

Treatment Strategies ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Disease Behavior

Introduction: Clinical outcomes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adolescents and young adults (AYA) are rarely reported as an isolated subgroup. Treatments vary little across age groups, and treatment intensity depends upon comorbid conditions and performance status. Optimal treatment strategies focused on disease behavior, biological factors, and the distinct needs of this subset of AML patients remain elusive. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to determine the characteristics and outcomes of AYA AML patients treated at a specialized adult leukemia cancer center in comparison to older adults with AML (40-60 years). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Center from 2008-2018. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia were excluded. Clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and survival outcomes were recorded for all patients. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and the impact of covariates were assessed using the Log-rank test. Finally, we compared the outcomes of AYA patients treated at our centre between 2015-2018 with older patients. Results: A total of 175 patients aged 18-39 were identified. Patient characteristics are shown in (Table 1). Cytogenetic were available in 163 patients. Based on MRC criteria, 27 (16%) were favorable risk, intermediate in 95 (54%), adverse in 39 (22%), and missing/failed in 14(8%). NPM1 status was available in 110 patients of whom 38 (35%) were positive. FLT3-ITD was available in 67 patients with 24 (36%) positive. Both mutations were present in 13 (54%) patients. There were no significant differences in terms of risk stratification based on cytogenetic and molecular markers based on age (18-29 vs.30-39) (P= 0.98). Most patients 172 (98%) received induction, 157 (91%) with 3+7, and 15 (9%) with FLAG-IDA. Complete remission (CR) was achieved in 133 (77%) after first induction [120 (76%) after 3+7 and 11 (73%) after FLAG-IDA]. Induction related mortality was low (2%). Of the 39 who did not achieve CR, thirty-four patients received re-induction (13 FLAG-IDA, 16 NOVE-HiDAC, 5 others) with CR in 21 (62%). Overall, 154 (89.5%) achieved CR1. Sixty-four (42%) proceeded to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in CR1. 59 (38%) patients relapsed in CR1 with 8 (12%) relapsing post HSCT. Fifty-five (5 post HSCT) patients received reinduction with 30 (51%) (2 after HSCT) achieving CR2. Fifteen patients received HSCT in CR2. OS and DFS at 2 years were 62% (95% CI 0.53-0.69) and 50% (95% CI 0.41-0.57), respectively. Stratified by cytogenetic risk, OS was 81% for favorable risk, 61% for intermediate, and 50% for adverse risk (P=0.0001), respectively. DFS in these groups was 85%, 57%, and 46 % (P=0.0025), respectively. We further compared outcomes in the 18-29y and 30-39y age groups. The OS was 61.9% compared to 62.5% (P=0.91) and DFS of 52.1% compared to 47% (P=0.65) respectively. On univariate analysis for OS and DFS, cytogenetic risk stratification was the only significant variable (P=0.0004 and P=0.0042). We then compared the outcomes 67 sequential patients aged I8-39 treated from 2014-2018, with those of 176 sequential patients aged 40-60 treated during the same period (table 2). OS at 2 years was not statistically higher in the younger group compared to the older group (66.7% vs. 61.2%, P=0.372). While relapse rate was lower in older patients (15.5% vs. 22.6%, P=0.093), NRM was higher in older patients (29.7% vs. 18.8%,P=0.094). Conclusion: AYA pts. occupy a unique niche amongst AML as a whole. While treatment responses have improved in general, there may be potential for further gains in these patients. Increased tolerance for more intense treatment strategies as well as the incorporation of novel agents into standard treatment protocols may provide a means to optimize care in AYA patients. Finally, research is needed to elucidate biological mechanisms and predictors of disease behavior instead of arbitrary, age-stratified treatment schema. Disclosures McNamara: Novartis Pharmaceutical Canada Inc.: Consultancy. Schimmer:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Medivir Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Schuh:Astellas: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; Teva Canada Innovation: 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; Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maze:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Minden:Trillium Therapetuics: Other: licensing agreement. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

