Phase 1/2 Trial of a Novel CDK Inhibitor Dinaciclib (SCH727965) in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Demonstrates Encouraging Single Agent Activity

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 76-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaji K. Kumar ◽  
Betsy R. LaPlant ◽  
Wee Joo Chng ◽  
Jeffrey A. Zonder ◽  
Natalie Callander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Small Molecule ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
M Protein

Abstract Abstract 76 Background: We measured proliferation in MM cells transfected with 13,984 small interfering RNAs in the absence/presence of increasing concentrations of bortezomib (BTZ) and identified 37 non lethal genes as reproducible BTZ sensitizers. The strongest hit was CDK5 a gene expressed at high levels in MM and neural tissues with relatively low expression in other organs suggesting a large therapeutic window. The small molecule CDK5 inhibitor Dinaciclib is a novel, potent, small molecule inhibitor of cyclin dependent kinases (CDK). It selectively inhibits CDK1, CDK 2, CDK 5 and CDK9 with 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50) in the low nanomolar concentration. Based on these data, we undertook the current trial to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose of Dinaciclib in this patient population as well as assess the efficacy of single agent Dinaciclib in relapsed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM and measurable disease were enrolled on this phase 1/2 trial provided they had not more than 4 prior lines of therapy for MM, had adequate performance status and organ and hematological function. Patients receiving strong inhibitors/inducers of CYP3A4 were not allowed unless the drugs could be discontinued. The primary objectives were to (i) to determine the MTD of dinaciclib in subjects with relapsed MM (phase 1) and (ii) to evaluate the confirmed response rate with dinaciclib in patients with relapsed MM (phase 2). Dinaciclib was administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle at doses of 30–50 mg/m2. Dose escalation was done using a 3+3 design and MTD was defined as one dose level below that resulted in >=2 DLTs among 6 patients. Results: Overall, twenty-nine patients were accrued to this study (19 phase I, 10 phase II) from July 2009 to December 2011. Two patients were replaced for study violations and are not included in analysis. The Phase II analysis included the 6 patients treated at the Phase I dose level 50mg/m2 as well as the first 9 patients accrued to the Phase II portion (15 evaluable patients). The median age of the 27 evaluable patients was 66 (range, 49–81); 52% were male. The median duration from diagnosis was 42 months (range, 7–207 months); median number of prior therapies was 4 (range, 1–5). Overall, 11 (41%) patients were considered high-risk by FISH and 56% were ISS stage III at study entry. Patients have received a median of 2 cycles (range: 1–12) and all patients have discontinued treatment for disease progression (18), alternative Treatment (2), adverse Event (4), or other reasons (3). One dose limiting toxicity was seen over all dose levels. One patient at 40 mg/m2 experienced grade 3 constipation possibly related to treatment. The dose level of 50 mg/m2 was determined to be the MTD for the Phase II portion. The overall confirmed response rate was 3 of 27 (11%); including two patients at 40 mg/m2 dose (1 VGPR, 1 PR) and one patient at 50 mg/m2 dose (1 VGPR) with a PR or better. In addition, two patients at 50 mg/mg2 dose have achieved an MR; translating to an overall response rate of 18.5% (5 of 27). Figure 1 shows a waterfall plot of the M protein responses among patients with a measurable M spike. Overall, 21 patients had disease progression and 14 patients have died. Median follow-up for patients still alive is 11.8 months (range: 6.5–19.3). Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were the most common hematological AEs, and gastrointestinal symptoms, alopecia, and fatigue, were the most common non-hematological AEs seen in the study. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates potential single agent anti-myeloma activity of dinaciclib in a relapsed MM patient population with 2 patients achieving a deep response (VGPR) and many patients obtaining some degree of M protein stabilization or decrease. Ongoing studies are examining dinaciclib in combination with proteasome inhibitors, exploring both weekly and every three-week dosing schedules. Disclosures: Zonder: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Pomalidomide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (PVD) for Patients with Relapsed Lenalidomide Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 304-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Betsy R. LaPlant ◽  
Kristina M Laumann ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD®) that has been approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combinations of IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors offer the potential for deeper and more durable responses due to enhanced efficacy. Preliminary results of a phase 1 study of twice weekly bortezomib with pomalidomide have been reported with promising results (Richardson, ASH 2012). This phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) as well as safety and efficacy of the combination of pomalidomide, once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVD) in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, MM. Patients and methods: We included patients with relapsed MM who had 1-4 prior lines of therapy and were resistant or refractory to lenalidomide. In the phase I portion of the trial, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide 4 mg days 1-21 PO, bortezomib 1.0mg/m2 days 1,8,15, and 22 IV or SQ and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1,8,15, and 22 PO, given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3mg/m2 for dose level 2 and and was adopted for the phase 2 portion. The primary aim of the phase I cohort was to determine the MTD of the combination, and for the phase II cohort was to evaluate the confirmed response rate (PR, VGPR, or CR) in relapsed refractory MM. Response was assessed by the IMWG criteria and toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Results: 50 patients were accrued between March 2012 and July 2014 (dose level (DL)1: 3, DL 2: 6, Phase II: 41). We describe results in 47 patients treated at MTD and phase II. Median age was 66, 51% were female and median time from diagnosis to study was 46 months (15-142). Twenty five percent had mSMART defined high-risk status. Median number of prior regimens was 3. All patients had prior lenalidomide, 68% had stem cell transplant, 17% received thalidomide, 56% had alkylators and 57% had bortezomib. With median follow up of 9 months, 72% remain progression free, 96% are alive and 66% remain on treatment. The most common AEs at least possibly attributable to the combination were anemia, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia; however, the majority of these were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 AEs (regardless of attribution) that occurred in at least 3 patients included neutropenia (29), leukopenia (15), lung infection (6), lymphopenia (8) dyspnea (3) and syncope (3). DVT/PE occurred in one patient. Among the 42 patients who were evaluable, confirmed responses (PR, VGPR, or CR) were seen in 34 (81%) including sCR (3), CR (5), VGPR (8), PR (18). Confirmed responses were seen in 9 of 11( 82%) high risk patients. Median progression free survival was 17.7 months (95%CI: 9.5-NA). Conclusions: PVD is a highly effective combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide with confirmed responses in over 80%. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced the tolerability and convenience of this regimen. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy or DVT. PVD is a highly attractive option in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Lust:Senesco: PI Other. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

