Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) in Combination with Vorinostat As Front-Line Therapy for Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): Results of a Phase 1 Study

Abstract Abstract 336 Background: The combination of lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), and dexamethasone (D) (RVD) in newly diagnosed MM patients is well tolerated and associated with a very high overall response rate (Richardson et al, Blood 2010; Kumar et al, Blood 2012). The addition of a novel targeted agent to RVD may improve depth of response as reflected by an increase in complete remission (CR) rate. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that vorinostat (Vor), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, is synergistic with bortezomib, immunomodulatory compounds and dexamethasone. Clinical studies in the relapsed setting using either bortezomib or lenalidomide with vorinostat have yielded promising results with manageable toxicity. The aim of this study was to determine the tolerability and activity of the combination of RVD with vorinostat in newly diagnosed patients with symptomatic MM. Methods: Patients (pts) received the classical RVD regimen (lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–14, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, 11 and dexamethasone 20/10 mg PO [cycles 1–4/5–8] days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 for up to 8 21 day cycles) combined with oral vorinostat (Vor), provided by Merck and Co. Inc., at 100, 200, 300 or 400 mg daily days 1 – 14 of each cycle. Pts were assigned to one of the four dosing cohorts according to the Bayesian Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) algorithm. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (Grade (G) 3 non hematologic toxicity, G4 hematologic toxicities defined as G4 thrombocytopenia of any duration; failure of recovery of neutrophils to 1,000/μL or platelets to 50,000/μL within 14 days of the last treatment; or inability to receive Day 1 dose for Cycle 2 due to continued drug-related toxicity from cycle 1) was determined in the first cycle of therapy. Toxicities were assessed and graded for all cycles using the NCI CTCAE v 3.0. Responses were assessed by modified European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Uniform Criteria. Pts with partial remission (PR) or better could proceed to autologous transplant after 4 cycles. After completion of 8 cycles, patients could continue maintenance with lenalidomide +/− bortezomib, with Vor not administered during maintenance therapy. Results: Thirty pts (median age 56 years [range 40–76], 63% men) were enrolled with 4 pts in cohort 1 (Vor 100mg), 15 pts in cohort 2 (Vor 200mg), 8 pts in cohort 3 (Vor 300 mg) and 3 pts in cohort 4 (Vor 400mg). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 200 mg Vor with RVD. Including maintenance, the median number of cycles completed was 4 (range <1 to 41) with 5 pts completing less than 4 cycles, 4 because of toxicity and one for non-compliance. Ten patients completed 4 cycles and discontinued study therapy and proceeded to autologous stem cell transplant. Eleven pts completed 8 cycles with 8 pts remaining on study having completed between 4 and 41 cycles. Five DLTs have occurred, one in cohort 1 (syncope), one in cohort 2 (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) and 3 in cohort 4 (reversible G4 thrombocytopenia without bleeding; G3 reversible, asymptomatic elevated transaminases and G5 cardiopulmonary arrest, suspected to be due to VTE but not confirmed). The most common G1 or higher toxicities included thrombocytopenia (n=30), constipation (n=25), diarrhea (n=20), fatigue (n=19), nausea (n=16), and neuropathy (n=8). Grade 3 toxicities that occurred in 10% or more of pts were thrombocytopenia (n=8), fatigue (n=5), neutropenia (n=3), cardiovascular (n=3) and neuropathy (n=3). The overall response rate (PR or better) was 100% for the 29 evaluable pts, with a very good PR (VGPR) or better of 52% and a CR rate of 28%. For those pts who completed 4 cycles, VGPR and CR rates were 60% and 32% respectively and for pts who completed 8 cycles, the rates were 64% (VGPR) and 55% (CR). At a median follow up of 11.5 months (range 1 – 31 months) there has been only one pt with progressive disease (asymptomatic relapse from CR). Conclusion: The combination of RVD with vorinostat using the classical dose and schedule proved most tolerable at 200mg Vor dosing D1-14 every 21 days. The remarkably high VGPR/CR rate after 4 cycles and favorable progression free survival suggest that this combination is very effective. Alternative dosing and schedule of Vor may improve tolerability and so enhance clinical benefit, thus warranting further study. Disclosures: Kaufman: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Off Label Use: use of vorinostat in myeloma; use of lenalidomide as induction. Shah:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harvey:Celgene: Research Funding. Heffner:Millenium: Research Funding. Richardson:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orlowski:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, BMS, Onyx, Merck; all < $10,000 per year and disclosed to my institution: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Interim Results of An Ongoing Clinical Study Suggests Efficacy and Improved Toxicity Profile with Once a Week Bortezomib with Dexamethasone In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Older Age and Co-Morbidities

