A Phase 2 Study of Bortezomib Plus High-Dose Melphalan (Mel/Vel) Conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation In Multiple Myeloma,

Abstract Abstract 4158 Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a preferred primary treatment approach for those patients who have adequate organ function and performance status. We previously reported the use of melphalan + bortezomib conditioning regimen for tandem transplants in a different group of patients with refractory myeloma (Alekshun, et al. ASH 2007). In this study, we examine the effects of adding bortezomib to standard high-dose melphalan in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who have chemosensitive disease. Methods: Thirty five newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients with responsive disease (partial response (PR) or better) to induction therapy were enrolled to the study from January 2010 to June 2011. Patients received high-dose melphalan conditioning at 100 mg/m2 IV for 2 days, immediately followed by 1 dose of bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m2 (Mel/Vel). Those patients who achieved PR post induction were considered for tandem autologous transplant with Mel/Vel conditioning. Results: To date, 35 patients received autologous HCT conditioned with Mel/Vel, and 32 are evaluable for response. Median age is 56 years (range, 25 – 72) with the following disease characteristics: IgG (n=21), IgA (n=8), IgD (n=1), light chain (n=5). High-risk cytogenetics/FISH were seen in 13 patients (37%). Median beta-2 microglobulin was 3.5 (range, 1.3 – 34.8). Sixteen patients received bortezomib-based induction, 9 patients received lenalidomide-based therapy and 10 received both bortezomib and lenalidomide. Median time from initiation of induction to transplant was 221 days (range, 134 – 664). Responses to induction therapy were stringent CR (n=10), CR (n=4), very good partial response (VGPR) (n=13), and PR (n=8). Median CD34 cell dose is 4.86 × 106/kg (range, 2 – 20.08). Neutrophil engraftment was achieved after a median of 11 days (range, 10 – 14) and platelet engraftment occurred after a median of 16 days (range, 11 – 19). Two patients received tandem HCT. Best responses post transplant were sCR (n=19), CR (n=3), VGPR (n=7), PR (n=1) and progressive disease (n=2). The one year progression-free survival (PFS) estimate is 77% (95% CI 0.59 – 0.95) and one year overall survival (OS) estimate is 96% (95% CI 0.88 – 1.00) with a median follow-up of 279 days (range, 47 – 515). We did not detect significant differences in OS (p=0.69) stratified by cytogenetic/FISH risk status. Conclusions: The combination of bortezomib and high-dose melphalan (Mel/Vel) as conditioning regimen for autologous HCT is well tolerated and appears to improve responses post transplant. This early result is encouraging and the regimen will be examined in expanded cohort of patients. Disclosures: Baz: Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allergan: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase 2 Study of High-Dose Melphalan Plus Bortezomib (Mel/Vel) Conditioning Followed By Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3987.3987 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3987-3987

Author(s):

Taiga Nishihori ◽

Jose L Ochoa-Bayona ◽

Rachid Baz ◽

Kenneth H. Shain ◽

Christine Simonelli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Funding ◽

Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽

Conditioning Regimen ◽

High Dose ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Autologous Hct ◽

High Dose Melphalan ◽

Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Abstract Background: High-dose melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains the integral component of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy in the era of novel agents. We published our prior study with the use of high-dose melphalan + bortezomib (Mel/Vel) conditioning regimen for tandem transplants in refractory MM patients (Nishihori, et al. Br J Haematol 2012). We designed a phase 2 trial using MelVel conditioning followed by autologous HCT in patients with newly diagnosed chemosensitive MM (NCT 00948922). Methods: Sixty seven newly diagnosed MM patients who achieved ≥ partial response (PR) to induction therapy with ≤grade 1 peripheral neuropathy (PN) were enrolled from 12/2009 to 06/2014. Patients received high-dose melphalan at 100 mg/m2 IV for 2 days, immediately followed by 1 dose of bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m2 (Mel/Vel conditioning). Maintenance therapy was not prescribed by design. The protocol later was modified to include maintenance bortezomib subcutaneously (started at 3 months after HCT) at 1.3 mg/m2 weekly x4, every 8 weeks, for a total of 6 cycles. Progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS) estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 67 patients received autologous HCT. The median age was 58 (25 - 73) years with the following disease characteristics: Durie-Salmon stage, 3A (72%) and 3B (10%); IgG (55%), IgA (21%), IgD (1%), and light chain (22%). High-risk cytogenetics/FISH were seen in 28% of patients. The median beta-2 microglobulin was 3.3 (range, 1.3 – 34.8). Induction regimens were bortezomib-based in 39%, lenalidomide-based in 19% and, both bortezomib and lenalidomide in 42%. Median time from initiation of induction to HCT was 204 days (range, 101 - 664). Responses prior to HCT were stringent CR (sCR) 21%, CR 12%, very good partial response (VGPR) 34%, and PR 33%. Neutrophil engraftment was achieved after a median of 11 days (range, 10 – 14) and platelet engraftment occurred after a median of 15 days (range, 11 – 22). Median CD34 cell dose was 3.8 x 106/kg (range, 2 – 20.08). Responses at 3 months after HCT (in 64 evaluable patients) were sCR 47%, CR 14%, VGPR 20%, PR 16% and progressive disease 3%. Bortezomib maintenance was prescribed to 31 patients (46%). Prevalence of grade 1 PN before (n=67) and at 3 months (n=64) after HCT were 37% and 38%, respectively. Two patients withdrew consent to initiate maintenance and 1 patient was unable to initiate maintenance due to grade 1 PN (baseline PN of 0). At the time of review, a median number of maintenance delivered was 4 (range, 1-6) and only one patient required dose reduction. The 2-year PFS and OS estimates are 62% (95% CI 0.47 – 0.75) and 90% (95% CI 0.80 – 0.97) with a median follow-up of 21 months (range, 2 – 54). The 1-year PFS estimates were 85% (95% CI 0.65 – 0.97) for bortezomib maintenance vs. 81% (95% CI 0.66 – 0.92) for no maintenance (p=0.6). There were no significant differences in PFS or OS stratified by cytogenetic/FISH risk status. There was no transplant related mortality. Conclusions: The combination of bortezomib and high-dose melphalan (Mel/Vel) as conditioning regimen for autologous HCT is well tolerated and appears to improve responses after HCT. Weekly x4 post HCT bortezomib maintenance given every 8 weeks appears to be well tolerated and is a promising strategy for eligible patients. Longer follow up is required to assess the benefit of post HCT maintenance strategy. Disclosures Baz: Millennium: Research Funding. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Phase I/II Study of Escalating Doses of Thalidomide in Conjunction with Bortezomib and High Dose Melphalan As a Conditioning Regimen for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114832 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2154-2154

Author(s):

Noa Biran ◽

Shijia Zhang ◽

Scott D. Rowley ◽

David H. Vesole ◽

Michele L. Donato ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Research Funding ◽

