Response Adapted Lenalidomide Based Therapy For Newly Diagnosed (ND) Standard Risk Older Adults With Multiple Myeloma (MM): An International Collaboration

Abstract Introduction Older MM patients continue to have poor outcomes. Lenalidomide (L) and low dose dexamethasone (D) was found to result in better overall survival than L and high dose D in ND MM (Rajkumar et al. Lancet Oncol 2010). In an attempt to decrease toxicity from therapy in this vulnerable patient population, we have initiated two phase II clinical trials evaluating a response adapted therapy using single agent L with sequential addition of corticosteroids. The trials had similar design and were conducted in one site in the United States (US) and multiple sites in South Korea (SK). Methods Eligible patients had symptomatic standard risk MM (b2microglobulin (b2m)≤5.5, absence of t(4;14), t(14;16), 17p deletion, aneuploidy or 13q by metaphase cytogenetics) and were not eligible or not willing to undergo high-dose melphalan. Patients received L on D1-21 every 28 days for 2 cycles based on renal function. If patients had a minimal response (MR) or better (25% reduction in serum M spike) after 2 cycles, they continued on single agent L until progressive disease. If patients had stable disease (SD) after 2 cycles, prednisone 100 mg PO D1-5 (P) was added to their L. In the event of progressive disease on single agent L or on LP, therapy was changed to L (at the tolerated dose) with dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly (D). Thromboprophylaxis was with aspirin, warfarin or low molecular weight heparin. Responses were per IMWG and the primary end point was the 1 year progression free survival (PFS)of LD. Results Between 2/2010 and 6/2013, 61 patients were enrolled (34 in SK and 27 in the US). The median age was 73 (range 48-85) and 58% were males. Compared to US, patients in SK had a younger age, lower weight and body surface area and a higher proportion of ISS 2. There were no differences in baseline performance status, hematologic parameters, creatinine clearance or baseline b2m. The overall response rate (≥PR) to single agent L was 48% (59% & 38% for US and SK) and the clinical benefit rate (≥MR) 64% (74% & 56% for the US and SK respectively). After a median follow up of 13.2 months, P was added for 16 patients (26%) and 7 (44%) had ≥PR. D was added for 14 patients (23%) and 10 patients (71%) had ≥PR. The 1 year dexamethasone free survival was 75% (84% & 67% in the US and SK respectively). To date, 3 patients progressed after the addition of D and the 1 year LD PFS was 90% (95% CI 78-96%). There were no statistical differences in grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (table). Lenalidomide dose reduction was more frequent in the US (59% vs. 26%) however discontinuation from therapy for causes other than progressive disease or death was more frequent in SK (41% vs. 18%). Conclusion In This elderly patient population, response adapted (sequential) therapy results in outcomes comparable to LD in younger patients with MM with 78% of patients not requiring the addition of D. Social and ethnic causes of differential tolerance to therapy should be studied further. Disclosures: Baz: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide in newly diagnosed myeloma. Alsina:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shain:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kwak:celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Response Adapted Therapy Using Single Agent Lenalidomide in Older Adults with Newly Diagnosed Standard Risk Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4060.4060 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4060-4060

Author(s):

Rachid Baz ◽

Melissa Alsina ◽

Kenneth H. Shain ◽

Jennifer Paleveda ◽

Nancy Hillgruber ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Stable Disease ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progressive Disease ◽

Single Agent ◽

High Dose ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Abstract 4060 Introduction: Rajkumar et al. reported improved survival with lenalidomide and low dose dexamethasome as compared with lenalidomide and high dose dexamethasone (Rajkumar V, Lancet Oncol 2010). In addition, we reported promising outcomes of a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with single agent lenalidomide(Baz R Leuk Lymphoma. 2010). Accordingly, we conducted this prospective single center open label study to evaluate the efficacy of a response adapted approach using single agent lenalidomide in older adults with newly diagnosed standard risk multiple myeloma. Patients/Methods: Eligible patients had symptomatic multiple myeloma without high risk features (b2microglobulin (b2m) ≤5.5, absence of t(4;14), t(14;16), 17p deletion, aneuploidy or 13q by metaphase cytogenetics) and were not eligible or not willing to receive high-dose therapy and stem cell transplant. Patients received lenalidomide 25 mg PO D1–21 every 28 days for 2 cycles. If patients had a minimal response or better (MR, 25% reduction in serum M spike) after 2 cycles, they continued on single agent lenalidomide until progressive disease. If patients had stable disease after 2 cycles, prednisone 100 mg PO D1–5 was added to their lenalidomide. In the event of progressive disease on single agent lenalidomide or on lenalidomide/prednisone, therapy was changed to lenalidomide (at the tolerated dose) and dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly. Thromboprophylaxis was with aspirin, warfarin or low molecular weight heparin. Responses were per IMWG response criteria. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Results: Between February 2010 and May 2012, 22 patients were screened and 19 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 65–83) and 12 were males. Per protocol, no patient had ISS stage 3 disease but 8 patients had ISS stage 2 and 11 stage 1 (median b2m was 3.2 mg/L (range 2.2–5.5)). 5 patients had 13q deletion by FISH alone, 4 had t(11;14), another 3 had trisomy 11, and 2 had trisomy or tetrasomy 1q. The median baseline creatinine clearance was 66.5 ml/min (range 43–109). After 2 cycles of single agent lenalidomide, 9 patients (47%) had a PR (partial response), 6 (32%) MR, 3 (16%) stable disease (SD), and 1 (5%) progressive disease. The best response to single agent lenalidomide was as follows: 3 had a stringent complete response sCR (16%), 1 (5%) a very good partial remission (VGPR), 8 PR (42%), 4 MR (21%), 2 SD (11%) and 1 PD (5%). The estimated 1 year PFS to single agent lenalidomide is 80%. Five patients required the addition of dexamethasone with the following responses: 1 VGPR, 1 PR, 1 MR, 1 SD and 1 PD; Three patients required the addition of prednisone and the response to lenalidomide prednisone was 1PR, 1 MR, 1 SD. Five patients went off study, 2 for PD and 3 withdrew consent (2 were in PR at the time and 1 in SD). The estimated 1 year PFS for the protocol therapy is estimated at 94%. Eleven patients had dose reduction in lenalidomide; 5 patients to 15mg and 6 patients to 10 mg. Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia and fatigue occurred in 58%, 5%, 10%, 5% and 5% of patients respectively. Conclusion: In this patient population, single agent lenalidomide results in an ORR (PR and better) of 63% and clinical benefit rate (MR and better) of 84% with only a quarter of patients requiring the addition of dexamethasone. A response adapted therapy using single agent lenalidomide is safe and effective in older adults with standard risk myeloma sparing dexamethasone toxicities from the majority of patients. Updated results for ongoing accrual of up to 30 evaluable patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Baz: Celgene, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Alsina:Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Finley-Oliver:celgene: Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Follow-up of Combined Hypercvad (hCVAD) Regimen with Dasatinib (Db) in the Front Line Therapy of Patients (pts) with Philadelphia Chromosome Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.1512.1512 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 1512-1512 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Hun Ju Lee ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Deborah A. Thomas ◽

