Achievement of Complete Response Is a Strong Prognostic Factor In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: Retrospective Analysis of 1175 Patients

Abstract Abstract 1949 Introduction: There is extensive evidence from numerous studies in the transplant setting that achievement of complete response (CR) or at least very good partial response (VGPR) is significantly associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In elderly myeloma patients CR was a rare event since new drugs has been added to standard melphalan-prednisone (MP). After the introduction of novel agents, CR represents an achievable goal, also outside of the transplant setting. Aims: to assess the impact of response to treatment on time-to-event parameters (PFS and OS) in elderly myeloma patients. Methods: We retrospectively analysed newly diagnosed myeloma patients, older than 65 years old, or younger but not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and transplant. Patients were enrolled in 3 multicentre randomized European trials of the GIMEMA and Hovon groups, and were treated with MP (n=332), MP plus thalidomide (MPT, n=332), MP plus bortezomib (VMP, n=257) or MP plus bortezomib-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT, n=254). PFS, OS and duration of CR were analysed by the Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the two arms by the Wald test and calculating 95% confidence interval (CI). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the following variables: age at diagnosis (>75 vs. ≤75 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) stages, type of chemotherapy and best response achieved. Best response was treated as a time-dependent variable. Results: A total of 1,175 patients, enrolled from November, 2001 to January, 2009, were retrospectively analysed. The best response to treatment was available in 1,136 patients: CR was reported in 195, VGPR in 212, PR in 397. Baseline characteristics according to best response achieved in patients who obtained CR, VGPR or PR were similar. Since response rates vary according to treatment regimens the proportion of patients who received MP, MPT, VMP, and VMPT-VT was different in the different response categories. After a median follow-up of 29 months, PFS was significantly higher in patients who achieved CR compared to those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10–0.24; p<0.001) or PR (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.04–0.13; p<0.001). The advantage in PFS translated into an advantage in OS: patients obtaining CR have a significantly prolonged OS than patients who achieved VGPR (HR 0.15; 95% CI 0.08–0.28; p<0.001) or PR (HR 0.08; 95% CI 0.04–0.16, p<0.001), (table). In multivariate analysis CR achievement was as an independent predictor of longer PFS and OS, regardless of age, ISS stage, and treatment administered. In patients > 75 years, both PFS and OS were shorter as compared to younger patients. Despite these differences, the impact of CR on outcome was identical. In the subgroup of patients > 75 years, PFS was significantly prolonged in patients who achieved CR, compared with those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.12–0.58, p = 0.001) or PR (HR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10–0.41, p < 0.001). Accordingly, OS was significantly higher in patients who achieved CR, compared with those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.13; 95% IC 0.03–0.58; p = 0.007), or PR (HR 0.12; 95% IC 0.03–0.51, p = 0.004), (table). No significant PFS differences between patients obtaining CR during the first 6 months of treatment or later were seen (HR 1.06; 95% IC 0.49–2.27; p=0.878). Similarly, no OS differences between these two groups were detected (p = 0.676). Duration of CR was comparable in patients who obtained CR during or after the first 6 months of treatment (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30–1.45; p = 0.305). Patients whose CR lasted more than 18 months have a significant OS benefit compared to patients who did not (p=0.006). Conclusions: These finding highlight the importance of CR, also outside of the transplant setting, regardless of age, ISS and treatment administered, and support the use of new drugs, also in patients older than 75 years, to achieve and maintain maximal response. Disclosures: Gay: Celgene: Honoraria. Bringhen:Calgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson : Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Analysis of Immunophenotypic Response (IR) by Multiparameter Flow Cytometry In 516 Myeloma Patients Included In Three Consecutive Spanish Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.1910.1910 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 1910-1910 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Bruno Paiva ◽

María-Belén Vidriales ◽

María-Angeles Montalbán ◽

María-Victoria Mateos ◽

Laura Rosiñol ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Flow Cytometry ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Young Patients ◽