scholarly journals A Phase I Study of Lenalidomide and Cytarabine in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2318-2318
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Griffiths ◽  
William Brady ◽  
Wei Tan ◽  
Carlos E Vigil ◽  
James E. Thompson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Acute Myeloid ◽  
Intermediate Dose

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (r/r) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) remains a therapeutic challenge. Although cytarabine arabinoside (AraC) is the most active drug, constituting the backbone of a majority of r/r regimens, the benchmark response to therapy remains a dismal 17 to 20% (Burnett, Wetzler et al. JCO, 2011.). The immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (Len), is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for multiple myeloma and myelodysplasia and has demonstrated activity as a single agent in AML at doses as high as 50 mg for 21 days (d) of a 28 d cycle (Blum et al, JCO, 2010.). Based upon this activity profile we developed a phase I study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Len in combination with AraC in patients with r/r AML. Methods: Eligible patients were older than 18 years(y), had r/r AML with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status better than 2 and adequate renal and hepatic function. Patients were excluded for active CNS disease, uncontrolled infections, congestive heart failure, adrenal insufficiency, anti-cancer therapy within 14 d of enrollment, or prior exposure to Len. All enrolled patients had to practice appropriate contraception. Patients received AraC 1.5 g/m2/d over 3 hours on d 1-5 of a 28 day cycle, with a plan for standard 3+3 Len dose escalation. Initial patients received Len 25 mg on d 6-10 (n= 3), subsequent patients received doses between 25 and 10 mg (dose de-escalation) on d 6-26 with 2 d of rest prior to the next cycle. Following induction, patients who had residual AML (>5%) could receive a second identical course of therapy, provided they demonstrated an improvement in blast percentage relative to baseline. Patients who achieved CR received maintenance with Len 10 mg/d continuously. A 12 patient expanded cohort was enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to assess efficacy. Responses were assessed by International Working Group Criteria for AML (Cheson B et al. JCO, 2003.). Patient Characteristics: Fifty-one patients were consented and 45 were treated on study, 32 of these were evaluable for response, all patients were evaluated for toxicity. Approximately half the patients were female (20/45). The median age was 66 y (range 33-82) and median WBC 2.42x109/L (range 0.18-63.15). Four patients (8%) had an antecedent hematological disorder. By European LeukemiaNet criteria 2 patients (4%) had favorable risk disease, 8 (18%) were Int-1, 12(27%) were Int-2 and 11 (24%) were adverse risk; 12(27%) patients were not evaluable by ELN due to lack of karyotype or molecular data from diagnosis. Twelve patients had primary refractory AML. Results: The MTD for Len given on d 6-26 in combination with AraC at 1.5 g/m2/d x 5 d was 10 mg. Dose de-escalation from the starting dose of 25 mg on this schedule was required due to excess toxicity. The most commonly observed non-hematologic drug related adverse events seen on the study (all < grade 2 unless indicated) were nausea, increased liver function tests (>grade 3), rash (grade >3), hypokalemia (> grade 3) and fatigue. At the 25 mg dose level the dose limiting toxicity was rash, while patients enrolled at the 15 mg dose level experienced dose limiting elevation in LFTs, fatigue and bleeding. Five patients achieved a CR (16%), 5 demonstrated CRi (16%) and there were 3 hematological improvements (HI) for an overall response rate (CR+Cri+HI) of 41% (13/32). The median overall survival (OS) (95% confidence interval) for patients treated on study was 5.8 (2.5, 10.6) months and disease free survival was 3.4 (2.3, 6.2) months. Conclusions: Although prior interesting data support the activity of single agent high dose Len in r/r AML, our single institute phase I study of intermediate dose AraC followed by Len was associated with marked skin and other toxicities at the Len 25 mg dose level, precluding dose escalation to the historically more active 50 mg dose. The CR rate in this study was not dissimilar to previously reported responses with single agent or combination AraC based regimens. Issues of dose and schedule for this combination may have had a significant impact on the potential benefit for these two drugs in combination. Nevertheless, the overall low CR rate from this study does not suggest any superiority for this combination in comparison with the historical single agent response rate for intermediate dose AraC in r/r AML. Disclosures Griffiths: Celgene, Incyte and Alexion: Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Other. Wetzler:MedPace: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sigma Tau: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; Plexus: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding.