Quadruplet Vs Sequential Triplet Induction Therapy Approaches to Maximise Response for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible, Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.189.189 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 189-189 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Charlotte Pawlyn ◽

Faith E Davies ◽

David A Cairns ◽

Corinne Collett ◽

Anna Chalmers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Response ◽

Response Rates ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Induction Treatment ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Medical Sciences ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Sequential Strategy

Abstract Background: Maximising response in myeloma (MM) patients with effective induction regimens prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) improves progression-free and overall survival. Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and/or proteasome inhibitor (PI) are standard of care, however a more personalised approach is achieved by sequential triplet combinations based on an individual's response. Alternatively, quadruplet regimens may be more effective and new generation PIs such as carfilzomib, with less off-target activity, provide the opportunity to investigate this whilst minimising the risk of increased toxicity. The UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial is a large, phase III study aiming to answer these questions in transplant eligible (TE) patients comparing the quadruplet carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone to the sequential strategy of triplet IMiD combinations (with thalidomide or lenalidomide) followed by additional PI triplet therapy for those with a suboptimal response (<VGPR) prior to ASCT. Methods: In 2013, the TE pathway was amended to include KCRD: carfilzomib 36mg/m2 IV d1-2,8-9,15-16 (20mg/m2 #1d1-2), cyclophosphamide (cyclo) 500mg PO d1,8, lenalidomide (len) 25mg PO d1-21, dexamethasone (dex) 40mg PO d1-4,8-9,15-16). Patients are randomised to this up-front quadruplet or the sequential strategy of CRD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8, len 25mg PO d1-21 PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4, 12-15 or CTD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8,15 thalidomide 100-200mg PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4,12-15 given to max. response - patients with VGPR/CR proceed straight to ASCT, PR/MR are randomised to sequential CVD: cyclo 500mg d1,8,15, bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 IV/SC d1,4,8,11, dex 20mg PO d1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12 or nothing and SD/PD all receive sequential CVD. All treatments are given to max. response prior to ASCT, after which there is a maintenance randomisation. Patients: 1512 patients entered the TE pathway prior to amendment (756 CRD, 756 CTD). Of these, 201 patients with a suboptimal initial response went on to receive CVD, 142 following randomisation (initial response PR/MR) and 59 with NC/PD. 788 (of target n=1036) patients have been randomised post-amendment to date (394 KCRD, 197 CRD, 197 CTD). Results: TE patients receiving treatment prior to the amendment had response rates ≥VGPR: CRD 58% vs CTD 52%. For patients receiving the sequential triplet CVD due to a suboptimal response this was upgraded to ≥VGPR in 49% of those with initial MR/PR, 27% with NC/PD. This suggests the overall ≥VGPR rate to this treatment approach prior to ASCT would be approx. 75%. This now needs to be compared to the alternative approach of an upfront quadruplet. Comparing patients contemporaneously randomised to initial induction the patients receiving KCRD have completed a median 4 cycles (range 1-7), CRD 5 (range 1-10) and CTD 6 (range 1-9). Dose modifications have been required in 62% of patients receiving KCRD (56% to carfilzomib, 42% to lenalidomide) 44% CRD (40% to lenalidomide) and 65% CTD (59% to thalidomide). Data for study drug related toxicity in patients who have completed at least one cycle of initial induction are shown in table 1. Serious adverse events suspected to be due to trial medications have occurred in 37% on KCRD, 32% CRD and 35% CTD. Updated toxicity and preliminary response analysis on 23/09/15 will be presented at the meeting. This will include a response comparison at the end of initial induction regimen i.e. KCRD vs CRD vs CTD for an anticipated 700 contemporaneous patients who will have completed treatment. Updated response to the sequencing approach (with 250 patients having received sequential CVD) will also be presented and compared. Conclusions: In our study KCRD, an outpatient delivered 4-drug regimen combining second generation IMiD and PI drugs, is well-tolerated in TE NDMM patients, comparable to 3-drug regimens. Data will be presented at the meeting to compare the response rates achieved with the different regimens and treatment approaches. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-oncology CSG Table 1. Comparative toxicities KCRD n=261 CRD n=143 CTD n=142 % (no. of patients) Peripheral neuropathy Sensory Gr II-IV 1.9 (5) 1.4 (2) 8.5 (12) Motor Gr II-IV 3.1 (8) 1 (1) 5.6 (8) VTE all grades 4.2 (11) 4.9 (7) 5.6 (8) Anaemia Gr III-IV 9.2 (24) 4.2 (6) 5.6 (8) Neutropenia Gr III-IV 14.9 (39) 16.1 (22) 13.3 (19) Thrombocytopenia Gr III-IV 8.4 (22) 1.4 (2) 1.4 (2) Infusion reaction Gr III-IV 0.4 (1) - - Disclosures Pawlyn: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; The Institute of Cancer Research: Employment. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib as induction treatment for myeloma Lenalidomide and vorinostat as maintenance treatments for myeloma. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx-Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda-Milenium: Honoraria. Jones:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cook:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Russell:Therakos: Other: shares. Owen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Morgan:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CancerNet: Honoraria; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (autoHCT), Bortezomib, Lenalidomide (Len) and Dexamethasone (RVD) Consolidation with Len Maintenance (ACM), Tandem Autohct with Len Maintenance (TAM) and Autohct with Len Maintenance (AM) for up-Front Treatment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): Primary Results from the Randomized Phase III Trial of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 0702 - StaMINA Trial)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.lba-1.lba-1 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. LBA-1-LBA-1 ◽