Novel Agents ◽

Multiparameter Flow Cytometry ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1910 The outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has markedly improved in the last decade. Thus, overall response rates between 85%-95%, with 30%-50% complete remission (CR) rates are now being reported in young patients treated with novel agents plus high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). A similar scenario is also emerging in the elderly (non-transplant candidates) population. Accordingly, more sensitive techniques are needed to assess patients’ response; these may contribute to compare the efficacy of different treatment schemas, to monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) and for prognostication. In the present study we have assessed the frequency and the prognostic value of IR by multiparameter flow cytometry in a total of 516 newly diagnosed MM patients included in three consecutive PETHEMA/GEM Spanish trials: two designed for transplant candidate patients - GEM 2000 (n=157) and GEM2005<65y (n=206) - and one for elderly patients - GEM2005>65y (n=153). The GEM2000 trial was based on 6 induction cycles of VBMCP/VBAD followed by HDT/ASCT; the GEM2005<65y included three arms with 6 cycles each (Thalidomide/Dexamethasone -TD-, Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Dexamethasone -VTD- and, VBMCP/VBAD with Bortezomib in the two final cycles -VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib) followed by HDT/ASCT; and the GEM2005>65y compared 6 cycles of Bortezomib/Melphalan/Prednisone -VMP- vs. Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Prednisone -VTP-. All three trials had in common that patients received 6 induction cycles and IR was evaluated at this time point. In addition, IR was assessed on day +100 after HDT/ASCT in the first two trials. Patients were defined to be in IR when myelomatous plasma cells (MM-PCs) were undetectable by MFC or when less than one phenotypically aberrant PC was detected among 104 cells analyzed. Patients were referred for MRD studies if they were mainly in CR or VGPR. The IR rates reported here were calculated on intention to treat analysis. Figure 1 summarizes the IR rates after induction. The lowest IR rates corresponded to the VBMCP/VBAD and TD schemes (5% and 6%, respectively) while with the bortezomib-based regimens an approximately 3-fold increment in the IR rates was observed: VTP (12%), VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib (15%), VMP (16%) and VTD (17%). After HDT/ASCT, IR rates were found to be significantly increased (p<.001) in the GEM2000 protocol (14%) and in all arms of the GEM2005<65y trial: TD (18%), VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib (30%) and VTD (34%). Thus, a minimum 2-fold increment of IR rates was further achieved after HDT/ASCT. In addition, IR rates achieved after HDT/ASCT in patients included in all three arms of the GEM2005<65y trial were significantly superior (p≤.008) to cases treated according to the GEM2000 protocol, indicating that induction regimens with novel agents improved post-transplantation rates of IR. Moreover, bortezomib-based regimens vs. TD were associated with increased IR rates not only before but also after HDT/ACSCT (p=.06 and p=.02 for VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib and VTD, respectively). We further compared the impact of achieving an IR after induction and at day+100 after HDT/ASCT in the progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) within the three protocols. Patients in IR status after an induction regimen according to the GEM2000, GEM2005<65y and GEM2005>65y protocols showed significantly longer (p<.001) 3-year PFS rates (100%, 100% and 90%, respectively) compared to patients in a no-IR status (61%, 59% and 35%, respectively). Similarly, 3-year OS rates were significantly longer (p=.01) in IR vs. no-IR patients status (100%, 100% and 94% vs. 84%, 90% and 76% for the GEM2000, GEM2005<65y and GEM05>65y protocols, respectively). Likewise, an IR vs. no-IR status after HDT/ASCT in both the GEM2000 and GEM05<65y trials was also associated with significantly increased 3-year PFS (p<.001) and OS (p=.007) rates. In summary, this study demonstrates that the achievement of an IR is a strong prognostic factor regardless of the type of treatment; thus, higher IR rates may help to identify optimal therapeutical schemes. In this sense, HDT/ASCT is able to markedly increase IR rates after induction even in the era of novel agents, and this translates into extended survival. Disclosures: Off Label Use: VTP is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients and VT and VP are not approved for maintenance therapy. None of the combinations proposed, VBCMP/VBAD plus bortezomib, VT and VTD are approved as induction therapy in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Mateos:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen-Cilag: 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. Oriol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de Arriba:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Díaz-Mediavilla:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia-Laraña:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Sureda:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Significant Survival Improvement with Maintenance in Patients Achieving a Complete Response: Pooled Analysis of 4 Italian Phase III Trials in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1974.1974 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1974-1974

