Successful Treatment with Bortezomib in Combination with Bendamustine and Prednisone of Patients with Newly Diagnosed/Untreated Multiple Myeloma and Light Chain Induced Renal Failure

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2938-2938
Author(s):  
Wolfram Pönisch ◽  
Marc Andrea ◽  
Ina Wagner ◽  
Doreen Hammerschmidt ◽  
Ute Kreibich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Failure ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cross Resistance ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Myeloma Protein ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2938 Introduction: Renal impairment is one of the most severe complications of Multiple Myeloma (MM) at diagnosis. These patients are at increased risk for infections and have a significantly worse prognosis. Small phase I/II studies suggest that treatment with chemotherapy and/or new substances results in recovery of renal function in up to 25%. The window of opportunity to reverse renal impairment is rather small, making an immediate and highly active treatment strategy mandatory. Bortezomib as well as Bendamustine have turned out to be effective, rapid action drugs in the treatment of MM. Bendamustine is a bifunctional alkylating agent with low toxicity that produces both single- and double-strand breaks of DNA, and shows only partial cross resistance with other alkylating drugs. Methods: Between June 2006 and May 2011, 18 patients (median age 69; range 43 – 86 years) with newly diagnosed/untreated MM and renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 35 ml/min) were treated with Bendamustine 60 mg/qm day 1 and 2, Prednisone 100 mg on day 1, 2, 4, 8 and 11, and Bortezomib 1.3 mg/qm on day 1, 4, 8 and 11 (BPV). Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to the stage of maximum response or disease progression. MM response was assessed using IMWG criteria modified to include near complete response (nCR) and minimal response (MR). Eight patients were on dialysis at the time of diagnosis. Results: Fifteen patients (83%) responded after at least one cycle of chemotherapy with three sCR, five nCR, five VGPR, and two PR. With a median follow up of 17 months, PFS at 12 months was 57 % and OS was 61 %. The median number of the BPV-treatment cycles was 2 (1–5) cycles. The myeloma protein decreased rapidly, reaching the best response after the first cycle in 4 patients and after the second cycle in a further 7. Six patients showed a complete remission of the kidney function (creatinine clearance > 60 ml/min) and in seven patients a partial remission (creatinine clearance > 30 ml/min) was attained. Transient grade 3 – 4 neutropenia was reported in one patient, and grade 3 – 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 6 patients. One patient experienced a new grade 3 polyneuropathy. Summary: These results indicate that the combination of Bortezomib, Bendamustine and Prednisone is effective and tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed/untreated MM and renal failure. Disclosures: Pönisch: Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Niederwieser:Mundipharma: Research Funding.

Reversibility of Renal Impairment of Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with Bortezomib-Based Regimens: Identification of Predictive Factors.

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1725-1725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽  
Flora Zagouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Failure ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Management Problem ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Renal Response