Cited By ~ 44

Author(s):

Edward A Stadtmauer ◽

Marcelo C. Pasquini ◽

Beth Blackwell ◽

Kristin Knust ◽

Asad Bashey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Disease Risk ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Second Primary ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Second Primary Malignancy ◽

Primary Malignancy ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: Len maintenance after autoHCT has improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). However, the role of additional interventions after autoHCT such as tandem autoHCT or triple therapy consolidation remains to be determined. Methods: This is a phase III clinical trial (NCT#01109004) of transplant-eligible patients (pts) with symptomatic MM <71 years of age within 12 months of initiating therapy and without prior progression who were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive melphalan 200mg/m2 autoHCT and 4 cycles of RVD consolidation (lenalidomide 15mg daily days 1-14, dexamethasone 40mg day 1,8 and 15, and bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 days 1,4,8 and 11 every 21 days) (ACM), versus tandem melphalan 200mg/m2 autoHCT (TAM) or versus a single autoHCT (AM). Randomization was stratified by disease risk (cytogenetic abnormalities - del13q by karyotype, del17q, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) and hypodyploid; or high beta-2 microglobulin) and center. All arms included Len maintenance (at maximum tolerated dose of 5 to 15 mg orally daily until progression) with dose modifications for toxicities. All patients were reviewed centrally for eligibility, response and progression. The primary objective was to compare 38-month PFS of the three arms. The events for PFS included progression, non-protocol anti-myeloma therapy, or death. Comparisons between treatment groups were based on pairwise log-rank tests stratified on disease risk, with significance levels adjusted for the 3 pairwise comparisons and for interim analyses. In calculating the cumulative incidence of progression, the events were progression or non-protocol anti-myeloma therapy, and death was a competing risk. Results: From June 2010 to November 2013, 758 pts (ACM, N=254; TAM, N=247; AM, N=257) aged 20-70 years (median 57y) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 24% were classified as high risk. Non-compliance rates following the first autoHCT were 12%, 32% and 5% for ACM, TAM and AM, respectively. Median available follow up from randomization was 38 months. Follow-up is continuing through January 2017. 38-month estimated probabilities for PFS were 57% (95% CI: 50-63%), 56% (95% CI: 49-63%) and 52% (95% CI: 45-59%) for ACM, TAM and AM, respectively (ACM vs TAM p=0.75, ACM vs AM p=0.21, TAM vs AM p=0.37). Corresponding probabilities of OS were 86% (95% CI: 80-90%), 82% (95%CI: 76-87%) and 83% (95% CI: 78-88%). Median OS has not been reached. Cumulative incidences of disease progression at 38 months were 42% (95% CI: 36-48%), 42% (95% CI: 35-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 40-54%) for the ACM, TAM and AM arms, respectively. There were 39 cases of second primary malignancy (SPM) reported in 36 participants and the cumulative incidences for first SPM were 6.0% (95% CI: 3.4-9.6%), 5.9% (95% CI: 3.3-9.6%) and 4.0% (95% CI: 1.9-7.2%) for the ACM, TAM, and AM, respectively. Conclusions: The primary results of the largest randomized US transplant trial in MM demonstrated comparable PFS and OS. The addition of RVD consolidation or a second auto-HCT was not superior to a single auto HCT followed by Len maintenance in the upfront treatment of MM. A long term follow-up trial to track outcomes in these patients is ongoing. Disclosures Stadtmauer: Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Pasquini:Atara: Other: travel reimbursement for a meeting; Baxalta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Efebera:Millennium/Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Ganguly:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giralt:Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy. McCarthy:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; The Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria. Qazilbash:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vesole:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Vij:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Vogl:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Somlo:PUMA: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium/Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Krishnan:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Outcomes of Haploidentical Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide in Older Versus Younger Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-141966 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 27-27