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.3061.3061 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 3061-3061 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nikhil C. Munshi ◽

Saem Lee ◽

Suman Kambhampati ◽

Abid Mohiuddin ◽

Michal Rose ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Previous History ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Current Time ◽

Overall Response

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

Download Full-text

D.C.E.P. in Patients with Quad- or Penta-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117713 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2021-2021

Author(s):

Scott Goldsmith ◽

Mark A. Fiala ◽

Brandon B. Wang ◽

Mark A. Schroeder ◽

Tanya M. Wildes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Salvage Regimen ◽

Overall Response

Abstract Introduction: Despite the recent introduction of novel agents for multiple myeloma (MM), the disease remains incurable and invariably progresses through these new therapies. Patients with quad-refractory MM (refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide) and penta-refractory MM (refractory to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody as well) are left with few treatment options and poor prognoses. The chemotherapy regimen of dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin (DCEP) has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM. We and others employ DCEP as a salvage regimen, however, few outcomes data exist in this heavily pretreated population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to identify all patients who received DCEP for quad- or penta-refractory MM at our institution between 2013 and 2018. Disease response and refractoriness were defined by IMWG criteria. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) defined as PR or better. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR). Results: We identified 31 patients who received DCEP, 8 (26%) for quad-refractory and 23 (74%) for penta-refractory MM (Table 1). Twenty-eight (90%) had at least one autologous stem cell transplant, and one had a prior allogeneic transplant. Sixteen (52%) were female, 27 (87%) were white, and median age at DCEP was 60. Median number of prior treatment regimens was 8. All patients received dexamethasone (40mg/day), cyclophosphamide (400mg/m2/day), etoposide (40mg/m2/day), and cisplatin (10mg/m2/day) on days 1-4 (Lazzarino et al. 2001). Cycles were generally 28 days in length, but doses were delayed in cases of cytopenias or other toxicities. Dose reductions occurred in cases of renal impairment or prolonged cytopenias. Twenty patients (65%) received more than one cycle (range: 1-5). The overall response rate was 35%. One patient achieved CR allowing him to proceed to a second autologous transplant. One patient achieved a VGPR, 9 (29%) a PR. Four of the 8 (50%) quad-refractory patients responded compared to 7 of the 23 (30%) of the penta-refractory patients. Eleven (35%) were primary refractory to DCEP, and two patients died after one cycle prior to response assessment. The overall median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 1.5-3.8) and median OS was 6.2 months (95% CI 4.4-7.8). For responders, median DOR was 4.2 months (95% CI 3.0-5.4) and median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI 7.2-10.9). Conclusion: Quad- and penta-refractory MM carry a grim prognosis. In our retrospective study, DCEP led to a notable ORR of 35% (95% CI 19%-55%) in this very heavily-treated population, and suggests that it remains a reasonable salvage therapy. Furthermore, it supports prospective study of this regimen, possibly in combination or in comparison with other agents effective in quad- or penta-refractory MM. Disclosures Schroeder: Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: 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.