Doxil (D), Vincristine (V), Reduced Frequency Dexamethasone (d) and Revlimid(R) (DVd-R) a Phase I/II Trial in Advanced Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RMM) Patients.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 208-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad A. Hussein ◽  
Mary Ann Karam ◽  
Catherine Brand ◽  
Greg L. Pearce ◽  
Janice Reed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
High Response Rate ◽  
M Protein ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract DVd in combination with Thalidomide (T) and the appropriate supportive care measures resulted in a high response rate (88%) as well as an improved quality response (50% CR & NCR) similar to what is achieved with high dose therapy. Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are potent T derivatives. R is 50 to 2000 times more potent than T in stimulating T-cell proliferation triggered via the T-cell receptor, and 50 to 100 times more potent than T in augmenting IL-2 and IFN-a production. A recent phase I trial showed responses of at least 25% reduction in paraprotein in 17 (71%) of 24. We therefore initiated a phase I/II trial to define MTD of R in combination with DVd, then we proceeded to expand the MTD dose level to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination in patients with Rmm. SWOG criteria were used to assess response, and NCR was defined as a decrease of the M-Protein by >90%. Refractory patients were defined as those patients progressing on active therapy. R was started a week prior to DVd in cycle 1 to evaluate different coagulation parameters, from there on R was started on day 1 of therapy. The regimen was given as follows: on day 1 D was given at 40 mg/m2 IVPB; V at 2 mg IVP; d at 40 mg PO daily X 4 days; R was started at 5 mg a day for 21 days with one week off. A standard phase 1 dose escalation of R was performed to identify the MTD. 3 pts were enrolled at each dose level, with up to 6 pts assigned to each dose level, depending on DLT. DVd was repeated q 4W, for a minimum of 4 cycles & 2 cycles after best response. Pts were maintained on R +/− prednisone 50 mg QOD. All patients received amoxicillin, acyclovir and aspirin 81mg prophylactically. 25 pts Rmm pts are enrolled with 21 evaluable for toxicity and mature data available for response on 21 pts (refractory: 15 (71%); relapsed: 6 (29%). 17/21 patients were stage 3, median age of 62 ± 9 years, baseline b2 microglobulin level (mean 5.04 ± 2) and serum albumin (mean 3.4 ± 0.7). 14/21 patients failed T containing regimens. The DLT was sepsis/septic shock that occurred at dose level 3 (R 15mg) with two of the patients developing non neutropenic sepsis. The MTD for R was defined at 10mg. Three patients started therapy with a neutrophil count < 500/mL and or platelet counts < 50k/mL; all 3 patients were responders. There was one grade 4 hyper-coagulation event in the form of a PE that has recovered. This event occurred in a refractory patient with renal failure performance status of 3 who achieved CR after 2 cycles. In the expanded cohort there was 2 grade 3 neutropenia & one grade 3 neuropathy requiring dose reductions of R and D in each pt with resolution of the neutropenia and neuropathy. 3/21 (14%) patients achieved CR, 4/21 (19%) NCR. All CR+NCR patients (33%) are refractory patients. An additional 7 pts achieved PR, and 6 SD 5 of whom showing greater than 25% decrease in the m-protein. All patients except for 4 achieved > 25% reduction of the m-protein after one cycle of therapy and 3/4 after 2 cycles. R at 10mg is the MTD in combination with the DVd in RMM. DVd-R is an extremely effective regimen with a SWOG response rate >66%, CR+NCR of 33% in refractory stage 3 patients with minimal toxicity.