Author(s):

Giacomo Adoncecchi ◽

Ambuj Kumar ◽

Rawan Faramand ◽

Hien D. Liu ◽

Farhad Khimani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Gvhd ◽

Age Groups ◽

Group Versus ◽

Survival Outcomes ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Two Age Groups

Introduction: Previous studies have demonstrated that allogeneic haploidentical (haplo) peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) yields improved progression free survival (PFS) when compared to haplo bone marrow transplant (BMT) with PTCy, attributable to lower relapse without an increase in non-relapse mortality (NRM) (Bashey, et al. JCO. 2017). However, haplo PBSCT results in higher rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) which may negate these benefits in older patients who are more susceptible to transplant related toxicity. Thus, evaluation of the outcomes of haplo PBSCT with PTCy in older patients is warranted. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 121 adult patients with hematologic malignancies treated at the Moffitt Cancer Center with allogeneic T-cell replete PBSCT from a haplo donor followed by PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis. Data were extracted from the Moffitt BMT Research & Analysis Information Network (BRAIN) database. Myeloablative (n=70, 58%) and reduced intensity (n=51, 42%) conditioning regimens were included. Transplant related outcomes were compared between two age groups: <60 years (n=66) versus >60 years (n=55). Associations with transplant related survival outcomes were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival models. Fine and Gray regression models were used to assess associations of transplant related endpoints with competing risks. Kaplan-Meier curves and cumulative incidence function curves were also plotted. Results: The median age at the time of transplant was 42 years (range: 20-59) for the younger group and 66 years (range: 61-75) for the older group. The median follow-up was 17 months (range: 2-53) for the entire cohort. Younger patients were more likely to receive myeloablative conditioning (83% versus 27%, p<0.001). Baseline characteristics were otherwise similar. Neutrophil engraftment (>500/uL) by day 30 did not differ significantly between the younger and older group (98% versus 93%, p=0.26). However, the median time to neutrophil engraftment was faster in the younger group versus the older group (16 versus 21 days, p<0.001). Platelet engraftment (>20,000/uL) by day 90 was achieved in 92% in the younger group versus 76% in the older group (p=0.03). The time to platelet engraftment was faster in the younger group: 28 days versus 36 days (p=0.006). At day 100, the cumulative incidence (CuI) of grade II-IV acute GVHD in younger patients was 42% (95% CI 29-61%) and for older patients was 35% (95% CI 22-55%, p=0.82). The CuI for grade III-IV acute GVHD for the younger and the older groups were 8% (95% CI 4-25%) and 15% (95% CI 7-38%, p=0.23), respectively. At 2 years, the CuI of chronic GVHD was 67% (95% CI 55-82%) for younger patients versus 56% (95% CI 38-82%) for older patients (p=0.20). NRM for the younger group and the older group, respectively, was 6% (95% CI 2-16%) versus 19% (95% CI 11-34%) at 100 days and 14% (95% CI 6-30%) versus 22% (95% CI 13-37%) at 2 years (p=0.17). The CuI of relapse at 2 years was not significantly different between the two age groups, with the younger recipients having a CuI of 42% (95% CI 20-60%) and the older group 31% (95% CI 17-56%, p=0.70). The 2-year DFS was similar between the younger and older group, respectively: 51% (95% CI 36-66%) and 53% (95% CI 37-70%, p=0.72). Similarly 2-year overall survival (OS) for the younger group was 59% (95% CI 44-74%), while the older group was 66% (95% CI 52-80%, p=0.92). In multivariate analysis, NRM was superior in the younger group (HR=0.31, 95% 0.12-0.82, p=0.02). Otherwise, age was not associated with engraftment, risk of acute or chronic GVHD, relapse, DFS, or OS. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that outcomes following allogeneic haplo PBSCT with PTCy in patients >60 years approximate outcomes in patients <60 years. While NRM was inferior in the older patient group, this difference did not result in significant differences in long term OS or DFS. Instead, other variables such as the hematopoietic comorbidity index and the disease risk index were better indicators of survival outcomes. Additionally, these survival outcomes with haplo PBSCT with PTCy appear to be similar to prior published data with haplo BMT with PTCy in older patients (Kasamon, et al. JCO. 2015). Based on this study, haplo PBSCT with PTCy is an appropriate transplant platform for elderly patients. Disclosures Khimani: Bristol Myers Squibb-Moffitt-Alliance: Research Funding. Nishihori:Novartis: Other: Research support to institution; Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution. Pidala:Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Bejanyan:Kiadis Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Incidence of Vascular Thrombotic Events in 183 Consecutive Patients Treated with Nilotinib: A Single Centre Experience

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3147.3147 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3147-3147 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

James Gilbert ◽

Simona Deplano ◽

Richard Szydlo ◽

Renuka Palanicawandar ◽

Gareth Gerrard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Cardiovascular Risk ◽