Download Full-text

Bendamustine in Patients with Quad- and Penta-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112258 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 5627-5627

Author(s):

Scott Goldsmith ◽

Mark A. Fiala ◽

Brandon B. Wang ◽

Mark A. Schroeder ◽

Tanya M. Wildes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Autologous Stem Cell Transplant ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Salvage Regimen ◽

Overall Response

Abstract Introduction: Despite significant advances in multiple myeloma (MM) therapy, disease progression through multiple novel treatments is often inevitable. Quad-refractory MM (refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide), or penta-refractory MM (refractory to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody as well) portends a poor prognosis, with few subsequent lines of treatment currently available. We and others have used bendamustine combined with corticosteroids as a salvage regimen, but there is a paucity of outcomes data in this heavily pretreated population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to identify all patients who received bendamustine with corticosteroids for quad- or penta-refractory MM at our institution between 2013 and 2018. Disease response and refractoriness were defined by IMWG criteria. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) defined as PR or better. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and duration of response (DOR). Results: Twenty-seven patients were identified; 5 patients were quad-refractory, and 22 penta-refractory (Table 1). Twenty-two (81%) patients had at least one prior autologous stem cell transplant and 1 had a prior allogeneic. The median age at time of bendamustine was 61, 52% were female, and 85% were white. All patients received bendamustine at a dose of 90mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of a 28 day cycle. Twelve patients (44%) received more than one cycle (range: 1-8). The overall response rate was 26%. While no patient achieved CR, 4 achieved VGPR and 3 a PR. Two of the 5 (40%) quad-refractory patients responded compared to 5 of the 22 (23%) penta-refractory. Sixteen (59%) were primary refractory to bendamustine and one patient went onto hospice prior to response evaluation. Overall the median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.1-1.6) and median OS was 8.7 months (95% CI 2.3-15.0). For responders (≥PR), median DOR was 6.6 months (95% CI 0.0-13.7) and median OS was 14.0 months (95% CI 0.6-27.4). Conclusion: The prognosis of quad- and penta-refractory MM remains poor. In this heavily pre-treated population, bendamustine demonstrates a 26% ORR (95% CI 11%-46%). The DOR and OS of the patients was poor but highly heterogeneous. Those who did respond to bendamustine had notably improved OS. Given the limited available options for quad- and penta-refractory MM, bendamustine remains a reasonable salvage therapy. Prospective trials are warranted perhaps including additional agents that are effective in penta-refractory patients. Disclosures Schroeder: Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: 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; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase II Trial of the Oral mTOR Inhibitor Everolimus (RAD001) in Relapsed or Refractory Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.587.587 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 587-587

Author(s):

Irene M Ghobrial ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

Betsy LaPlant ◽

John Camoriano ◽

Suzanne R. Hayman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Single Agent ◽

Waldenström’S Macroglobulinemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia ◽

Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia

Abstract Abstract 587 Background: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the anti-tumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable disease (IgM monoclonal protein >1000 mg/dL with >10% marrow involvement or nodal masses >2 cm), a platelet count ≥75,000 × 106/L, a neutrophil count ≥1,000 × 106/L, and a creatinine and bilirubin ≤2x laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every 3 cycles until progression. Results: 50 pts were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43-85). The overall response rate (CR+PR+MR) was 70% (95% CI: 55-82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95%CI: 64-89%) and 62% (95%CI: 48-80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematological toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusions: Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM, and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Treon:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Novartis: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Multi-Center, Open-Label Phase II Study of Lenalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Chinese Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma - the MM-021 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1864.1864 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1864-1864

Author(s):

Jian Hou ◽

Jie Jin ◽

Zhen Cai ◽

Fangping Chen ◽

Li Yu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Progression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Chinese Patients ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Best Response