Phase I-II Trial of Oral Cyclophosphamide, Prednisone and Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) (CPR) for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1874-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna E. Reece ◽  
Esther Masih-Khan ◽  
Arooj Khan ◽  
Saima Dean ◽  
Peter Anglin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Oral Cyclophosphamide ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 1874 Poster Board I-899 Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) and dexamethasone is an effective regimen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts), with an overall response rate of 60.6% and median time to progression (TTP) of 13.4 months (Dimopoulos MA, et al, Leukemia 2009 Jul 23 [Epub ahead of print]). Oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone is an older regimen with excellent patient tolerance, and we sought to enhance the efficacy of lenalidomide by adding oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone in this phase I-II trial. The CPR regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide on days 1, 8 and 15; lenalidomide on days 1–21; and prednisone 100 mg every other day in a 28 day cycle. ASA 81 mg/day was given to all pts as DVT prophylaxis. Three dose levels were evaluated using a 3 by 3 dose escalation design. Between 11/2007–07/2009, 31 pts with relapsed/refractory MM who had not previously received lenalidomide were entered onto study. Median age was 61 (40–78) years and 61% were male. Immunoglobulin subtype was IgG in 19 pts (61%), IgA in 8 pts (26%) and light chain only in 4 pts (13%). Median number of prior regimens was 2 (1–5) and 28 pts had undergone previous ASCT, including double transplants in 6 pts. Prior therapy included thalidomide in 9 (29%) and bortezomib in 15 (48%). FISH cytogenetics were available in 13 pts; one had 13q deletion but none had t(4;14) or p53 deletion. At the time of protocol entry, median β 2-microglobulin level was 246 (92–767) nm/L, albumin 39 (34–48) g/L, creatinine 83 (50–126) μmol/L, platelet count 230 (75–337) × 109/L and ANC 2.5 (1.1–6.1) x 109/L. Protocol treatment is summarized in Table 1. Dose limiting toxicity was not observed during cycle 1 at any dose level. Grade 3–4 toxicities included thrombocytopenia in 5 pts (16%) and neutropenia in 9 pts (29%). These were managed with dose reduction and/or growth factor support. Four episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Other grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities included abdominal pain/bacteremia in 1 pt in cohort 1; hypokalemia in 1 pt in cohort 2; and DVT in 2 pts, dizziness in 2 pts and fatigue in 1 pt in cohort 3. Using the International uniform response criteria (Durie BG, et al, Leukemia 2006; 20:1467–1473), the best response was documented at a median of 6 (1–5) cycles and included the following: dose level 1 (1 CR, 2 PR); dose level 2 (1 VGPR, 2 PR); dose level 3 (5 CR, 9 VGPR, 9 PR, 1 MR and 1 stable disease). At a median follow-up (F/U) of 12 (8–21) months, 20 pts remain on study, 2 have withdrawn and 9 pts have progressed at a median of 9 (4–13) months; only 1 one has died (due to MM). We conclude: 1) the combination of full doses of the agents in CPR can be given in a 28 day cycle with minimal toxicity; 2) the overall response rate (CR + VGPR + PR) in 31 pts to date is 93%; 3) at a median F/U of 1 year, only 9 pts (29%) have progressed; 4) longer follow-up is required to assess the TTP and survival of the CPR regimen. Disclosures: Reece: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in combination with drugs other than dexamethasone. Anglin:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Mikhael:Celgene: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria.

Oxaliplatin, Fludarabine, Cytarabine, and Rituximab Combination Therapy Induces High Response Rates in Agressive Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Richter's Syndrome (RS).

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3443-3443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou ◽  
William Wierda ◽  
William Plunkett ◽  
Susan O'Brien ◽  
Thomas J. Kipps ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Level 2

Abstract Abstract 3443 Poster Board III-331 Introduction The first Phase I-II clinical trial of oxaliplatin, fluradabine, cytarabine (Ara-C), and rituximab (OFAR1) demonstrated significant activity in refractory CLL and RS (Tsimberidou et al, J Clin Oncol, 2008;26:196). To enhance the response rate and decrease myelosuppression, the dose of oxaliplatin was increased to 30mg daily, the dose of Ara-C was decreased to 0.5g/m2 daily and the optimal number of days of fluradabine and Ara-C administration was explored (OFAR2). Methods In a Phase I-II study of OFAR2, patients were treated with oxaliplatin 30mg/m2, D1-4; fludarabine 30mg/m2, Ara-C 0.5g/m2; rituximab 375mg/m2, D3; and pelfigrastim 6mg, D6. Fludarabine and Ara-C were given on D2-3 (dose level 1) D2-4 (dose level 2) or D2-5 (dose level 3); courses were repeated every 4 weeks. Patients received prophylaxis for tumor lysis, DNA viruses, and PCP. A “3+3” design was used and the planned number of patients in the Phase II was 90 (CLL, 60; RS, 30). Results Ninety-one patients (CLL, 67; RS, 24) have been treated to date: Phase I, 12 patients (by dose level: 1, n=3; 2, n=6; and 3, n=3). DLTs were noted in 2 of 3 patients on dose level 3 (G4 diarrhea, 1; G4 neutropenic sepsis, 1); thus, dose level 2 was the MTD. Seventy-nine patients (relapsed CLL, 58; RS, 19) have been treated in the Phase II portion of the study. Patient characteristics were as follows: age > 60 years, 65%; 17p deletion, 38%; 11q deletion, 13%; 13q deletion, 16%; trisomy 12, 21%; no findings, 12%; unmutated IgVH, 80%; ZAP70-positive, 75%; and CD38 ≥30%, 58%. Response in patients treated in the Phase II recommended dose is shown in Table (evaluable, 67). The overall response rates in patients with 17p and 11q deletions were 48% and 55%, respectively. The median survival duration was 21 months (CLL, 21 months; RS, 9.5 months). At 18 months, the survival rates in patients with 17p and 11q deletions were 66% and 76%, respectively. Twelve patients underwent stem cell transplantation after OFAR2 (as post-remission therapy, n=10; as salvage, n=2). Overall, 196 cycles were administered. Grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia were noted in 63%, 72%, and 39% of patients and in 57%, 70%, and 25% of cycles and Grade 3-4 infections in 19% of patients. Conclusion Preliminary results demonstrated that OFAR2 induced response in 40% of patients with RS and 63% of patients with relapsed/refractory CLL. OFAR2 had antileukemic activity in patients with 17p deletion. Clinical outcomes appeared to be superior to those of OFAR1 in refractory CLL, whereas results of OFAR1 appeared to be superior to those of OFAR2 in RS. Accrual is ongoing. Disclosures Tsimberidou: ASCO: ASCO Career Development Award; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Oxaliplatin is used off-label. Wierda:Genentech: Honoraria; Bayer, Sanofi-Aventis, Abbott, GSK: Research Funding; GSK, Trubion, Ligand, Genentech, Medimmune, Abbot: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Plunkett:Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding. O'Brien:Genentech: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Kipps:NCI: Grant P01CA-81534.