Side Effects ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Kinase Inhibitors ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction The spectrum of adverse events occurring in nilotinib is broadly similar to that of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors but recent reports suggest an increase in the incidence of vascular thrombotic events (VTE) compared to imatinib. Many patients treated with ponatinib, where the association of VTE with treatment is now widely accepted, have previously received nilotinib and it remains unclear as to whether the adverse events are a result of the cumulative use of the two drugs. It is important to clearly delineate the risk of VTE with nilotinib in order to estimate risk and provide better information for patients. Methods We conducted a chart review to identify adverse events in 183 consecutive patients who received nilotinib in our institution from February 2006 until June 2014. Patients were to be considered at risk of side effects in they had received at least 24 hours of treatment. Data were collected from out-patient consultations in which side effects and their severity were self-reported and recorded in the medical case notes. The cohort contained 93 women and 90 men and had a median age of 56 years (range 21-93). 8% of patients received nilotinib as first line therapy: 46% and 39% respectively were treated after failure of imatinib only or imatinib and dasatinib . The remainder were treated for relapse post allogeneic transplant. Of those who were treated after one or two prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), 57% and 43% were intolerant or resistant respectively. Results The median duration of treatment with nilotinib was 714 days (range 10 -2816 days). Information was available for pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors in 93% of patients and were present in 59%. We recorded 20 occurrences of VTE in 10% of patients with 9 (5%), 7 (4%) and 4 (2%) episodes of myocardial ischaemia, peripheral arterial occlusive disease and cerebrovascular disease respectively. Only one patient without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors experienced a VTE, The median age of patients with VTE was 67 years (range 35-79) compared to 55 years (range 21-93) in those without VTE. In contrast to previously reported results VTE were more common (18%) in patients who had received two prior TKI compared to 8% in those who had been treated with a single TKI and 7% who received nilotinib upfront. 75% of VTE occurred in patients who have been treated with nilotinib for more than 2 years but this may in part be because of continuation of treatment at a time of lack of awareness of the association of nilotinib with VTE. The remaining adverse events reported on nilotinib were in accordance with published data. Side effects occurring in >10% of patients are given in the table. Conclusions The incidence of VTE in patients treated with nilotinib in our institution was 10%. VTE was more frequent in older patients, in those with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and in those who received prolonged therapy with nilotinib. Without a suitable control group matched for age and cardiovascular risk factors it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of any potential increased risk of treatment with nilotinib. Nevertheless caution must be exercised in older patients with pre-existing risks for VTE and appropriate counselling and monitoring provided. Table 1Adverse eventIncidence (%)Rash and/or pruritus43Fatigue31Elevated transaminases21Myalgia18Abdominal pain17Headaches17Arthralgia16Nausea14Thrombocytopenia12Neutropenia12Anaemia7 Disclosures Gerrard: Novartis: Research Funding. Foroni:Novartis: Research Funding. Apperley:Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Curriculum in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Narrows the Educational Gaps of the Oncology Healthcare Team

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124808 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5878-5878

Author(s):

Lauren Willis ◽

Lisa Brauer ◽

Emily S Van Laar ◽

Patrick Kugel ◽

Katie S Lucero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Selection ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Treatment Naïve ◽

Educational Gaps