Abstract Abstract 1864 Background: Previous studies (i.e. ECOG E4A03) have shown that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has a better safety profile compared with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM patients. It is hypothesized that Rd may also provide benefits in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The MM-021 trial is the largest study in Chinese patients with RRMM aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Rd in patients who had progressed or were refractory to previous treatment. Methods: This was a phase II, multi-center, single arm, open-label study, RRMM patients received lenalidomide (25 mg/day on days 1–21) and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression. Thromboembolic prophylaxis with aspirin or other anti-thrombotic medication was required. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (partial response [PR] or better) based on the investigator's assessment. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and PK parameters. Results: As of April 23, 2012 (median follow-up of 10.8 months), 199 patients have completed at least 1 cycle, 134 patients have completed at least 6 cycles, and 187 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Median age was 59 years (range 35–81) and 63% were male. The majority of patients (86%) had Durie-Salmon stage III disease and 57% had received ≥4 prior anti-myeloma regimens including bortezomib (64%), thalidomide (69%), or both bortezomib and thalidomide (45%). After median treatment duration of 8 months (range 1–18) or 8 cycles (range 1–19), best overall response rate (≥PR) was 54% (100 patients); including 8% (14 patients) with a best response of complete response (CR). Overall disease control (≥stable disease [SD] or better) was 95%, including 42% (78 patients) with best response of SD. Nine patients (5%) had best response of disease progression. Best overall response rates were consistent across subgroups when analyzed according to baseline renal function (creatinine clearance ≥60 mL/min: 68 patients [54%], 330 to <60 mL/min: 26 patients [52%], <30 mL/min: 6 patients [50%]) and number of prior therapies (64% if ≤2 prior regimens, 50% if >2 prior regimens). Responses were also consistent regardless of prior therapy received; 50%, 52%, and 47% for patients who previously received bortezomib, thalidomide, or both, respectively. Of the 5% (10 patients) presenting with IgD at baseline, 7 patients achieved ≥PR. Median time to first response was 2 months (range 1–12) and median duration of response was 7 months (range 0–16). The median PFS was 8 months (95% CI: 6–9) and the OS rate was 86% at 6 months and 73% at 1 year. Among the 199 patients evaluable for safety, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were anemia (25%), neutropenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and pneumonia (13%). Only 1 patient experienced febrile neutropenia. AEs led to dose reduction/interruption of lenalidomide in 40% of patients, 41% for dexamethasone; and 6.5% discontinued treatment due to one or more AEs. No patient discontinued due to anemia or neutropenia. Sixty-one patients (31%) died on study and the most common cause of death was disease progression (15 patients, 8%). Conclusions: Based on a median follow-up of nearly 11 months, the Rd regimen achieved a substantial best overall response rate (54%) in heavily pretreated RRMM Chinese patients. Response rates were consistent across subgroups including patients with renal impairment. The combination of Rd regimen was generally well tolerated. Disclosures: Hou: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Xian: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jensen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mei:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Wortman-Vayn:Celgene Corporation: Employment.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide, Cyclophosphamide, and Dexamethasone Is Superior to Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase II Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.303.303 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 303-303 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Rachid Baz ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Kenneth H. Shain ◽

Hearn J. Cho ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Best Response ◽