Abstract Renal impairment (RI) is a frequent complication of multiple myeloma (MM) and a major management problem. Previous studies have shown that bortezomib is active and well tolerated in MM patients with RI and can be associated with improvement of renal function. The purpose of our analysis was to identify factors that may predict for renal impairment reversal in patients treated with bortezomib-based regimens. Over the last 5 years, 149 either newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM patients received bortezomib-based regimens in our center. Our analysis is based on 46 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed (n=10) or relapsed/refractory (n=36) MM who presented with RI defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) &lt; 50 mL/min. Median CrCl was 23 mL/min (range 6 to 48), 34 (74%) had a CrCl&lt;30 ml/min and 9 patients required renal dialysis. Sixteen patients (35%) had light chain only myeloma, elevated LDH&gt;300 IU/L was found in 24%, more than 2 gr/day of Bence Jones protein in 20 (44%) and kappa to lambda free light chain ratio was ≥8 or ≤0.125 in 25%. Patients received bortezomib (B) at standard dose and schedule, plus dexamethasone (D) (16 patients, 35%), or BD in combination with other agents such as thalidomide, doxorubicin or melphalan (30 patients, 65%). Renal complete response (RCR) was defined as a sustained increase of CrCl to &gt;60 mL/min after treatment. Renal partial response (RPR) was defined as an increase of CrCl by 50% and with improvement of renal function by at least one stage (stage IV: &lt;30 mL/min, stage III 30–59 mL/min) but with a post treatment CrCl &lt; 60 mL/min. RCR was documented in 22% of patients and RPR in 22% of patients. Thus, renal response (RCR + RPR) occurred in 20 patients (44%). The median time to renal response was 11 days (range 8 to 41). Among 9 patients who required dialysis 2 patients became independent of this procedure after the second cycle of treatment. The objective response rate (at least partial response) of the myeloma was 63%. Toxicities were similar to those seen in myeloma patients without renal failure who were treated with bortezomib-based regimens. Previously untreated patients (80% vs 33% for pretreated patients, p=0.012) and those with light chain only myeloma (69% vs 30%, p=0.012) had a higher probability to achieve renal response. Response of MM to treatment was also associated with higher rate of renal response (55% vs. 24% for non-responders, p=0.037). Creatinine clearance &lt;30 ml/min (47% vs. 33% for ClCr 330 ml/min, p=0.410), age&gt;75 years (p=0.309), corrected serum calcium ≥10,5 mg/dl (p=0.428), Bence Jones proteinuria ≥2g/day (p=0.167) or type of bortezomib regimen (BD or BD plus other agents, p=0.222) did not significantly affect the probability of renal response. Seventeen percent of patients presenting with RI died within the first 3 months after initiation of treatment. Patients with renal response had a trend for longer survival compared to those who did not achieve a renal response (79% vs 54% alive at 1 year, p=0.150). We conclude that when bortezomib-based regimens are administered to MM patients with RI, they are associated with a clinically meaningful renal response in 44% of them. Renal response is very rapid and occurred within 2 months in all patients. Previously untreated patients and those with light chain only myeloma may have a higher probability of renal response. Moreover, patients who achieved at least a partial response of their myeloma reversed RI more frequently than non-responders. Our data were derived from an unselected patient population with severe renal failure in more than two-thirds and with 20% of patients on dialysis. They provide further evidence that bortezomib-based regimens have a unique role in patients with RI.

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

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1835-1835 ◽  
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.

Bendamustine, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (BBD) As First-Line Treatment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma Who Are Not Candidates for High Dose Chemotherapy: Toxicity Comparison of Two Dose Schedules