Phase I/II, Multicenter, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Study of Bendamustine in Combination with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (BRD) in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: A Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium Study.

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2965-2965
Author(s):  
Shaji K. Kumar ◽  
Amrita Krishnan ◽  
Vivek Roy ◽  
Todd M Zimmerman ◽  
Morie Abraham A Gertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Hematological Toxicity ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Dose Reductions

Abstract Abstract 2965 Background: Alkylating agents have been the mainstay of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy for decades and despite introduction of several new therapies, it continues to play a significant role in its management as part of various drug combinations. While melphalan has been the most commonly used alkylator in MM, recent studies have suggested significant activity for bendamustine, a bifunctional alkylator. The combination of lenalidomide and melphalan has been associated with high response rates in relapse and newly diagnosed MM. Based on these promising results we designed a trial to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose of lenalidomide and bendamustine when used in combination as well as the efficacy of the combination in relapsed disease. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM and measurable disease were enrolled on this phase 1/2 trial provided they had not more than 4 prior lines of therapy for MM, had adequate performance status and organ and hematological function. Patients refractory to lenalidomide were allowed to enroll. The primary objectives were to (i) to determine the MTD of bendamustine and lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in subjects with relapsed MM (phase 1) and (ii) to evaluate the confirmed response rate of bendamustine in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (phase 2). Bendamustine (B) was administered on days 1 and 2 of a 28-day cycle at doses of 50–100 mg/m2. Lenalidomide (R) was given days 1–21 at doses of 15–25 mg daily. Dexamethasone (D) was administered at 40 mg weekly. Dose escalation was done using a 3+3 design and MTD was defined as one dose level below that resulted in >=2 DLTS among 6 patients. The primary end point for this trial was the proportion of patients with confirmed hematologic response (sCR, CR, VGPR, or PR) over the first 6 cycles of treatment. Results: A total of 72 patients were accrued to this study from March 2010 to May 2012: 21 patients in phase 1 and 51 in phase 2. The 6 patients from the MTD dose level of phase 1 were also included in phase 2. The median age of all 72 patients was 62.1 (range, 40–86) and 57% were male. Majority (75%) of patients had previously been exposed to lenalidomide and 69% had prior exposure to bortezomib. Median # of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1–5) and 74% of patients had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Patients have received a median of 4 cycles (range, 1–25), with 27 patients still continuing on active treatment. Disease progression led to study discontinuation in 22 (49%) and adverse events were the reason for discontinuation in 14 (31%). In phase I, two DLTs (Grade (Gr) 2 neuropathy and Gr 4 neutropenia) were seen at the highest dose level (100 mg/m2 B, 25 mg R), and the MTD was determined as 75 mg/m2 of B given days 1 and 2 and 25 mg of R days 1–21, along with D 40 mg weekly. Overall patients, 12/21 (57%) had a PR or better. In phase 2, 17 (40%) confirmed responses (>=PR) were seen among the 43 patients evaluable for response (received at least 6 cycles of treatment or have gone off study prior to 6 cycles); including 9 (21%) VGPR and 8 (19%) PR. An additional 5 patients had a minor response. Over all dose levels, a gr 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study was seen in 75% of patients. The most common toxicities were all hematological (thrombocytopenia and leukopenia), and most common non-hematological toxicity was infection. Prolonged time to recovery of blood counts was seen in a few patients, but majority of patients were able to tolerate the regimen with adequate dose reductions. Conclusion: The recommended dose of the combination for further studies is bendamustine at 75 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–21 and dexamethasone days 1, 8, 15, 22; with cycles repeated every 28 days. The regimen is well tolerated with hematological toxicity being the most common and manageable with dose reductions. The regimen is effective with high response rates and durable responses seen. Updated results with response rates and time to event analyses will be available for the entire cohort at the time of meeting. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Krishnan:celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Novartis: Expert Testimony, Expert Testimony Other. Vij:Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Phase 1 Study of the Investigational Proteasome Inhibitor Ixazomib Alone or in Combination with Lenalidomide–Dexamethasone (Rd) in Japanese Patients (Pts) with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 5752-5752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Handa ◽  
Kenshi Suzuki ◽  
Takaaki Chou ◽  
Takafumi Matsushima
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitor ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
M Protein ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ongoing Phase