Conditioning Regimen ◽

High Dose ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Common Grade ◽

Grade 3 ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background: A regimen of escalating doses of thalidomide, in combination with bortezomib and high dose melphalan (Mel/Vel/Thal) was evaluated as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) in a phase I/II study. Methods: Patients received Mel/Vel/Thal as a second of tandem ASCT if they achieved <CR to their first ASCT (tandem), or as conditioning for a salvage ASCT (salvage). Exclusion criteria were dose-intense therapy within 56 days, uncontrolled infections, severe organ dysfunction, Karnofsky score <70%, or painful grade 2 or greater peripheral neuropathy. Conditioning consisted of Vel 1.6 mg/m2 intravenously on days -4 and -1 with Mel 200 mg/m2 on day -2. Thal was given on days -5 through -1 and was administered in a planned step-wise dose escalation of 600, 800 and 1000 mg (in cohorts of 3 pts). Dexamethasone (Dex) 10-20 mg was given prior to Vel and Mel. All pts received G-CSF every other day starting day +3 until engraftment. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were graded according to CTCAE version 3. Results: Twenty-nine pts were enrolled: 9 in the phase 1 dose-escalation phase and an additional 20 pts in phase 2. In the phase I portion, all pts experienced somnolence, with grade 3 occurring in 1 pt at the 800 mg/day dose. Subsequently, Dex 40 mg was given with first dose of Thal at the 1000 mg level with decreased severity of somnolence. No dose limiting toxicities defined as ≥ grade 4 non-hematological SAEs occurred in the phase I portion, allowing full dose escalation with 9 pts enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose for Thal was not reached and the 1000 mg dose was chosen for the phase 2 dose expansion. No regimen related mortality occurred in either phase I or phase II portion of the study. All SAEs except lethargy and dizziness occurred after ASCT and were not attributed to Thal. The most common grade 1 and 2 non-hematologic toxicities included nausea (65.5%), mucositis (51.7%), diarrhea (48.3%), somnolence (48.3%), lethargy (27.6%), and vomiting (17.2%). The most common grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were neutropenic fever (58.6%), mucositis (6.9%), and somnolence (13.8%), which increased risk of falls. SAEs included somnolence (13.8%), tumor lysis syndrome (3.4%), and engraftment syndrome (3.4%). All transplant-related SAEs resolved by day +28 after ASCT. All pts achieved prompt hematological recovery with the median time to ANC >500/uL 10 days (range, 8-14 days), and platelet >20,000 12 days (range 9-26 days). All pts received at least one ASCT prior to enrolling on the study. Seventeen pts (59%) had interim salvage chemotherapy between their upfront and Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT (i.e. received a salvage ASCT), with median time from first to salvage ASCT 29 months. The remaining 12 (41%) went directly from an upfront ASCT Mel-based ASCT to the Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT (tandem ASCT) within 6 months of the first ASCT. Twenty-seven (93%) were Durie-Salmon stage III, and 13 (44%) had >2 prior lines of therapy. Of those who had Mel/Vel/Thal as a salvage ASCT, 70% had ≥3 prior lines of therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69% with 38% complete remission. ORR for Mel/Vel/Thal compared to upfront Mel ASCT was 69% versus 62% with 11 patients achieving CR with Mel/Vel/Thal compared to 5 patients with Mel alone (Figure 1). Ten of 27 evaluable patients (37%) had an upgrade in response in the Mel/Vel/Thal salvage ASCT compared to their upfront ASCT: 2 pts (7%) went from PD to PR, 1 (4%) from SD to CR, 1 (4%) from PR to VGPR; 3 (11%) from PR to CR and 2 (7%) from VGPR to CR. Median PFS and OS were 9.3 and 65.4 months, respectively, with a median follow-up of 17.8 months. Of those who underwent tandem Mel followed by Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT the median PFS was 14.9 months with a median OS not yet reached at time of analysis. For the 17 patients who received a salvage Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT, median PFS from their upfront ASCT was 11.9 months, compared to 9.1 months with the salvage Mel/Vel/Thal ASCT. Conclusions: High-dose Thal up to 1000 mg daily for 5 days can be safely combined with Vel and dose-intense Mel as an ASCT conditioning regimen with acceptable toxicities. Confirmation of potential synergistic effects of this combination regimen will require an appropriately designed phase III study. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Biran: BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Skarbnik:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Dose Escalation Phase 2 Trial of Carfilzomib Combined with Thalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethason in Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma. a Trial of the European Myeloma Network

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.2118.2118 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 2118-2118 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Emilie Asselbergs ◽

Bronno Van der Holt ◽

Sonja Zweegman ◽

Marie jose Kerstens ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stem Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase 2 Trial ◽