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4047-4047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus G. Berdeja ◽  
Michael R. Savona ◽  
James Essell ◽  
Patrick Murphy ◽  
Luis Chu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Herpes Zoster ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose Chemotherapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Off Label Use ◽  
First Line ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 4047 Background: Despite significant advances, multiple myeloma is an incurable plasma cell disorder with an eventual fatal outcome. In newly diagnosed MM, combinations of bortezomib, steroids and alkylating agents, such as melphalan and prednisone, have achieved response rates in excess of 70% and have been established as a standard of care in patients (pts) who are ineligible for high dose chemotherapy. Bendamustine is a bi-functional alkylating agent with a purine-like benzimidazole ring effective as a single agent and in various combinations for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (Poenisch et al, 2007, Fenk et al, 2007). In this study, the combination of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone (BBD) was evaluated as a first-line therapy for patients with MM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed active multiple myeloma who were not candidates for high-dose chemotherapy and met standard eligibility criteria with regards to renal, hepatic and hematologic function were enrolled. The original treatment schema (schema A) consisted of: bendamustine 80 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 4; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 4, 8, 11; and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 with cycles repeating every 28 days. Patients had the option to continue on maintenance bortezomib. An interim analysis found this combination to be efficacious but relatively toxic. As a result the treatment schema was amended to the following (schema B): bendamustine 80 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8, 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 every 28 days for a total of 8 cycles or 2 cycles beyond documented CR, whichever occurred first. Again, patients had the option to continue maintenance bortezamib. Acyclovir or equivalent viral prophylaxis was recommended on schema A and became required on schema B. Responses were assessed using the IMWG criteria. AEs were assessed using the CTCAE Version 4.0. We report the results of an interim safety assessment of the amended BBD combination and compare the results to those seen with the original regimen. Results: Treatment schema A accrued 18 patients between 5/2010 and 2/2011. Ten patients were accrued from 10/2011 and 4/2012 and treated on treatment schema B. The median ages of treatment schemas A and B were 75 and 72.5 respectively, with all other characteristics within expected distributions and no major differences between the groups. No grades 4 hematologic Adverse Events (AEs) were seen. Grade 3 hematologic AEs were similar in both arms seen in 33% of patients on treatment schema A and 40% of patients on treatment schema B. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were seen in 72% of patients on treatment schema A and 60% of patients on treatment schema B. Although the preliminary Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were similar with 39% of patients on treatment schema A compared to 30% of patients on treatment schema B, a large proportion of patients on treatment schema A (39%) were unable to complete the study due to toxicity or related issues. The incidence and severity of neuropathy and herpes zoster infections were significantly different between the two schemas. Schema A had 72% of patients with any grade neuropathy, with 56% being grade 2 or worse while schema B had 40% of the patients with any grade neuropathy, all but one grade 1. Likewise, 44% of patients on the original treatment reported herpes zoster while there were no cases of herpes zoster reported for patients on the revised treatment schema. Thus far, the early response rates appear similar. Schema A had an ORR of 78% (56% >vgPR) while schema B had an ORR of 90% (40% >vgPR). Conclusions: The combination of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone is feasible and efficacious in an elderly patient population. Using the revised schema, we were able to lower treatment toxicity without adversely impacting initial efficacy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Off-label use of Bendamustine in the treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Chu:Millennium: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding.

MM-008: A Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory and Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Renal Impairment

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4730-4730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Matous ◽  
David S Siegel ◽  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
R. Donald Harvey ◽  
Claudia Kasserra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Platelet Transfusion ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide (POM) is indicated for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received ≥ 2 prior therapies including lenalidomide and bortezomib and demonstrated progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last treatment (Tx). Renal impairment (RI) is a common comorbidity of multiple myeloma (MM) occurring in 20% to 40% of pts (Eleutherakis-Papaikovou, et al. Leuk Lymphom, 2007; Knudsen, et al., Eur J Haematol, 2000). POM is extensively metabolized, with < 5% eliminated renally as the parent drug (Hoffmann, et al., Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, 2013). POM in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) has shown efficacy in pts with RRMM and moderate RI (creatinine clearance [CrCl] < 30-44 mL/min), but pts with severe RI (CrCl < 30 mL/min; serum creatinine> 3 mg/dL) were excluded from most trials (Siegel, et al., Blood. 2012; Weisel, et al., J Clin Oncol, 2013). MM-008 is a multicenter, open-label, phase 1 study assessing the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of POM + LoDEX in pts with RRMM and normal or severely impaired renal function. Methods: Pts withRRMM (≥ 1 prior Tx) and normal kidney function or mild RI (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 60 mL/min; Cohort A—control arm), severe RI (CrCl < 30 mL/min) not requiring dialysis (Cohort B), and severe RI requiring dialysis (Cohort C) were eligible. Cohort A received POM 4 mg, and Cohort B received POM 2 or 4 mg on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle, following a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. Cohort B results informed the 4 mg dosing of Cohort C. All cohorts received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 yrs) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Tx continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as any of the following: grade (Gr) 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, Gr 4 thrombocytopenia that is a ≥ 30% decrease in platelets from baseline and requires > 1 platelet transfusion, Gr 3 thrombocytopenia with significant bleeding (requiring hospitalization and/or platelet transfusion), Gr 4 infection, or ≥ Gr 3 other non-hematologic toxicity related to POM. Serial plasma samples were analyzed to generate PK parameters. Updated PK and AE data for all cohorts will be presented. Results: As of July 17, 2014, updated data for 16 treated pts were available (8 in Cohort A; 3 in Cohort B at 2 mg; 4 in Cohort B at 4 mg; and 1 in Cohort C). Median age was 67 yrs (range, 46-76 yrs), 56% were male, all had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and a median time from diagnosis of 3.8 yrs (range, 0.6-12.5). No DLTs in cycle 1 were reported for any cohort. The most common Gr ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, anemia, infection, and fatigue (Table). Median relative dose intensity was consistent across cohorts: 90% (Cohort A), 90% (Cohort B; 2 mg), 100% (Cohort B; 4 mg) and 100% (Cohort C). Three pts discontinued due to AEs (2 in Cohort A and 1 in Cohort B 4 mg); no deaths have occurred during treatment phase. Conclusion: MM-008 is an ongoing trial prospectively evaluating the PK and safety of POM + LoDEX in pts with RRMM and severe RI. Preliminary PK data support mean dose-normalized exposure in pts with RRMM being similar between those with severe RI and those with no or mild RI at the clinical dose of 4 mg; early tolerability data (after one cycle) are encouraging. Table Cohort A(n = 8) Cohort B(n = 3) Cohort B(n = 4) Cohort C(n = 1) Cohort Characteristics POM dose 4 mg 2 mg 4 mg 4 mg CrCl (mL/min) ≥ 60 mL/min < 30 mL/min without dialysis < 30 mL/min without dialysis < 30 mL/min with dialysis Safety Dose-limiting toxicities (n) N/A 0 0 0 Grade 3/4 AEs (n) Neutropenia 4 2 1 0 Anemia 3 1 2 0 Infection 3 2 0 0 Fatigue 2 0 0 0 N/A: Not applicable (4 mg POM is approved dose for population) Disclosures Matous: Celgene Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy. Harvey:Celgene Corp: Research Funding. Kasserra:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corp: Employment. Doerr:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Sternas:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene : Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shah:Celgene Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Oral RevlimidR Plus Melphalan and Prednisone (R-MP) for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 785-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Patrizia Falco ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Paolo Corradini ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Treatment Delay ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Cutaneous Toxicity ◽  
Myeloma Protein ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Protein Reduction ◽  
Dose Levels