Background Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be investigated clinically for the treatment of MM. Phase 1 studies have shown single-agent activity and manageable toxicities in RRMM (Kumar et al. Blood 2014) and phase 1/2 studies have suggested the feasibility and activity of weekly oral ixazomib plus Rd in previously untreated MM (Kumar et al. ASH 2012; Richardson et al. ASH 2013). These findings have led to ongoing phase 3 trials of weekly ixazomib 4 mg + Rd in RRMM and previously untreated MM. However, the early-phase studies were conducted in Western pts. This phase 1, open-label multicenter study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of weekly ixazomib alone or with Rd in Japanese pts with RRMM (Japic Clinical Trials Information no. 121822). Methods Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability, including dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs), and the PK of ixazomib alone or with Rd. A secondary objective was evaluation of antitumor activity. Japanese pts aged ≥20 years with RRMM who had received at least 2 prior regimens, which must have included bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide, and corticosteroids, were eligible. All had measurable disease and ECOG performance status of 0–2. Pts with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy or grade ≥2 diarrhea at study entry were excluded. Pts received ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles, alone or with Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1–21, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22), per the regimen used in the ongoing phase 3 trials. AEs were graded per NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Blood samples for PK analysis were taken at multiple time points prior to and after dosing on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1. Responses were assessed per IMWG uniform response criteria. Results Fourteen pts were enrolled; 8 (57%) were male, median age was 62.5 yrs (range 53–71), 4 pts were aged ≥65 yrs, median number of prior therapies was 7. Seven pts received single-agent ixazomib and 7 received ixazomib + Rd. One pt in each cohort was excluded from the DLT-evaluable population. Two patients experienced DLTs in cycle 1: 1 pt receiving single-agent ixazomib had grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 diarrhea, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, and nausea; 1 pt in the ixazomib + Rd cohort had grade 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. All events were considered treatment-related. At data cut-off (Jan 6 2014), 6 pts remained on treatment and 8 had discontinued due to: progressive disease (PD; n=3), AEs (n=3), symptomatic deterioration, and protocol violation (each n=1). At data cut-off, pts (n=14) had received a median of 6 cycles of ixazomib (range 1–21); the 7 pts in the ixazomib + Rd cohort had received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–12) of ixazomib + Rd. Thirteen (93%) pts experienced treatment-related AEs; the most common were neutropenia (71%), thrombocytopenia (71%), leukopenia (64%), lymphopenia (57%), and diarrhea (50%). There were no cases of peripheral neuropathy. Nine (64%) pts had grade ≥3 AEs; the most common were lymphopenia (50%), neutropenia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (36%). Two (14%) pts (single-agent cohort) had serious AEs (grade 2 bronchitis in 1 pt, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 hypokalemia in 1 pt). Three pts discontinued due to AEs; 1 due to diarrhea in the single-agent cohort, and 1 due to neutropenia and 1 due to thrombocytopenia in the ixazomib + Rd cohort. There were no deaths. PK data showed ixazomib was rapidly absorbed with a Tmax at 1.08–1.83 hrs. Terminal half-life (geometric mean) was 5.7 days for single-agent ixazomib and 5.2 days for ixazomib + Rd. There were no substantial differences in the ixazomib PK profile between the two cohorts. Thirteen pts were response-evaluable. One pt (ixazomib + Rd cohort) had a partial response; at data cut-off, this pt remained in response with a 100% M-protein reduction (unconfirmed VGPR) and duration of response of ~10.8 months. Seven pts had stable disease (including 3 with M-protein reductions of 25–50%), 2 had PD, and 3 were not assessable. Conclusions These data suggest that ixazomib 4 mg alone or with Rd is feasible and tolerable in Japanese pts with RRMM. The AEs were manageable, reflecting the AE profile seen in Western populations, supporting the use of this dose and schedule in Japanese pts. Disclosures Handa: Celgene: Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding; Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Investigational agent ixazomib for the treatment of Japanese patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.. Matsushima:Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited : Employment.

The Combination of Quizartinib with Azacitidine or Low Dose Cytarabine Is Highly Active in Patients (Pts) with FLT3-ITD Mutated Myeloid Leukemias: Interim Report of a Phase I/II Trial

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1642-1642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Abdelall ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Gautam Borthakur ◽  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Keyur P. Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Highly Active ◽  
Flt3 Inhibitor ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Recommended Phase Ii Dose ◽  
Low Dose Cytarabine