High Dose Melphalan ◽

Dose Levels

Abstract Background: Carfilzomib has significant activity in newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM). We present an update of a Phase 2 trial of dose-escalated Carfilzomib combined with Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (CTd). Introduction: This investigator sponsored, dose escalation phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of standard dose Carfilzomib (C) (20/27 mg/m2) combined with Thalidomide (T) and Dexamethasone (D) (CTd) as induction therapy followed by high-dose Melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), followed by consolidation therapy with CTd in transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM,. The second objective was to establish the maximum tolerated dose of Carfilzomib in this combination. Fifty patients were included in the first part who received 4 cycles of C at 20 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 & 2 followed by 27 mg/m2 on days 8, 9, 15, 16 of cycle 1 and on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of all subsequent 28-day cycles, T 200 mg p.o. days 1 through 28 of a 28 day cycle and D 40 mg p.o. on days 1, 8, 15 & 22 of a 28 day cycle. In the second part 3 cohorts of 20 patients each were treated with escalated dose of C at 20/36 mg/m2,20/45 mg/m2 and 20/56mg/m2, respectively with T and D at the same dose. Stem cell harvest was performed with cyclophosphamide 2 g/m2 and G-CSF. Patients received high-dose Melphalan (HDM, 200 mg/m2) and ASCT, followed by consolidation therapy consisting of 4 cycles CTd with C 27 mg/m2 (part1, n=50) or 36 mg/m2 or 45 mg/m2 or 56 mg/m2 days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of a 28 day cycle, respectively, combined with T 50 mg days 1-28 of a 28 day cycle and D 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 of a 28 day cycle. Thrombosis prophylaxis was prescribed. The primary endpoint was very good partial response (VGPR) after 4 CTd cycles: secondary endpoints were complete response (CR), stringent CR (sCR) and overall response (≥ PR) according to IMWG criteria pre- and post HDM, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 111 patients were included as of 1st July 2014. We here report the response of all cohorts with a median follow-up of 34, 19, 12 and 6 months, respectively. Median age was 58 yr and ISS stages II and III were 40% and 27%, respectively. The CTd regimen was well tolerated. Fifteen patients discontinued treatment because of non-eligibility (n=3), refusal (n=2), toxicity (n=7) or progression (n=3). Safety analysis was available for all treatments in cohorts 27mg/m2 through 45mg/m2 and for induction cycles in cohort 56mg/m2. Non-hematological SAEs for the two lower dose levels were infections (n=8), polyneuropathy gr 2 (n=5), cardiac (n=3) and tumor lysis syndrome (n=2) (ASH 2013). Non-hematological SAEs for dose level 45mg/m2 (n=22) included thrombosis (n=1), reversible gastrointestinal event (n=2) and infections (n=5). At dose level 56mg/m2 SAEs were thrombosis (n=2), infections (n=3), reversible cardiac event (n=1). In 111 patients 4 cardiac events were observed (2 grade 2, 2 grade 3) 3 of which resolved completely. Two patients discontinued therapy because of thrombosis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Stem cell harvest was successfully accomplished with >3x10*6 CD34+ yield in 85/85 patients and HDM/ASCT was performed with complete hematologic recovery in 77/78 patients. The primary endpoint ≥VGPR and CR was achieved in 94% and 56% (27mg/m2), 75% and 65% (36mg/m2), 91% and 55% (45mg/m2), 75% and 20% (56mg/m2, induction only). Of 25 CRs in dose levels 36mg/m2 and 45mg/m2, 9 (36%) were stringent CR with no clonal plasma cells in bone marrow and negative serum-free lite. VGPR + CR increased from 63% after induction to 73% after HDM/ASCT and 86% after consolidation, respectively. For CR these figures were 18%, 34% and 58%, respectively. Overall response and CR were not significantly different between dose cohorts. Responses did not differ between poor risk (gain 1q or t(4;14) or del17p) and standard risk FISH. At a median follow-up of 21 months for dose levels 27mg/m2, 36mg/m2 and 45mg/m2 ,78% of patients are alive without progression or relapse. PFS at 18 months is 88 %. Three patients died of myeloma. There were 2 second primary malignancies. Analyses for revised ISS and molecular subgroups will be presented. Conclusion: C combined with T and D is a safe and effective regimen for newly diagnosed MM. Dosing of Carfilzomib up to 56mg/m2 was well tolerated. This trial was registered as NTR2422. Carfilzomib and an unrestricted study grant were provided by ONYX Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary. Disclosures Sonneveld: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Consolidation Followed By Maintenance Therapy Versus Maintenance Alone in Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Randomized Phase 3 Study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.242.242 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 242-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Meral Beksac ◽