Author(s):

Chiara Cerrato ◽

Francesca Gay ◽

Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽

Pellegrino Musto ◽

Gianluca Gaidano ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Complete Response ◽

Pooled Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Advisory Boards ◽

Phase Iii Trials ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction Several trials have shown that maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, eligible and ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); conflicting data exist about its impact on overall survival (OS). The role of maintenance in patients with a sensitive disease is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis to clarify the impact of continuous treatment in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Methods Data from newly diagnosed MM patientsenrolled in 4 phase III trials were analysed. Two trials included ASCT-eligible patients: RV-MM-209 [melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) vs melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), followed by lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance), RV-MM-EMN-441 (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs Mel200, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). Two studies enrolled elderly, ASCT-ineligible patients: GIMEMA-MM0305 (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) and EMN01 (MPR vs cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of maintenance on PFS and OS in patients who achieved CR. Univariate analyses of OS and PFS were performed. Response was considered as a time-dependent variable with a landmark point at 12 months. Lastly, a multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of maintenance and ASCT as independent variables. Results A total of 1964 patients were retrospectively analysed. Of 1503 patients who received maintenance therapy, 254 achieved a CR and 931 a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR). After a median follow-up of 41 months, a significant 5-year OS (80% vs 54%; HR 0.55, p=0.02; Figure 1) and 5-year PFS (52% vs 19%; HR 0.47, p<0.001; Figure 2) advantage was reported among CR patients who received maintenance in comparison with no maintenance. The same analysis was conducted in patients achieving a suboptimal response (VGPR or PR): the 5-year PFS advantage was confirmed in patients who received maintenance vs patients who did not (30% vs 13% HR 0.65, p<0.001); the 5-year OS was 68% vs 38% in patients who received maintenance vs no maintenance respectively (HR 0.8, p=0.2). A subgroup analysis was conducted in CR patients according to the treatment received [ASCT vs conventional chemotherapy (CC)]; the PFS benefit among patients treated with maintenance was confirmed across both the subgroups (ASCT group: HR 0.45, p=0.02; CC group: HR 0.45 P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, maintenance therapy and treatment with ASCT confirmed the favourable impact on PFS and OS in patients achieving CR. Conclusion In CR patients,maintenance therapy significantly prolongs PFS and OS. In order to optimize treatment efficacy and to prolong survival in patients with a sensitive disease, the intensification with maintenance is strongly recommended. Disclosures Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association. Gay:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Celgene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Morphosys: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Patriarca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: 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; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Eltrombopag, Low-Dose Rituximab, and High-Dose Dexamethasone Combination for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Pilot "Total Therapy" Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1369.1369 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1369-1369

Author(s):

David Gomez-Almaguer ◽

Olga Cantu-Rodriguez ◽

Cesar Homero Gutierrez-Aguirre ◽

Jose Carlos Jaime-Perez ◽

Luz C. Tarin-Arzaga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Partial Response ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Low Dose ◽