Abstract Background: FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with early relapse and poor survival. Quizartinib inhibits FLT3 kinase activity potently and selectively. In phase I and II studies, the composite response rate (CRR) was approximately 50% among patients with FLT3-ITD. There is in-vitro synergy between quizartinib and 5-AZA or LDAC. We hypothesize that adding quizartinib to a hypomethylating agent- such as 5-azacitidine (AZA) -or to cytarabine may improve the response rate expected from the use of either agent alone. Objectives: The primary objective of phase I is to determine dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of combination of quizartinib with either AZA or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC); for phase II is to determine the clinical activity of both combinations. This planned interim analysis reports on the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and first futility analysis. Methods: For phase I, pts with relapsed/refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) or AML were eligible irrespective of FLT3 mutation and salvage status. For phase II: presence of FLT3-ITD is a requisite, pts must be >60 years with untreated MDS/CMML/AML or any age receiving first salvage treatment. Other requisites: performance status ECOG ≤2, adequate organ function and normal electrolytes (potassium, calcium and magnesium). Important exclusions include: QTcF> 450 msec, administration of drugs that prolong QT/QTc interval or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers; with the exception of antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals that are used as standard of care. Treatment cycle is 28 days and comprises of AZA 75 mg/m2 subcutaneously (SQ) or intravenously (IV) for 7 days of every cycle, or cytarabine 20 mg SQ twice daily for 10 days of every cycle along with quizartinib at two planned dose levels: 60 mg (dose level 1) or 90 mg orally daily (dose level 2), uninterrupted. Patients are assigned to AZA or LDAC arm by physician choice or slot availability. Planned accrual for each arm in phase II is 26 pts each and an ORR of ≥50% will be considered favorable. Accrual of 26 pts will give a 95% credible interval for ORR of (0.32, 0.68). The study will be stopped for toxicity (>30%) and/or futility (ORR <50%) at interim analysis for each arm. Results: Fifty-two (Phase I=12, phase II=40) pts have been enrolled: 38 to AZA arm and 14 to LDAC arm. Median age is 67 years (range, 23-83 years), 24 (46%) are female. Cytogenetics are diploid=24, +8=5, monosomy 7=3, miscellaneous=17, 11q=2 and t(8;21)= 1. Median number of prior therapies is 1 (range, 0-7); 7 patients had received prior FLT3 inhibitor: sorafenib (5), crenolanib (1), quizartinib (1). For both combinations quizartinib 60 mg daily was identified as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Thirty-five Pts [8 in LDAC arm (23%) and 27 in AZA arm (77%)] of total 52 have responded with ORR 67 % (CR=8, CRp=7, CRi=18, PR=2); all with FLT3-ITD mutation without D835 mutation. ORR is 73% among pts with FLT3-ITD (N=48). Three of eight pts (38%) with prior FLT3 inhibitor exposure responded. Median time to response is 35 days (range, 14-187days). Among responders, two pts died (in CRi=1, PR=1): one with GI bleed and one with progressive pneumonia. Twelve responders discontinued therapy: 11 to receive a SCT and 1 due to loss of response with emergence of D835 mutation. Fifteen responders (CR=2, CRi=8, CRp=3, PR=2) had >50% reduction of FLT3-ITD allelic burden and eight additional pts (CR=5, CRi=1, CRp=2) had no detectable FLT3-ITD at response. The median survival was: 14.8 mo for the total study group: 7.5 mo for LDAC arm and not reached for AZA arm; median EFS has not been reached for either arm (Figure). Treatment emergent grade 3/4 toxicities irrespective of attribution include hypokalemia (15), hypotension (7), hypophosphatemia (7), hyponatremia (7), hypocalcemia (7), hyperbilirubinemia (1), elevated ALT (5), hypernatremia (2) hyperglycemia (1), QTcF prolongation (1, grade 3). Conclusion: Combination of quizartinib and AZA or LDAC is highly active among patients with AML/MDS/CMML with FLT3-ITD mutation in absence of D835 mutation. Response rates appear higher than expected with either agent alone. Clinically significant QTcF prolongation is infrequent. Accrual to the study continues. Figure Figure. Disclosures Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Konopleva:Calithera: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding.

Survival of patients considered for participation to contemporary dose-seeking phase trial: Matter of tumour burden, nature of treatment or of dose-levels?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2549-2549
Author(s):  
Juliette Bouchet ◽  
Nicolas Isambert ◽  
Philippe Alexandre Cassier ◽  
Carlos Alberto Gomez-Roca ◽  
Stephanie Clisant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase 1 Trial ◽  
Dose Levels