Bronno van der Holt ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Angelo Michele Carella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Primary Study ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background The role of up-front consolidation for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible MM (NDMM) patients (pts) has not yet been prospectively addressed in the novel agents era. Methods The EMN02/HO95 trial was designed to randomly (R) compare (R1) 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), either single or double, as intensification therapy after induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) (M Cavo et al, ASCO 2016, abstract #8000). A second randomization to consolidation therapy with 2 cycles of VRD vs no consolidation (R2) was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance (lenalidomide 10 mg continuously) until progression or toxicity in both arms. (VRD: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1 - 21; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 28 days cycle). Primary study end points were progression-free survival (PFS) from R1 and PFS from R2. A first planned interim analysis for R2 was performed in July 2016 when at least 33% (= 172) of the required events for PFS had been observed. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 pts aged ≤ 65 years with symptomatic MM were enrolled, of whom 1499 were eligible. Of these, 1211 were randomized (stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (505 pts) or HDM (1 or 2 ASCT) (706 pts). For R2 903 eligible patients were randomized to consolidation (459 pts) or no consolidation (444 pts). Median follow up from R2 was 25 months (maximum 53). Response status at time of R2 was ≥ CR (23%), ≥ VGPR (67%), ≥ PR (93%), and will be updated for status at start of maintenance. At the time of analysis, 258 events for PFS after R2 had been reported. 3-year. PFS from R2 was 62% in all patients, i.e., 60% without consolidation and 65% in patients with consolidation, and median PFS had not yet been reached. PFS from R2 with adjustment for R1 was prolonged in pts randomized to VRD (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.61-1.00; P=0.045), a benefit retained across predefined subgroups with revised ISS stage III (HR=0.67; P=0.26) and in patients randomized in R1 to VMP (HR=0.76; P=0.19) and to HDM (HR=0.79; P=0.13). The benefit of consolidation was observed in patients with low-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.68; P=0.03), but not in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); HR=1.03; P=0.91). At 3 years OS from R2 was 86% and 87%, respectively. Toxicity from VRD was limited with 5% CTCAE grade 4, mainly hematological. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by Lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity shows promising results as compared to maintenance alone for younger NDMM pts, but further study follow-up is needed. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR 2528, EudraCT 2009-017903-28 This trial was supported by unrestricted grants from Celgene and Janssen. Disclosures Sonneveld: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Carella:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Driessen:janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma-EDO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schjesvold:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment, Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Bortezomib, Doxorubicin, Dexamethasone (PAD) Vs VAD Followed by High-Dose Melphalan (HDM) and Maintenance with Bortezomib or Thalidomide In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.40.40 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 40-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Ingo Schmidt-Wolf ◽

Bronno van der Holt ◽

Laila el Jarari ◽

Uta Bertsch ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

High Dose Therapy ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Full Dose ◽