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. Treatment selection in CLL is dependent upon a number of factors, such as patient age and genetic mutations, and can be challenging. A number of novel therapies and combination treatment approaches are now available, making treatment selection and management of adverse events increasingly complex. We sought to determine if a curriculum of online continuing professional education (CPE) activities could improve hematologists/oncologists (hem/onc, H/O), pathologists (path), nurse/NP, and pharmacist knowledge, competence, and confidence related to clinical decision making in patients with CLL. Methods: An expert panel identified educational gaps related to the treatment of patients with CLL. Based on the educational needs identified, the curriculum included 4 activities that were posted online between March 2019-June 2019. The first activity was a 30 minute video lecture (1 faculty) about measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis in CLL. The second activity was 30 minute video roundtable discussion (3 faculty) about treatment initiation and selection in newly diagnosed CLL. The third activity was a text activity focused on relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL with 2 patient cases. The final activity was a video discussion between a nurse and pharmacist about mitigating side effects and optimizing compliance with oral therapies in CLL. Three activities were certified for physicians and the fourth activity was certified for nurses and pharmacists. Multiple-choice questions were asked before and after participation in each activity A repeated-pairs analysis was conducted where individual learners served as their own controls. Improved indicates an incorrect response pre-activity and a correct response post-activity. Reinforced indicates a correct answer pre- and post-activity. Improved confidence indicates a higher level of confidence post-activity. Results: As of July 2019, there were 356 hem/oncs, 154 pathologists, 178 nurses/NPs, and 504 pharmacists included in this analysis. The curriculum had a large impact on the knowledge and competence of hem/oncs and pathologists. MRD is an indicator of improved progression free survival: 13% H/O and path improved their knowledge, 58% H/O and 36% path reinforced their knowledge. The role for MRD measurement in CLL: 24% H/O and 15% of path improved their knowledge, 51% H/O and 39% path reinforced their knowledge. Selecting therapy for treatment-naïve CLL: 13% H/O and 30% path improved their competence, 57% H/O and 36% path reinforced their competence. Selecting therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL: 39% H/O and 42% path improved their competence, 26% H/O and 11% path reinforced their competence. Managing treatment-related side effects in CLL: 11% H/O and 33% path improved their competence, 72% H/O and 31% path reinforced their competence. 10% of nurses/NPs and 11% of pharmacists improved and 30% of nurses/NPs and 38% of pharmacists reinforced their skills counseling patients about adverse event management and drug-drug interactions in R/R CLL. Tailoring frontline therapy in treatment-naïve CLL: 26% H/O and 15% path improved their confidence. Tailoring therapy in R/R CLL: 34% H/O and 31% path improved their confidence. Using MRD in CLL management: 31% H/O and 21% path improved their confidence. Improving patient engagement by using effective interprofessional communication: 25% nurses/NPs and 36% pharmacists improved their confidence. Conclusions: This analysis shows that an online CPE curriculum, utilizing many different formats (video, text, panel discussions) can improve and reinforce the knowledge, competence, and confidence of hem/oncs, pathologists, nurses/NPs, and pharmacists in multiple areas surrounding the treatment of patients with CLL. Results also suggest the following areas warrant further education: knowledge of the role for MRD in CLL management, individualizing therapy selection for treatment-naïve and R/R CLL, and managing treatment-related adverse events of CLL therapies. Acknowledgements: Sameer Bhagavatula contributed to data analysis for this research. Figure Disclosures Allan: Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Awan:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Brander:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Tolero: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Once a Week Bortezomib with Dexamethasone Is Effective with Limited Toxicity in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Older Age and Co-Morbidities,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3964.3964 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3964-3964