Complete Response ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Frontline Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder that results from platelet destruction and production suppression. Frontline-therapy includes corticosteroids, intravenous immune globulin or anti-D immunoglobulin. Single-agent treatments have not been successful in inducing prolonged remission, as relapse will occur in approximately 50% of patients. Low-dose rituximab (100 mg) has been used for the treatment of ITP, showing an activity almost similar to the 375 mg/m2 standard dose. We and others have reported sustained response rates ranging from 58% to 76% using rituximab plus dexamethasone as a frontline therapy. Eltrombopag is a thrombopoietin nonpeptide mimetic that has been shown to raise platelet count in chronic ITP, and we have previously reported eltrombopag/dexamethasone as a feasible frontline therapy for ITP reaching 100% response rates.The lack of sustained response in many adult patients with newly diagnosed acute ITP has stimulated the search for a treatment that modifies the natural course of the disease. Objetive: We aim to evaluate efficacy, safety, and response duration of low-dose weekly rituximab (100 mg weekly, four doses) plus high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg PO, days 1-4) in combination with eltrombopag (50 mg, days 1-28) as frontline therapy in newly diagnosed primary ITP in an ambulatory setting. Methods: This is an ongoing open-label, single-arm study performed in patients with newly diagnosed ITP from the Hospital Universitario Dr. Jose Eleuterio Gonzalez in Monterrey, Mexico (Clinical trials.gov NCT02834286). Eligible patients are 16 years or older, with bleeding manifestations and/or a platelet count ²30×109/L, without previous treatment. Patients are excluded if they had active infection, pregnancy, or a malignant disease. A complete blood count is performed at baseline, on days 3, 5, 7 and then weekly for 28 days, monthly until month 6, and every 3 months thereafter. Partial and complete responses are defined as an increase in platelet counts ³30×109/L and ³100×109/L, respectively. Results: Ten consecutive patients have been enrolled from March 2015 until July 2016. Median age was 37 years (16-61). Six patients were women (60%) and four were men (40%). Median platelet account at diagnosis was 7 « 109/L (range 1.2-28). Median follow-up has been 7 months (range 1-13). All patients achieved at least a partial response (PR) at a median of 4 days (range 3-14). Complete response (CR) was achieved in 9 patients in a median of 7 days (7-22); all of them were still in CR at the end of treatment (Day 28). One patient lost response at 28 days and received a second high-dexamethasone course maintaining CR. No significant adverse effects have occurred during treatment, only 1 patient reported mild myalgia. No relapses have been documented until now.Currently, 8 patients remain in CR and 2 in PR. Conclusion:This is the first trial evaluating the response of low-dose rituximab in combination with eltrombopag and high-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed patients with ITP.Low-dose rituximab in combination with eltrombopag and high dose dexamethasone is a feasible frontline therapy for ITP. This drug combination showed high response rates achieved very rapidly, with a low incidence of side effectsand might represent an attractive option in patients with ITP and substantial bleeding. Table Characteristics and follow-up of patients M: Male, F: Female, CR: Complete Response, PR: Partial Response Table. Characteristics and follow-up of patients. / M: Male, F: Female, CR: Complete Response, PR: Partial Response Disclosures Gomez-Almaguer: Amgen: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124403 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1835-1835 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Katrina M Piedra ◽

Hani Hassoun ◽

Larry W. Buie ◽

Sean M. Devlin ◽

Jessica Flynn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cancer Trial ◽

Oncology Research ◽

Increased Risk

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

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-143095 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 8-9

Author(s):

Daniel Guy ◽

Marcus Watkins ◽

Fei Wan ◽

Nancy L. Bartlett ◽

Amanda F Cashen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Complete Response ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mantle Cell ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Stem Cell Collection

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

Download Full-text

Secondary Chromosomal Abnormalities Appear to Be Less Prognostic for Children with Philadelphia Chromosome Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Treated with Intensified Imatinib and Chemotherapy: Results of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Study AALL0031.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2606.2606 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2606-2606

Author(s):

Andrew J. Carroll ◽

Nyla A. Heerema ◽

Meenakshi Devidas ◽

W. Paul Bowman ◽

Chenguang Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Children And Adolescents ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽

Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

High Dose ◽

Unrelated Donor ◽

Intensive Chemotherapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Impact

Abstract Abstract 2606 Poster Board II-582 Background: Secondary chromosomal aberrations at diagnosis occur frequently in both pediatric and adult patients with Ph+ ALL. Several studies have shown that the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities is a major negative prognostic factor among children and adults with Ph+ ALL. A Japanese study in adults with Ph+ ALL indicated that the adverse prognostic significance of secondary rearrangements was seen even in patients treated with imatinib-combined chemotherapy including consolidation with blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) (Haematologica 92:287, 2008). Two-year EFS in that study was 48.5±5.7%, and the 50 patients with secondary chromosomal abnormalities had a 35% - 40% lower EFS than those with t(9;22) only (p=0.003). COG AALL0031 treated children with imatinib in combination with intensive chemotherapy. This study had an overall 3 year EFS of 80±11% for those receiving chemotherapy only, an outcome similar to those receiving allogeneic BMT. We evaluated the impact of secondary chromosomal abnormalities in children and adolescents receiving this regimen. Methods: Children and adolescents (age 1–21 years) with Ph+ ALL enrolled on AALL0031 after completing 3- or 4-drug induction therapy. Imatinib was given at 340mg/m2/day for an increasing number of days in combination with an intense chemotherapy backbone. Cohort 4 received imatinib for 126 (N=12) and cohort 5 for 280 continuous days (N=50) prior to maintenance therapy. The first two cycles of the intensive chemotherapy included ifosfamide and etoposide (cycle 1) and high dose (HD) methotrexate and HD cytarabine (cycle 2). Patients were non-randomly assigned to an HLA-identical related donor BMT, if a donor was available, or to an intensive chemotherapy regimen that continued for approximately 2.2 years. Unrelated donor BMT was not allowed; these patients were taken off protocol but included in survival evaluation by an intent-to-treat evaluation. Results: Satisfactory cytogenetic results were available for 71 (76%) of 93 enrolled children. Secondary aberrations were present in 46 (65%) patients. The most frequent secondary aberrations were +der(22) (N=21), =50 chromosomes (N=14), −7/del(7p) (N=11), abnormal (9p) (N=7), and +8 (N=5). The overall 3 year CCR was 79±6% for patients in cohorts 4/5, including those with non evaluable cytogenetics (N=55). When outcome analyses were limited to Ph+ ALL patients in cohorts 4/5 (N=43), three-year CCR for patients with Ph+ alone (N=14) was 86±10% versus 71±9% for those with Ph+ and secondary abnormalities (N=29) (p=0.19). Conclusions: In this study, the lower 3 year CCR seen in patients with Ph+ ALL with secondary chromosomal abnormalities was not significantly different than for children with Ph+ alone possibly reflecting small patient numbers. The lower 3 year CCR for Ph+ ALL with secondary chromosomal abnormalities in those treated on AALL0031 (∼15% lower) appeared to be less than that seen in the previous adult trial (∼35%). This may be the result of the addition of imatinib to intensified chemotherapy reducing the poor prognostic significance of additional chromosome abnormalities seen in previous studies. Larger patient numbers and longer follow-up will be necessary to answer this question. Disclosures: Schultz: DOR Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genzyme Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3884.3884 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3884-3884

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Suzanne Hayman ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Francis Buadi ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2877.2877 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2877-2877

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

Patrizia Falco ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Case Control Study ◽

Case Control ◽

High Dose ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Control Study

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

Download Full-text

Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients Treated With Lenalidomide Induction and Maintenance Show a Low Incidence Of Second Primary Malignancies (SPMs)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2074.2074 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2074-2074

Author(s):

Annamaria Brioli ◽

Charlotte Pawlyn ◽

Walter Gregory ◽

Samantha Hinsley ◽

Samantha Marshall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Incidence Rate ◽

Maintenance Treatment ◽

New Drugs ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Non Invasive ◽

To Receive

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.