Randomized Phase Ii ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone results in an overall response rate of 33% and median PFS of 4.2 months in patients with prior lenalidomide and bortezomib (Richardson et al. Blood 2014). In this randomized phase II trial, we compared pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm B) versus the addition of oral weekly cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (arm C) in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously reported that the recommended phase II dose of cyclophosphamide with standard-dose pomalidomide + dexamethasone was 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had relapsed and refractory MM after at least 2 prior therapies and were lenalidomide refractory. Patients had a platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3 and ANC ≥ 1,000/mm3 (patients with ≥50% bone marrow plasmacytosis were allowed if platelet count was ≥ 30,000/mm3and ANC could be supported with GCSF during screening and therapy). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pomalidomide 4 mg PO D1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO D1, 8, 15, 22 (20 mg if older than 75 years) (arm B) with or without oral cyclophosphamide 400 mg PO D1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle (arm C). Patients randomized to arm B were allowed to cross over to arm C in the event of disease progression. Thromboprophylaxis was mandated with aspirin, warfarin, or LMWH. The primary endpoint was overall response rate using IMWG criteria. Secondary endpoints included an evaluation of PFS, OS and safety of the two arms. Results: Between 7/2012 and 3/2014, 36 patients were randomized to arm B and 34 to arm C. Patients characteristics were not different between the 2 arms (table below). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-12). All patients were lenalidomide refractory and none received prior pomalidomide. After a median follow up of 15 months, the overall response rate (partial response or better) was 39% and 65% (p=0.03) for arm B and C, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (minimal response or better) was 64% and 79% (p=0.2) for arm B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.3-5.9) for arm B and 9.2 months (95% CI 4.6-16) for arm C (log rank p=0.04). As of July 2014, 28 patients had died (16 arm B, 12 arm C) with median overall survival of 10.5 versus 16.4 months (p=0.08) for arm B and C, respectively. Hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm C, although this was not statistically significant (see table). Thirteen patients crossed over and oral weekly cyclophosphamide was added to their tolerated dose of pomalidomide dexamethasone. For those patients, the best response was as follows: 2 PR, 2 MR, and 6 SD, 3 PD. Conclusions: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone in combination with oral weekly cyclophosphamide resulted in a superior response rate and PFS compared to pomalidomide-dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. The increased hematologic toxicities, as a result of the addition of oral cyclophosphamide, were manageable. Table Arm B (N=36) Arm C (N=34) P value Age, years, median (range) 63 (50-78) 64 (47-80) 0.7 Male, n (%) 23 (64) 18 (53) 0.3 Number of prior therapies, median (range) 4 (2-12) 4 (2-9) 0.5 Bortezomib refractory, n (%) 28 (78) 24 (71) 0.3 Carfilzomib refractory, n (%) 16 (44) 13 (38) 0.5 Prior high-dose therapy, n (%) 27 (75) 28 (82) 0.6 Prior alkylating agent, n (%) 32 (89) 32 (94) 1 B2-microglobulin, median (range) 3.2 (1.6-10) 3.6 (1.5-13.9) 0.5 Serum creatinine, median (range) 1 (0.5-2.3) 0.9 (0.6-2.1) 0.6 High-risk cytogenetics, n (%) 5 (24) 6 (28) 0.8 Deletion 17p, n (%) 3 (14) 4 (20) 0.8 t(4;14), n (%) 3 (14) 3 (14) 0.9 Trisomy or tetrasomy 1q, n (%) 11 (55) 6 (33) 0.4 Best response (partial response or better), n (%) 14 (39) 22 (65) 0.03 Clinical benefit rate (MR or better), n (%) 23 (64) 27 (79) 0.2 Grade 3/4 neutropenia, n (%) 12 (33) 17 (50) 0.2 Grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia, n (%) 4 (11) 6 (18) 0.5 Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, n (%) 2 (5) 5 (15) 0.2 Grade 3/4 anemia, n (%) 3 (8) 7 (20) 0.2 Grade 3/4 pneumonia, n (%) 4 (11) 3 (9) 1 Grade 3/4 fatigue, n (%) 2 (5) 4 (12) 0.4 Number of serious adverse events 17 20 Disclosures Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karypharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide cyclophosphamide dexamethasone in relapsed refractory myeloma. Martin:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Triphase: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Shain:Onyx / Amgen: Research Funding; Treshold: Research Funding. Chari:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Melflufen, a Peptidase Targeted Therapy, and Dexamethasone in an Ongoing Open-Label Phase 2a Study in Patients with Relapsed and Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Including an Initial Report on Progression Free Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3029.3029 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3029-3029

Author(s):