Author(s):

Nikhil C. Munshi ◽

Saem Lee ◽

Suman Kambhampati ◽

Michal Rose ◽

Abid Mohiuddin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Autologous Stem Cell Transplant ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Respiratory Problems ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3964 Background: Bortezomib in combination with dexamethsone is administered twice a week for 2 weeks with excellent therapeutic outcome. However, in a proportion of patients it is associated with toxicities such as neuropathy and twice a week regimen is inconvenient especially in older patients. To improve convenience and compliance, we have investigated the efficacy and safety of a weekly bortezomib regimen. Methods: We conducted a phase II multi-center single-arm study in participating Veterans Hospitals (VA) nationwide evaluating bortezomib administered at 1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly for 4 weeks with 1 week off with dexamethasone 40mg PO on the day of and day after bortezomib for upto 6 cycles in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not considered for autologous stem cell transplant. The objective is to evaluate overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity of this regimen. Results: We have enrolled all planned 50 patients (median age-71; range 50–89) at 12 VA Hospitals. Patients had significant co-morbidities including 86% with cardiovascular problems, 67% with diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia, 54% with renal dysfunction, 37% with respiratory problems, and 18% with history of cancer. All patients were on at least 5 daily medications. Of the 50 patients enrolled, 42 patients have received at least 1 cycle of therapy and were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. With a median of 4 cycles administered, this regimen was very well tolerated. Ten patients experienced neuropathy: 6 patients experienced grade 1, two patients developed grade 2 neuropathy, while two patients who had grade 1 neuropathy at diagnosis increased to grade 2 neuropathy with pain, and the other patient increased to grade 3 neuropathy with pain, with an overall Grade 3 neuropathy rate of 2.4%.Dexamethasone dose was reduced in 30% while bortezomib dose was reduced in 10% of the patients. Additionally, grade ≥1 asthenia was observed in 52%, constipation in 38%, diarrhea in 34%, anemia in 64%, vomiting/nausea in 26%, and thrombocytopenia in 54%. Four patients have died of co-morbidities which were considered unrelated or probably unrelated to the treatment with bortezomib. Of the patients who received at least 1 cycle of therapy, 62% patients achieved ≥PR; 12% CR/nCR and an additional 14% achieved VGPR. Including MR in the analysis, ORR was observed in 90% of the evaluable patients. On intent to treat analysis including all 50 patients, ORR was observed in 76% patients and ≥ PR in 52% patients. Conclusions: Once a week bortezomib with dexamethasone regimen is effective and well tolerated even in older patients with significant co-morbidities and should be considered as an important option in multiple myeloma. Disclosures: Munshi: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: 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: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yellapragada:Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Breaking the Glass Ceiling of Age in Transplant in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124804 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 782-782 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Pashna N. Munshi ◽