Abstract Introduction. Lenalidomide (RevlimidR) is a novel, orally active immunomodulatory drug effective for the treatment of refractory myeloma. In this multicenter trial, we evaluate the potential additive and synergistic effect of the combination RevlimidR, melphalan and prednisone (R-MP). Materials and Methods. Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma older than 65 years were treated with 9 courses of RevlimidR (5–10 mg/day for 21days every 4–6 weeks) plus MP (melphalan 0.18–0.25 mg/kg and prednisone 2 mg/kg for 4 days every 4–6 weeks). The trial was designed to define the toxicity profile of R-MP and to analyze the efficacy of this combination. Four different dose levels were tested: 1. melphalan 0.18 mg/kg + RevlimidR 5 mg/day; 2. melphalan 0.25 mg/kg + RevlimidR 5 mg/day; 3. melphalan 0.18 mg/kg + RevlimidR 10 mg/day; 4. melphalan 0.25 mg/kg + RevlimidR 10 mg/day. Each cohort included 6 pts. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as: any grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic toxicity; grade 4 neutropenia lasting &gt;7 days; any other grade 4 hematologic toxicity and any treatment delay due to toxicity that occurred during the first cycle. All pts received ciprofloxacin and aspirin as prophylaxis. Results. At present, 24 pts (median age 72, range 61–77) received at least one R-MP course and were evaluated. No DLTs were observed in the first 2 dose levels; 1 DLT was observed with melphalan 0.18 mg/Kg and RevlimidR mg/kg (grade 4 neutropenia lasting&gt; 7 days); 2 DLTs were reached with melphalan 0.25 and RevlimidR 10 mg (1 neutropenic fever, 1 grade 3 cutaneous toxicity). After 1 cycle of R-MP, no one was in complete remission (according to the EBMT/IBMTR criteria), 2 pts (9.5%) showed a myeloma protein reduction of 75–99%, 7 pts (28.6%) a response of 50–74%, and 15 (61.9%) a response of &lt;50% (1 of these pts showed a 30% reduction in the size of soft tissue plasmacytomas), no disease progressions were observed. After 3 cycles of R-MP, myeloma protein reduction of 75–99% was detected in 1 patients (11,1%), response of 50–74% in 8 patients (55.6%) and response &lt;50% in 5 patients (33.3%), no disease progressions were observed. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 9 patients (35%). They included: 1 thrombo-embolism (4.2%); 5 grade 4 neutropenias (20.9%) ;4 grade 3 neutropenias (16.7%); 4 grade 3 thrombocytopenias (16.7%); 1 febrile neutropenia (4.2%); 2 grade 3 dermatological toxicities (8.3%); 1 grade 3 metabolic toxicity (4.2%) and 1grade 4 metabolic toxicity (4.2%). One pt discontinued RevlimidR because of grade 3 dermatological toxicity. Dose- reduction was required in 4 pts (1 grade 4 neutropenia &gt;7 days, 1 treatment delay due to toxicity, 2 grade 3 dermatological toxicities). Conclusions. R-MP was well tolerated with a manageable toxicity. Significant response rate was observed. It represents a feasible and promising approach for newly diagnosed pts who are not candidates for transplant. Fifteen additional pts were treated with the fix dose of melphalan 0.18 mg/kg + RevlimidR 10 mg/day, results are too premature to assess efficacy. An update of these data will be presented.