Peter M. Voorhees ◽

Valeria Magarotto ◽

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Torben Plesner ◽

Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Study Drug ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Background: Melflufen is a highly potent anti-angiogenic compound that triggers rapid, robust and irreversible DNA damage and exerts its cytotoxicity through alkylation of DNA. The lipophilicity of melflufen leads to rapid and extensive distribution into tissues and cells where it binds directly to DNA or is readily metabolized by intracellular peptidases into hydrophilic alkylating metabolites. With targeted delivery of alkylating metabolites to tumor cells in vitro (such as multiple myeloma that are rich in activating peptidase), melflufen exerts a 20-100 fold higher anti-tumor potency and produces a 20 fold higher intracellular concentration of alkylating moieties compared with melphalan. Methods: Melflufen is evaluated in combination with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg weekly in an ongoing Phase 1/2a study. RRMM patients with measurable disease and at least 2 prior lines of therapy are eligible (NCT01897714). Phase 1 established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of melflufen to be 40 mg every 3 weeks in combination with low dose dex. The primary objective of Phase 2a is the overall response rate and safety of the MTD in a total of 55 patients. Response was investigator assessed at the end of each cycle by IMWG criteria. Here we present the Phase 2 data as of 14 July 2015 data-cut. Results: Thirty-one patients were dosed at the MTD. The median time from initial diagnosis to first dose of melflufen was 6 years (1-15). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (2-9). 97% of patients were exposed to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 90% to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 77% to melphalan, and 71% had received prior autologous stem cell transplant. 58% were double refractory (IMiDs and PIs) and 42% were triple refractory (IMiDs, PIs and alkylators). In total, 121 doses of melflufen have been given (1-11 cycles). Median treatment duration was 13 weeks with 9 patients still ongoing. One patient completed therapy as planned, 15 patients discontinued due to AEs (48%) and 6 due to progression (19%). Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response (protocol defined as ≥2 doses of melflufen with baseline and follow-up response assessments). One patient achieved a very good partial response and 10 patients achieved partial response (PR) (1 unconfirmed, still ongoing) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 48%. Three additional patients achieved minimal response (MR) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 61%. Time to clinical benefit and response was rapid with 93% of patients achieving ≥ MR after 1-3 cycles and 64% achieving PR after only 1-3 cycles. Eight patients maintained stable disease and 1 patient had early progressive disease. Similar ORRs were seen in PI-refractory (43%), IMiD-refractory (40%), alkylator-refractory (62%), double-refractory (38%) and triple-refractory (50%) patients. The median progression free survival (PFS) is currently at 7.6 months (95% confidence interval: 3.4 - ∞) based on 14 events in 30 patients. The most frequent adverse events (AE), all grades, occurring in >10% of patients, regardless of relationship to study drug were thrombocytopenia (94%), anemia (84%), neutropenia (61%), leukopenia (42%), pyrexia (36%), asthenia (32%), fatigue and nausea (26%), bone pain (19%), cough, diarrhea, dyspnea, mucosal inflammation and upper respiratory infection (16%) and constipation and epistaxis (13%). Treatment-related Grade 3 or 4 AEs were reported in 27 patients (87%). Those occurring in >5% of patients were thrombocytopenia (68%), neutropenia (55%), anemia (42%), leukopenia (32%) and febrile neutropenia, fatigue, pyrexia, asthenia and hyperglycemia each occurred in 6% of patients. Serious AEs occurred in 9 patients (29%), but were only assessed as related to study drug in 5 patients (16%) including 3 febrile neutropenia, 1 fever and 1 pneumonia. Cycle length has recently been increased to 28 days to improve tolerability with respect to hematologic toxicity. Conclusion: Melflufen has promising activity in heavily pretreated RRMM patients where conventional therapies have failed. The current ORR is 48% and CBR is 61%. Similar results were seen across patient populations regardless of refractory status. The median PFS is encouraging at 7.6 months. Hematologic toxicity was common, but non-hematologic AEs were infrequent. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Voorhees: Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline,Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene and Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Plesner:Roche and Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen and Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mellqvist:Celgene, Amgen, Mundipharma and Novartis: Honoraria. Byrne:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Harmenberg:Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Nordstrom:Oncopeptides: Employment. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Richardson:Oncopeptides, Celgene and Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (IRd) Consolidation Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Large Multi-Center Phase II Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-109920 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 123-123 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Nitya Nathwani ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Mark A. Fiala ◽