Download Full-text

ENESTnd Update: Nilotinib (NIL) Vs Imatinib (IM) In Patients (pts) With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP) and The Impact Of Early Molecular Response (EMR) and Sokal Risk At Diagnosis On Long-Term Outcomes

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.92.92 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 92-92 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Richard E. Clark ◽

Hirohisa Nakamae ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Eligibility Criterion ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Vascular Events ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction Frontline NIL continues to show benefit over IM in pts with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML-CP, with higher rates of major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%) and MR4.5 (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032%), lower rates of progression to accelerated phase (AP)/blast crisis (BC) and fewer new BCR-ABL mutations on treatment in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Pts (ENESTnd) trial. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up (f/u) of 4 y; updated data based on 5 y of f/u will be presented. Methods Adults with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP (N = 846) were randomized to NIL 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), NIL 400 mg BID (n = 281), or IM 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). Progression and overall survival (OS) events were collected prospectively during study f/u, including after discontinuation of study treatment. Efficacy in the NIL 300 mg BID and IM arms was evaluated based on achievement of EMR (BCR-ABLIS ≤ 10% at 3 mo). Results At 4 y, ≥ 87% of pts remained on study in each arm and 57%-69% remained on core treatment (Table). Rates of MMR and MR4.5 by 4 y were significantly higher with NIL vs IM. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on NIL vs IM (on core treatment: 0.7%, 1.1%, and 4.2%; on study: 3.2%, 2.1%, and 6.7% [NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively]). Of 17 pts across the 3 arms who progressed on core treatment, 11 (65%) had never achieved complete cytogenetic response and none had achieved MR4.5. Fewer mutations have emerged in the NIL arms vs the IM arm; in y 4, mutations emerged in 2 pts (1 pt with T315I on NIL 300 mg BID; 1 pt with F317L on IM). More pts achieved EMR in the NIL 300 mg BID arm vs the IM arm (91% vs 67%). Pts with EMR had significantly higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS at 4 y vs pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo. Among pts with BCR-ABL > 10% at 3 mo, more progressions to AP/BC occurred in the IM arm (n = 14) vs the NIL 300 mg BID arm (n = 2); half of these pts progressed between 3 and 6 mo. In pts with intermediate or high Sokal risk, PFS and OS at 4 y were higher in both NIL arms vs the IM arm. No new safety signals were detected. Selected cardiac and vascular events were more common on NIL vs IM (by 4 y, peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD] in 4 [1.4%], 5 [1.8%], and 0 pts; ischemic heart disease [IHD] in 11 [3.9%], 14 [5.1%,] and 3 [1.1%] pts; and ischemic cerebrovascular events in 3 [1.1%], 5 [1.8%], and 1 [0.4%] pts in the NIL 300 mg BID, NIL 400 mg BID, and IM arms, respectively). In the NIL 300 mg BID arm, 2 of 11 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y (all 4 PAOD events occurred in the first 2 y). In the NIL 400 mg BID arm, 2 of 5 PAOD events and 3 of 14 IHD events occurred between 3 and 4 y. Most pts (7 of 9) with a PAOD event on NIL were at high risk due to a combination of baseline risk factors. Conclusions NIL, a standard-of-care frontline therapy option for newly diagnosed CML-CP pts, affords superior efficacy compared with IM, including higher rates of EMR (which is associated with improved long-term outcomes), higher rates of MR4.5 (a key eligibility criterion for many studies of treatment-free remission), and a lower risk of disease progression. NIL continues to show good tolerability with long-term f/u. While selected cardiac and vascular events (including PAOD) are slightly more frequent on NIL vs IM, no increase in annual incidence of these events over time has been observed. Disclosures: Saglio: ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hochhaus:Ariad: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hughes:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL: Research Funding. Clark:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, travel/ accomodations/ meeting expenses Other. Kim:BMS, Novartis,IL-Yang: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Etienne:Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Novartis: Research Funding. Lipton:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Equity Ownership, 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. Moiraghi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Fan:Novartis: Employment. Menssen:Novartis: Employment. Kantarjian:Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Download Full-text