Recovery of Renal Function and Independence from Dialysis in Newly Diagnosed and Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients - A Single Instituition Experience.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 4847-4847
Author(s):  
Girish Ravindranathan ◽  
Tanya Indrakumar ◽  
Sohail Ahmad ◽  
Moez Dungarwalla ◽  
Pamela Kanagasabapathy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Failure ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Current Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Male To Female ◽  
Relapsed Myeloma

Abstract Background: Renal impairment occurs in up to 30% of patients who present with multiple myeloma and in up tp 50% of patients at some stage of the illness. It is known that renal impairment can be reversed in a significant number of such patients by correction of precipitating factors and rehydration but that 3–12% patients will require dialysis or other major intervention. These patient have a worse prognosis largely due to an excess of early deaths, renal failure being the major cause of death in 14% of myeloma patients and contributing factor in a further 14%. (Drayson et al UK MRC MM trials 1980–2002) We have conducted a study to look into the clinical course and outcome of all patients with renal impairment sufficiently severe to be referred to the regional renal unit in South East England between 2000 and 2007 with either newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) or relapsed disease to try to identify features which predict for better outcomes. Methods: 62 patients with MM and renal failure received treatment in our hospital over the last 8 years. Patients have been assessed for recovery of renal function and dialysis independence in two groups - newly diagnosed (n=47) and relapsed patients (n=15). They were analysed separately as the disease tends to be biologically different at presentation and relapse, and therapeutic options may be different. In addition relatively little data on relapsed myeloma with renal failure is available. Results: 14 patients in the newly diagnosed group and 4 in the relapsed group were deemed unsuitable for an active treatment approach and have been excluded from statistical analysis in this paper but will be analysed separately to try to identify factors which could improve the outcome for this group. The patients with newly diagnosed MM and actively treated had a mean age of 65.3±1.7 years (range 41.9–83.3), male to female ratio of 1.7:1 and a mean peak creatinine at presentation of 684.5±60.9 mmol/l (range 107–1820). Light chain myeloma was overrepresented and was seen in 57.5% of patients (n=19). 12 (36.3%) of 33 the new patients avoided dialysis. 21 required dialysis, of whom 8 patients (38.1%) recovered function to dialysis independence at 6 months. There were only 3 deaths at 6 months follow-up. The mean age of the relapsed patients was 61.8±3.5 years (range 34.9–80.7), male to female ratio of 2.6:1 and a mean peak creatinine at presentation of 824±118.4 mmol/l (range 231–1591). Majority of myeloma was IgA in 36.3% (n = 4). Among the 11 relapsed, 82% (n=9) required dialysis but a significant proportion, 88% (n=8), were dialysis independent at 6 months There was only one death within 6 months of a relapse. Treatments in the 2 groups varied but involved the use of regimes containing high dose steroids in most patients. Conclusions: Our data suggest that renal failure and dialysis dependence can be avoided or is reversible in a large number of newly diagnosed and relapsed myeloma patients. This study of an unselected group of patients receiving current therapy provides an important baseline against which to compare the effect of approaches involving the newer biological agents.