Abhinav Deol ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Oral Regimen ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

Phase 1/1b Study of the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Panobinostat + Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4081.4081 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4081-4081 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Jatin J. Shah ◽

Sheeba K. Thomas ◽

Donna M. Weber ◽

Michael Wang ◽

Raymond Alexanian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Single Agent ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Overall Response ◽

Elevated Creatinine

Abstract Abstract 4081 Background: Carfilzomib, a novel irreversible proteasome inhibitor (PI), has demonstrated single agent activity in, and was recently FDA approved for relapsed and refractory myeloma. Panobinostat, a potent histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi), has been studied as a single agent and in combination with bortezomib, demonstrating promising response rates and a favorable safety profile in bortezomib-refractory patients. Our hypothesis proposed that the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat (Car-Pan) would also be highly active, and we therefore aimed to combine these two agents for the first time. We report the initial findings from the phase I dose-escalation and expansion portions of our phase I/II trial of this novel combination regimen. Methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety/tolerability of Car-Pan in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Secondary objectives included determination of the overall response rate, time to progression, progression free survival, and time to next therapy. Panobinostat was administered orally on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 of every 28-day cycle, while carfilzomib was given intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16. Dose level 1 started carfilzomib at 20 mg/m2 with 15 mg of panobinostat, and escalated from there using a standard 3+3 schema based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. An amendment was later introduced to allow carfilzomib to be given at 20 mg/m2for days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by an increase to the full dose level for that cohort. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the NCI-CTCAE v4, and responses were assessed with the modified International Uniform Response Criteria. Results: To date, 20 patients have been enrolled, 3 of whom are still in their first cycle, leaving 17 evaluable patients who are described herein, who have received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–8). The median age was 62 years (range 46–73), 11/17 (70%) were male, and the median number of prior regimens was 5 (range 2–15). Patients were very heavily pretreated, with 16/17 (94%) having undergone stem cell transplantation, 16/17 (94%) having prior bortezomib, including 8/17 (47%) who were bortezomib-refractory, and 17/17 (100%) having prior lenalidomide, including 12/17 (70%) who were lenalidomide-refractory. Cytogenetic abnormalities were common, including: 4 with del(17p), 4 with t(4;14), 2 with t(11;14), 9 with del(13), of whom 7 had additional mutations. Grade 1–4 AEs regardless of causality occurring in >20% of patients included anemia (14/17), thrombocytopenia (17/17), neutropenia (8/17), diarrhea (9/17), nausea/emesis (7/17), fatigue (10/17), elevated creatinine (8/17), and pneumonia (5/17). Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of causality included anemia (7/17), thrombocytopenia (10/17), neutropenia (6/17), diarrhea (2/17), nausea/emesis (1/17), fatigue (4/17), elevated creatinine (2/17), and pneumonia (4/17). An MTD has not been established, and dosing is ongoing in cohort 4, with Carfilzomib at 45mg/m2and 20 mg of Panobinostat. Of the 17 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 35% (6/17) who achieved at least a partial response (PR); including 2 with very good PR (VGPR). In addition, one patient had a minor response, and 65% overall achieved stable disease or better. Conclusions: The combination of Carfilzomib + Panobinostat is well tolerated with a manageable side effect profile. Importantly, the combination achieves a promising response rate in a very heavily pre-treated, lenalidomide/bortezomib/high dose melphalan-refractory population, with an overall response (≥PR) rate of 35%. Updated safety and efficacy data for all patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Shah: Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: This presentation will include information about panobinostat, which is not yet approved for use in patients with multiple myeloma. Thomas:Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orlowski:Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Clofarabine, Idarubicin, and Cytarabine (CIA) As Frontline Therapy for Patients <= 60 Years with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.43.43 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 43-43