2549 Background: We have analyzed the survival of pts considered for participation to contemporary phase 1 trial. Methods: All consecutive pts having signed the PIS/IC have been analyzed. OS have been measured using Kalan-Meier method. RMS had been calculated, RMS (0 to 3) is sum of the following prognostic factors: LDH>ULN, met. sites>2 and albumin <35 g/L. Comparisons have been done with Log-rank tests and Cox model. Results: OS of the entire cohort was 448 days. 73.4% of pts having been enrolled. Among not enrolled pts, 74.1% of pts received another treatment. The OS was 497, 247 and 110 days, in pts enrolled in phase I trial, in pts not enrolled but receiving another treatment and in non-treated pts (p=0.001). After adjustment to RMS and with pts not enrolled but receiving other treatment as reference, the HR was 0.47 (95-CI:0.34-0.66; p=0.0001) in pts enrolled in phase 1 compared and 3.54 (1.92-6.52; p=0.0001) in non-treated pts. We have then more specifically analyzed the pts enrolled in single-agent dose-escalating phase I. The OS was 894, 272 and 395 days in pts receiving the 2 first dose-levels, in those receiving intermediate dose-levels and those receiving the phase 2-recommended dose, respectively (p=0.001). The OS was 328 in pts receiving molecular targeted agent and 539 in those receiving cytotoxic agents (p=0.004). In a multivariate analysis, the nature of investigational agent and the dose-level were not associated with better outcome. The sole prognostic factor for OS in multivariate analysis was the RMS (0+1 vs 2+3: HR=3.80 [1.76-8.20], p=0.01). Conclusions: Inclusion in phase 1 trial was associated with better outcome in both crude analysis and after adjustment to RMS. Among enrolled pts, in multivariate analysis RMS reflecting the tumor burden was the sole prognostic factor, the nature of the drug and the dose-level were not associated with the outcome.

scholarly journals A Multicenter, Open Label Phase I/II Study of Carfilzomib, Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1145-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Angelo Belotti ◽  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Level 1

Abstract Background: Survival rates of multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) has improved over the past few years, but patients inevitably relapse and become more resistant to subsequent treatments. Carfilzomib and Pomalidomide were both approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Combinations including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) plus an immunomodulator (IMiD), such as Bortezomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (VRD) or Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (CRD), showed a very high response rate with an acceptable toxicity. Moreover, in the CHAMPION1 study (Berenson et al Blood 2016), the weekly infusion of Carfilzomib showed to be as effective as the twice schedule. In this phase I/II study we assessed for the first time weekly Carfilzomib plus Pomalidomide and low dose Dexamethasone (wKPd) for the treatment of RRMM. Here we report preliminary results. Methods: the primary objective of the phase I part of the trial was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of wKPd combination. The primary objective of the phase II was to determine the rate of partial response (PR). Patients with RRMM, who received 1-3 prior lines of treatments and were refractory to Lenalidomide were eligible. Treatment consisted of 28-day cycles of oral Pomalidomide at fixed dose of 4 mg on days 1-21 (1 week off), oral or intravenous (iv) Dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15,22 and iv Carfilzomib at escalating doses on days 1,8,15. Escalation started at the dose of 36 mg/m2 (0 level) and used a standard 3+3 schema based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until relapse or intolerance. Results: A total of 57 patients were enrolled in 6 Italian centers. Fifty-two patients could be evaluated for this analysis (5 patients did not complete the first cycle yet). The median age was 62 years with a median time from diagnosis of 4 years. 17/39 (44%) of patients were considered high risk according to cytogenetic abnormalities [at least one among t (4;14) t (14;16) and deletion chromosome 17 (del17) detected by FISH]. In the phase I of the trial 15 patients were enrolled. The first 3 patients at the dose level 0 of Carfilzomib did not experience any DLT. In the next cohort with Carfilzomib 20/45 mg/m2 a G3 hypertension and a sudden death occurred. According to the protocol, 3 more patients were enrolled at dose level 0: 1 patient experienced G3 atrial fibrillation, 2 patients ≥ G3 hypertension. Considering the serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred, the trial was temporary stopped to evaluate the benefit of continuing the study. All the DLTs were cardiologic and occurred in patients with a prior history of cardiac disease. As per protocol, they were evaluated with ECG and echocardiogram before the enrolment and were considered eligible for the study. The safety committee established new procedures for the evaluation of cardiac function of potentially eligible patients, including 24 h continuing pressure monitoring before the enrolment and serial measurement of blood pressure during and after Carfilzomib infusions. Six more patients were enrolled at dose level -1 (Carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2) and none experienced a DLT. The MTD was established at dose level -1 with Carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2, Pomalidomide 4 mg and Dexamethasone 40 mg. In the phase II portion of the trial, 42 patients were enrolled. Considering both phase I and II portions of the study, the most frequent drug related, grade ≥ 3 AEs were hematologic (65% of neutropenia and 13% of thrombocytopenia) and cardiologic (17%, mainly hypertension). We recorded only 4% of infection and ≥ G3 peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate (ORR) of phase I/II portions was 58% (30/52) including 25% (13/52) of ≥ very good partial remission (VGPR). The ORR of high risk patients was 44% (7/16) including 19% (3/16) of ≥ VGPR. With a median follow-up of 10 months, median progression free survival (PFS) was 9.5 months and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: This is the first phase I/II trial that combined weekly Carfilzomib with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone. This combination was highly effective in RRMM. After a median follow-up of 10 months, wKRd showed a double median PFS in comparison with Pomalidomide-low dose dexamethasone (Sanmiguel et al Lancet Oncology 2013): 9.5 vs 4 months respectively, confirming the efficacy of combining a PI with an IMiD. An updated analysis will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; Mundipharma: Other: ADVISORY BOARD; Karyopharm: Other: ADVISORY BOARD. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Gaidano:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oliva:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbivie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; SANOFI: Honoraria, Research Funding; CELGENE: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document