Sequential Approach with Bortezomib as Induction Before Autologous Transplantation, Followed by Lenalidomide as Consolidation-Maintenance in Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3419-3419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Patrizia Falco ◽  
Claudia Crippa ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Francesca Patriarca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Autologous Transplantation ◽  
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Sequential Approach ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3419 Poster Board III-307 Background Bortezomib induction before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown its efficacy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, both in association with dexamethasone alone (Harousseau JL, et al. Blood 110, 2007, abstr 450) and in combination with doxorubicin and dexamethasone (Popat R, et al. Br J Haematol 141:512-516, 2008). Lenalidomide, a less toxic and more potent thalidomide-derivative, lacks the neurotoxic effects of the parent drug and represents an optimal agent to include in maintenance regimens. Aims These observations provided the rationale for investigating a sequential approach including bortezomib as induction and lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in MM patients undergoing ASCT. Methods A hundred and two newly diagnosed patients aged 65–75 years were enrolled in 17 Italian centers. Induction (PAD) included four 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1,4,8,11), pegylated-liposomal-doxorubicin (30 mg/m2 day 4), and dexamethasone (40 mg/day: cycle 1, days 1–4, 8–11, 15–18; cycles 2–4, days 1–4). Autologous transplantation was tandem melphalan 100 mg/m2 (MEL100) followed by stem-cell support. After ASCT, patients received consolidation with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/day days 1–21 every 28 days) plus prednisone (50 mg every other day) (LP), followed by maintenance (L) with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day days 1–21 every 28 days) until relapse. Primary endpoints were safety (incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (response rate). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Time-to-event estimates analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Very good partial response (VGPR) or better was 58% after PAD induction and increased to 82% after MEL100 and to 86% during LP-L. Complete response (CR) rate was 13% after PAD induction, increased to 38% after MEL100 and to 66% during LP-L. After a median follow-up of 2 years, the 2-year PFS was 69%, the 2-year time-to-progression was 75% and the 2-year OS was 86%. During PAD induction, main grade 3–4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (10%), peripheral neuropathy (16%), and pneumonia (10%); treatment-related mortality was 3%. During consolidation-maintenance grade 3–4 AEs included neutropenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (6%), pneumonia (5%), and cutaneous rash (4%). Consolidation-maintenance treatment was well tolerated: only 4% of patients required Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor support and no patient required platelet transfusion; dermatological toxicity was easily manageable with dose-reduction and supportive therapy; no treatment-related deaths were reported. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion This is the first phase II study in newly diagnosed MM patients to date, where a sequential approach including bortezomib as induction, and lenalidomide as post ASCT consolidation-maintenance was explored. Treatment was correlated with an increase in response rate and in the depth of response (CR rate) and was generally well tolerated. These data suggest that this is a safe and effective regimen for newly diagnosed MM patients. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Patriarca: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Janssen Cilag : Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Pharmion: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria.

A Multicenter, Open Label Study of Oral Lenalidomide and Prednisone (RP) Followed by Oral Lenalidomide Melphalan and Prednisone (MPR) and Oral Lenalidomide Maintenance In Newly Diagnosed Elderly Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1940-1940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Patrizia Falco ◽  
Giulia Benevolo ◽  
Davide Rossi ◽  
Angelo Michele Carella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Autologous Transplantation ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Level 2