Author(s):

Aziz Nazha ◽

Farhad Ravandi ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Xuelin Huang ◽

Sangbum Choi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Hepatic Function ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Free Survival ◽

Overall Response

Abstract Abstract 43 Background Clofarabine is a second generation nucleoside analogue with activity in adults with AML. A recent randomized phase III study in relapsed AML showed higher response rates and better event-free survival (EFS) with the combination of clofarabine and cytarabine (CA) compared to cytarabine alone. A phase I/II trial of CIA in patients with relapsed/refractory AML had shown an overall response rate (ORR) of 38% (21% CR; 11% CRp). To explore this combination further, we conducted a phase II study of CIA in patients </= 60 years with previously untreated AML. Patients and Methods Eligible were patients >18–60 years with newly diagnosed AML and adequate renal and hepatic function. Patients were excluded for ECOG PS > 2, cardiac ejection fraction < 45%, or active and uncontrolled infection. For the first 30 patients, induction therapy consisted of Clofarabine (C) 22.5 mg/m2 iv daily (days 1–5), Idarubicin (I) 6 mg/m2 daily (days 1–3), and Cytarabine (A) 0.75 g/m2 daily (days 1–5). From patients 31 onward, induction doses were amended to C 20 mg/m2 × 5, I 10 mg/m2 × 3, and A 1 g/m2 × 5. Patients who did not achieve CR following induction could receive one re-induction course. Patients in CR/CRp/CRi continued with up to 6 consolidation cycles (C 22.5 mg/m2 × 3, I 6 mg/m2 × 2, and A 0.75 g/m2 × 3, subsequently amended to C 15 mg/m2 × 3, I 8 mg/m2 × 2, and A 0.75 g/m2 × 3). Results From April 2010 until February 2012, 59 patients were enrolled (Table 1). Fifty-seven patients were evaluable. Forty-two patients (74%) achieved CR and 3 (5%) CRp for an overall response rate of 79%. Ten patients required a re-induction {4/10 (40%) patients achieved CR, 2/10 (20%) achieved CRp). All patients received a median of 2 cycles (1–8 cycles), 24 (42 %) patients proceeded with an allogeneic stem cell transplant in first remission. With a median follow up of 10.9 months (1.6 - 23.1), the median OS was not reached, the median EFS was 13.5 months, and the median relapse free survival was not reached. Most toxicities were < grade 2. Toxicities > grade 2 included nausea (47%), rash (39 %), diarrhea (25%), elevated transaminases (23%), and elevated bilirubin (12%). Myelosuppression was ubiquitous but prolonged myelosuppression > 42 days was infrequent. Four week mortality was 2%. The response rate and toxicity were similar in both dose schedules. In subgroup analysis, patients < 40 years had better OS (HR 0.12, 95%CI, 0.02–0.90, P = 0.04) and EFS (HR 0.12, 95%CI, 0.02–0.93, P = 0.04) compared to patients > 40 years old. Compared to a historical group of patients who were treated with IA combination (I 12 mg/m2 IV daily × 3 plus A 1.5 g/m2 IV daily × 4) and after controlling for age, cytogenetics and other important clinical factors, the OS and EFS were significantly higher (P = 0.005, 0.0001, respectively) for CIA treated patients. Furthermore, in multivariate analysis, CIA retained its superior impact on OS (HR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.97, P =0.03) and EFS (HR 0.40, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73, P =0.003) compared to IA. Conclusion CIA is an active combination for patients </= 60 years with newly diagnosed AML. Patients < 40 years had significantly better OS and EFS. Compared to IA alone, CIA achieved significantly longer OS and EFS. A randomized comparison with standard induction therapy will be needed to further assess the role of CIA in frontline AML therapy of younger patients. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Clofarabine in AML. Ravandi:Genzyme: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Genzyme: Research Funding. Faderl:Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text