Parameswaran Hari ◽

David H. Vesole ◽

Artur Jurczyszyn ◽

Jan Zaucha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Older Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Age Groups ◽

Karnofsky Performance Score ◽

Age Group ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is an effective treatment to achieve deep and durable remission in multiple myeloma (MM). Typically, AHCT is offered to patients <70 years of age, although the median age of diagnosis of MM is 70 years. We compared the outcomes of upfront AHCT across age groups for newly diagnosed MM in the era of novel therapies using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database. Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 15,999 MM patients aged 20 years and older from the USA who received a single AHCT with melphalan conditioning within 12 months of diagnosis between 2013 and 2017 and reported to the CIBMTR. Multivariate analysis was performed for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards model with age at transplant in decades as the main effect. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Because of the large sample size, a p-value of <0.01 was considered significant a priori. Results: Table 1 shows patient, disease and treatment characteristics by age group at diagnosis. All age groups had similar distribution of gender, race, ethnicity, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), comorbidity index (HCT-CI), stage III by Durie-Salmon/International Staging System. There was a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics in patients ≥70 years (30%), compared to age group 40-49 years (24%) and 20-39 years (20%) in this population. Older patients were more likely to be White compared to younger patients: 85% ≥70 compared to 64% 20-39 years. While 82% of the overall population received melphalan 200 mg/m2, 58% of the ≥70% received Mel 140 mg/m2. There were more ASCT performed in the ≥70-year age group in 2017 (28%) compared to 2013 (15%). Univariate outcomes by age groups shown in Table 2 revealed that 100-day NRM was higher in ≥70 years at 1% compared to younger patients (p <0.01) and 2-year OS was lower in ≥70 years at 86 (85-88)% compared to 60-69 years, 89 (88-89)% (p<0.01). When adjusted for other variables (Table 3), compared to reference age group of 60-69 years, patients ≥70 had similar NRM (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1, 1.7, p 0.06), REL (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1, p 0.6), PFS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1, 1.2, p 0.2), and OS (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1, 1.4, p 0.02). The leading cause of death across all age groups was primary disease. Among the ≥70 years cohort, melphalan dose was a surrogate for worse outcomes including NRM at 100 days (Mel 140, 1 (1-2)% vs Mel 200 0 (0-1)%, p 0.003, PFS at 2 years Mel 140 64 (60-67)% vs Mel 200 69 (66-73)%, p 0.003, and OS at 2 years (Mel 140 85 (82-87)% vs Mel 200 89 (86-91)%, p 0.01) (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest study of AHCT in older adults with MM. More MM patients ≥70 years are being transplanted in the US over time. While our data may highlight referral and access biases regarding which older patients may be referred for ASCT, our results confirm that patients ≥70 years can undergo transplant safely and achieve similar benefits as 60-69 years' old patients. Our results also suggest that melphalan 200 mg/m2 may be given safely in the ≥70 years population. While melphalan conditioning dose 140 mg/m2 in the ≥70 group is associated with worse outcomes, this is likely a surrogate for higher frailty and comorbidities in this cohort of patients. Our analysis confirms that AHCT has similar benefits in terms of disease control (REL and PFS) in both young and older MM patients. This benefit is seen even in a contemporaneous era where proteasome inhibitors and/or immunomodulator drugs are used in upfront treatment. Thus, AHCT remains a safe consolidation therapy across all age groups of MM patients. Disclosures Hari: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Shah:Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Genzyme: Other: Speaker; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text