Dose Therapy ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 40 Introduction: This independent trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of bortezomib (B) during induction and maintenance on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM, who were candidates for high-dose therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 cycles of standard VAD (arm A) or PAD (Arm B); PAD was dosed as B 1.3 mg/m2, days 1,4,8,11, doxorubicin 9 mg/m2, days 1–4, dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20). Patients received one (HOVON) or two (GMMG) high-dose melphalan (HDM) 200 mg/m2 with ASCT. Maintenance consisted of thalidomide (T) 50 mg daily (arm A) or B 1.3 mg/m2, 2-weekly (arm B) for 2 years. Primary endpoint was PFS, other endpoints were complete response (CR) (EBMT), immunofixation positive CR (nCR), VGPR pre-and post HDM and survival (OS). The protocol specified analysis was intention-to-treat and censored for patients who received allo-SCT after HDM1 (n=46). We report the analysis of the first 626 randomized patients. The final analysis of all patients will be presented at the meeting. Results: 13 patients were excluded (7 not eligible, 6 not evaluable). The two arms (A:n=305;B:n=308) were well balanced for age, Salmon/Durie stage II/III, renal failure (11%), and serum B2M. Medium follow-up is 40 months. 89% of patients completed induction and HDM1. In GMMG after HDM1 80% of patients received 2nd HDM. Full dose B could be administered in 82% of patients. Polyneuropathy (PNP) WHO gr 3+4 occurred in 7% (arm A) and 16% (arm B). 204 (67%, arm A) and 174 (57%, arm B) patients started maintenance. 64% of patients tolerated full dose B and 27% reduced dose. 47% of patients on B maintenance went off protocol because of toxicity (9%), progression (29%) or other (9%). In contrast 64 % on T maintenance went off protocol because of toxicity (31%), progression (31%) or other (2%). nCR/CR rates were 7/9% (arm A) vs 9/21% (arm B) at 3 months after HDM-1 and 12/26% (arm A) vs 12/38% (arm B) on protocol. ≥VGPR in arm-A vs arm-B were 40% vs 60% after HDM-1 and 61% vs 75% on protocol. PFS was superior in arm B (HR 0.81, p=0.047; adjusted for ISS: HR 0.81, p=0.056). PFS at 36 months was 42% (arm A) vs 46% (arm B). Multivariate Cox regression showed treatment arm (p=0.037), IgA (p=0.007), ISS stage (p=0.007), WHO Performance Status (p<0.0001), del13/13q- (p=0.015) and study group (2nd HDM) (p=0.015) as significant PFS variables. Patients treated with bortezomib had a better OS (HR 0.74, p=0.048), with study arm, WHO, IgA, ISS stage and del13/13q- as significant variables. Subgroup analysis of response at 12 months showed no impact on PFS and an impact of VGPR/nCR/CR on OS only in arm A. Adverse cytogenetic markers (p<0.05) in the combined group were 13q14, 17p-, t(4;14) for PFS and OS. Detailed FISH data are reported separately. The response and survival data of the subgroup analysis are given below. We conclude that B achieves high nCR/CR during induction, that B maintenance is well tolerated and is associated with additional responses. Bortezomib achieves superior PFS and results in an improvement of survival. This trial (EudraCT no. 2004-000944-26) was supported by the Dutch Cancer Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and a grant from Janssen-Cilag. Disclosures: Sonneveld: 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; millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: bortezomib, induction treatment prior to high dose therapy. Schmidt-Wolf:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. van de Velde:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Delforge: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. Weisel:orthobiotech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scheid:orthobiotech: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; orthobiotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

The Result of a Phase 1 Study of Selinexor in Combination with High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131321 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3314-3314 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Taiga Nishihori ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Jose Ochoa ◽

Omar Alexis Castaneda Puglianini ◽

Rachid Baz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Level ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

High Dose ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Level 3 ◽

Autologous Hct ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Background: High-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains a crucial treatment modality for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Strategies to improve the conditioning regimen have been explored with addition of novel targeted therapies previously with limited success. Selinexor, an orally available selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE), targeting Exportin-1 (XPO-1), was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for relapsed/refractory MM. Our pre-clinical data show synergy between selinexor and bifunctional alkylating agents in several MM models. Therefore, we hypothesized that the addition of selinexor to high-dose melaphalan would be safe and improve outcomes of autologous HCT in MM. Methods: We designed a single institution, standard 3+3 dose escalation phase 1 study to evaluate the combination of selinexor (given at 40 mg po (dose level 1); 60 mg (dose level 2); and 80 mg (dose level 3) on days -3 and -2 before melphalan) and high-dose melphalan (100 mg/m2 IV on days -3 and -2) as a conditioning regimen for autologous HCT in patients with MM achieving either partial response (PR) or very good partial response (VGPR) after less than 4 lines of systemic anti-myeloma chemotherapy (NCT02780609). The primary objective was to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and identify a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results: From 08/2017 to 03/2019, a total of 12 MM patients (pts) received autologous HCT under the phase 1 protocol at Moffitt Cancer Center. Baseline characteristics included: a median age of 57 (range, 43-69); M:F = 7:5; IgG subtype=9, light chain type=2, IgD subtype=1; 92% with Durie-Salmon stage 3; 22% with high-risk disease based on del17p/t(4;14) (2/9, n=3 with unknown risk); a median number of induction=1 (range, 1-2); all received bortezomib-based induction, 83% received immunomodulatory agent, 17% received daratumumab. Pre-HCT responses were PR=4; VGPR=8. Pts received a median of 4.16 (range, 2.16-5.73) million CD34+ cells/kg. Neutrophil engraftment occurred with a median of 11 (range 11-12) days, and a platelet engraftment with a median of 15 (range, 10-36) days. Three pts each entered in dose level 1 and 2; and 6 pts at dose level 3. One pt in dose level 2 did not receive dexamethasone on day -1 due to grade (G) 3 hyperglycemia. One pt in dose level 3 (80 mg selinexor) did not receive day -2 dose of selinexor due to liver function test (LFT) abnormality (ALT > 2x ULN) which was considered as dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) as second dose of selinexor was not given. LFTs normalized after HCT. Dose level 3 was expanded to 3 additional pts and no additional DLTs were observed. Treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) included: G3 febrile neutropenia=3, G3 diarrhea=1, G3 nausea=1, G3 small bowel obstruction=1, G3 acute kidney injury=1, G3 lung infection=1. Post-HCT responses at day +90 were complete response (CR)=2, VGPR=6, PR=3, and progression=1. CR conversion rate was 16.7% though phase 1 portion of the study was not powered to evaluate the CR rate. Therefore, RP2D was established as selinexor 80 mg on days -3 and -2. The study is proceeding to the phase 2 portion to assess the efficacy of this combination. Conclusions: The combination with selinexor 80 mg po with high-dose melphalan at 100 mg/m2 on days -3 and -2 (dose level 3) was well tolerated and engraftment kinetics were not altered. A phase 2 study of selinexor 80 mg with high-dose melphalan and autologous HCT is ongoing (NCT02780609). Disclosures Nishihori: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Alsina:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Shain:Sanofi Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brayer:Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Sullivan:Karyopharm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Selinexor in combination with high-dose melphalan