Abstract Abstract 1940 The combination of Melphalan-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (MPR) has shown promising results in elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients. In the transplant setting, low-dose chemotherapy (induction) precedes high-dose chemotherapy (autologous transplantation consolidation). This approach reduces tumor mass, with few side effects, before achieving the maximum cyto-reduction with autologous transplantation. The same approach has been designed for the elderly patients. Accordingly induction with lenalidomide plus corticosteroids precedes consolidation with MPR. A two-stage phase II clinical trial was planned to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) as induction, followed by Melphalan-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (MPR) as consolidation and Lenalidomide as maintenance in elderly myeloma patients. Unfit patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma older than 65 years were enrolled. No exclusion criteria were included in the protocol, to avoid the selection of fit elderly subjects only. Patients with low blood count, abnormal performance status, hepatic, renal, cardiac or pulmonary functions were enrolled. Patients received 4 RP courses (Lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks, plus Prednisone 50 mg three times/week for 4 weeks) followed by 6 MPR cycles (Melphalan 2 mg and Prednisone 50 mg three times/week, for 4 weeks plus Lenalidomide 10–15 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks) and maintenance with Lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks). Two different dose-levels of Lenalidomide were tested in combination with MP: 15 mg (dose-level 1) and 10 mg (dose-level 2). Each cohort included 12 patients, with additional 22 patients enrolled at dose-level 2. Patients were evaluated for efficacy and toxicity after completion of at least 2 MPR cycles. Forty-six patients (median age 75, range 65–88) were enrolled. Thirty-six patients were evaluable after a median of 7 cycles and a median follow-up of 8.5 months. During RP induction, the most frequent grade 3–4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia (19%), anemia (11 %), thrombocytopenia (6%). During MPR consolidation, grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (45%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Neutropenia was increased by the addition of melphalan, but both thrombocytopenia and anemia were reduced. Non-hematological toxicities were more frequent during RP cycles and reduced during MPR cycles (cutaneous rash and infections). After RP induction, at least partial response (PR) rate was 67%, at least very good partial response (VGPR) was 17%. After 2 MPR cycles, PR rate increase to 72%, including 22% of patients who achieved at least a VGPR. Conclusions. Induction with RP followed by consolidation with MPR showed a manageable safety profile and reduced the risk of anemia, thrombocytopenia and non-hematological toxicity in unfit elderly myeloma patients. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Celgene Srl: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in combination with melphalan for multiple myeloma patients at diagnosis. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Efficacy and Safety of Three Bortezomib-Based Combinations in Elderly, Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Results From All Randomized Patients in the Community-Based, Phase 3b UPFRONT Study

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 478-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Niesvizky ◽  
Ian W. Flinn ◽  
Robert Rifkin ◽  
Nashat Gabrail ◽  
Veena Charu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 478 Background: The US community-based, phase 3b randomized, open-label, multicenter UPFRONT trial compares the efficacy and safety of three bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc)-based regimens, VcD (Vc-dexamethasone), VcTD (Vc-thalidomide-dexamethasone), and VcMP (Vc-melphalan-prednisone), followed by weekly Vc maintenance, in elderly, newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This is the first phase 3 study of VcD and VcTD in this patient population. Methods: Patients with symptomatic, measurable MM were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 49 weeks of therapy: 24 weeks (eight 21-day cycles) of induction with VcD, VcTD, or VcMP (VcD: Vc 1.3 mg/m2, days 1, 4, 8, 11; D 20 mg, days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 [cycles 1–4]), days 1, 2, 4, 5 [cycles 5–8]); VcTD: Vc as before; T 100 mg/day, days 1–21; D as before); VcMP: Vc as before; M 9 mg/m2 and P 60 mg/m2, days 1–4, every other cycle), followed by 25 weeks (five 35-day cycles) of maintenance with weekly Vc 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, 22. Patients in the VcTD arm received concomitant prophylaxis with aspirin, full-dose warfarin, or low-molecular weight heparin unless medically contraindicated. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR)/near CR (nCR) and very good partial response (VGPR) rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Best confirmed responses were assessed by investigators per modified International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v3.0. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan–Meier methodology. For the first time, we report results from the entire cohort of 502 randomized patients (VcD, n=168; VcTD, n=167; VcMP, n=167), who completed up to a maximum of 13 cycles of treatment. Results: Patients in the VcD, VcTD, and VcMP arms had a median age of 74.5, 73.0, and 72.0 years, respectively, and 71%, 62%, and 72% had ISS stage II/III disease. Patients received a median of 8 (VcD), 6 (VcTD), and 7 (VcMP) treatment cycles; 50%, 38%, and 42% of patients, respectively, received Vc maintenance. Response and safety data are summarized in the table. All three Vc-based induction regimens exhibited substantial activity, with ORR of 73% (VcD), 80% (VcTD), and 69% (VcMP) during the treatment period. After a median follow-up of 21.8 months, no significant difference in PFS was observed between the treatment arms; median PFS was 13.8 months (VcD), 14.7 months (VcTD), and 17.3 months (VcMP), respectively (Figure). 1-year OS estimates were 87.4% (VcD), 86.1% (VcTD), and 88.9% (VcMP). Rates of grade ≥3 AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs during the treatment period were highest for the VcTD arm. The most common grade ≥3 AEs across all three arms during the treatment period were neuropathy peripheral (23%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (9%). Grade ≥3 pneumonia was reported in 10% (VcD), 6% (VcTD), and 6% (VcMP) of patients. AEs of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were reported in 8% (VcD), 7% (VcTD), and 2% (VcMP) of patients. Compared with rates during induction, Vc maintenance produced little additional toxicity; across all three treatment arms, only 5% of patients experienced grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy during cycles 9–13. One second primary malignancy (lung neoplasm) was reported in the VcMP arm. Conclusions: VcD, VcTD, and VcMP induction followed by weekly Vc maintenance produced similar activity in elderly, newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM patients. Patients in the VcD doublet arm appear to have similar long-term outcomes to patients in the VcTD and VcMP triplet arms. Disclosures: Niesvizky: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rifkin:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Charu:GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership. Neuwirth:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Corzo:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment.

A Randomized Phase 3 Trial Of Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Or Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) Vs Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethsone (Rd) In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 536-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Giuseppe Pietrantuono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Rd and MPR are effective treatments in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). In this study we compared a non-alkylating containing regimen (Rd) vs alkylating-based regimens (MPR/CPR) in elderly transplant ineligible NDMM pts. Methods Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nine 28-day cycles of MPR/CPR or Rd. 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; CPR: cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day (eod) in >75 years pts; lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; prednisone 25 mg every other day. 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. After induction, patients were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (25 mg eod on days 1-28), until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between October 2009 and October 2012, 659 pts were enrolled ( MPR/CPR:439 and Rd:220), and 641 pts were evaluable (MPR/CPR:430 and Rd:211). Patient characteristics were well balanced in the 2 groups: median age was 73 years in both groups, 38% of pts were older than 75 years, 27% had ISS stage III in both groups, 21% of patients both in the MPR/CPR and in the Rd groups had unfavorable FISH profile [t(4;14) or t (14;16) or del17p]. After induction, the response rates were similar in the 2 groups: at least PR rate was 75% versus 79% (p=0.52) and CR rate was 9% versus 7% (p=0.35), in the MPR/CPR and Rd group, respectively. No significant difference in response rate were reported between two alkylating containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 2-year PFS was 55% in MPR/CPR and 49% in Rd (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.66-1.12, p=0.26), and 2-year OS was 84% in MPR/CPR and 80% in Rd (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.41, p=0.71) At least one grade ≥3 hematological adverse event was reported in 51% with MPR/CPR and 29% with Rd (p<0.001), with a significant difference between the two alkylating agents (67% MPR and 31% CPR, p<0.001). At least one grade ≥3 extra-hematologic toxicities were similar in the two groups (31% with MPR/CPR and 28% with Rd, p=0.77). with no difference between two alkylating agents (31% both in MPR and CPR group). Second primary malignancies (SPM) were reported in 5 MPR patients (1 hematologic and 4 solid) in 1 CPR patient (hematologic) and in 2 Rd patients (both solid). Conclusion In a community-based population, triplet alkylating combinations did not lead to different PFS or OS clinical benefits over doublet therapy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria. Giuliani:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document