Download Full-text

Melphalan/Prednisone/Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients <65 Years: Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3069.3069 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3069-3069 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Federica Cavallo ◽

Izhar Hardan ◽

Barbara Lupo ◽

Valter Redoglia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stem Cell ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Patients ◽

High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 3069FN2 Background: High-dose chemotherapy with haemopoietic stem-cell improves outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in MM patients. Aims: In this prospective randomized study, we compared conventional melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) in newly diagnosed MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods: All patients (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1, 8, 15, 22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) consisting of six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 MEL200 (N=200) with stem-cell support. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (stages 1 and 2 vs. stage 3) and age (<60 vs. ≥60 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results: Response rates were similar: at least very good partial response (≥VGPR) rate was 60% with MPR vs. 58% with MEL200 (p=.24); the complete response (CR) rate was 20% with MPR vs. 25% with MEL200 (p=.49). After a median follow-up of 26 months, the 2-year PFS was 54% in MPR and 73% in MEL200 (HR=0.51, p<.001). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups: 87% with MPR and 90% with MEL200 (HR 0.68, p=.19). In a subgroup analysis, MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS in both standard-risk patients without t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 46% in the MPR group vs. 78% in the MEL200 group, HR=0.57, p=.007) and high-risk patients with t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 27% for MPR vs. 71% for MEL200, HR=0.32, p=.004). In patients who achieved CR, the 2-year PFS was 66% for MPR vs. 87% for MEL200 (HR 0.26; p<.001); in those who achieved a partial response (PR), the 2-year PFS was 56% for MPR vs. 77% for MEL200 (HR 0.45; p<.001). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs. 89% (p<.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs. 17% (p<.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); the incidence of second tumors was 0.5% in MPR patients and 1.5% in MEL200 patients (p=.12). Deep vein thrombosis rate was 2.44% with MPR vs. 1.13% with MEL200 (p=.43). Conclusions: PFS was significantly prolonged in the MEL200 group compared to MPR. This benefit was maintained in the subgroup of patients with standard- or high-risk cytogenetic features. Toxicities were significantly higher in the MEL200 group. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with conventional therapies including novel agents. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:celgene: Honoraria. Ria:celgene: Consultancy. Caravita Di Toritto:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124403 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1835-1835 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Katrina M Piedra ◽

Hani Hassoun ◽

Larry W. Buie ◽

Sean M. Devlin ◽

Jessica Flynn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cancer Trial ◽

Oncology Research ◽

Increased Risk

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

Download Full-text

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