Stefan Faderl ◽

Charles Koller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Single Agent ◽

High Dose ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Platelet Recovery

Abstract Abstract 1512 Background: The introduction of tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI) has significantly improved the outcome of patients (pts) with Ph+ ALL. Dasatinib (Db) is a second generation dual SRC/ABL TKI with greater potency compared to Imatinib in inhibiting BCR/ABL. Aim: To determine the outcome of pts with Ph+ ALL treated with hCVAD + Db. Method: Between 9/06 and 7/09, pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL received Db 50mg oral (PO) twice daily (BID) or 100mg PO daily for the first 14 days of each of 8 cycles of alternating hCVAD, and high dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Pts in complete remission (CR) continued to receive maintenance Db 50mg PO BID or 100mg PO daily, as well as monthly prednisone and vincristine for 2 years, followed by Db indefinitely. From 8/09 protocol was amended and pts received 100mg Db for the first 14 days of cycle #1 and then 70mg daily continuously for the next 7 cycles, as well as 2 doses of rituximab 375 mg/m2 during each of the first 4 cycles. Maintenance was with Db, vincristine and prednisone. Results: Sixty-one pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL have been treated to date. Median age was 56 years (yrs) (range (r), 22–80) and 41 (67%) pts were >50 yrs. The median follow up is 26.1 months (mo) (r, 4–58). Central nervous system (CNS) involvement was noted in 9 (14%) pts at diagnosis. Sixteen (26%) pts had Ph+ alone, 38 (62%) pts had Ph+ with additional abnormalities, and 7 (12%) pts were Ph negative, and BCR/ABL positive. Median white blood cell count (WBC) at diagnosis was 13.4 × 109/L (r: 0.4–658), and 22 (36%) pts had WBC >30 × 109/L at diagnosis. BCR/ABL transcript was identified in 60 (98.3%) pts at diagnosis, including e1a2 in 46 (76%) pts, b2a2 in 10 (17%) pts, b2a2+b3a2 in 2 (3%) pts, b3a2 and e1a3 in 1 (1.6%) pt each. One pt had a variant transcript that was not detectable with the standard primers. The median number of induction and maintenance cycles received were 6 cycles (r: 1–8) and 13.5 cycles (r: 1–24), respectively. Fifty seven (94%) pts achieved CR1 and 1 (1.5%) pts achieved CR with incomplete platelet recovery with first induction cycle of chemotherapy. Three (4.5%) pts died before response assessment could be performed due to infections. Thirty-nine (64%) pts received maintenance, 3 (5%) pts are currently receiving induction and 19 (31%) pts had no maintenance [9 pts received allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) prior to maintenance, 10 pts had progression of disease]. To date, twelve (19%) pts have relapsed and Abl kinase domain mutations were analyzed in 7 pts; mutations were noted in 4 pts. These included T315I in 2 pts, and F359V and V299L in 1 pt each. CNS relapse occurred in 5 pts. Salvage (S1) regimens included [hCVAD + another TKI in 7 pts, single agent TKI in 2 pts, single agent monoclonal antibody in 1 pt, methotrexate, vincristine, asparginase, dexamethasone (MOAD) in 1pt, intrathecal cytarabine/methotrexate plus CNS radiation and Db in 1 pt]. Eight pts achieved CR2, 3 pts were refractory (2 pts with T315I and 1 pt with F359V) and one is still undergoing salvage treatment. Median DFS and OS after S1 were 5.3 mo (r: 0.7–17.3) and 6.7 mo (r: 0.6–24.4), respectively. ASCT was performed in 15 (24%) pts, including 10 pts in CR1 and 5 pts in CR2. Donors were related in 8 (53%) and unrelated in 7 (47%) transplants. Sixteen pts have died 11 (68%) pts from infectious complications, 2 (13%) pts from multi-organ failure, 1 (6%) pt with graft versus host disease, and 2 (13%) pts from unknown causes. Three-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) (n=61) were 49% and 62%, respectively. Conclusion: Db plus hCVAD is an effective regimen with durable responses in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. Disclosures: Kantarjian: BMS: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cortes:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chemgenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124403 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1835-1835 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Katrina M Piedra ◽

Hani Hassoun ◽

Larry W. Buie ◽

Sean M. Devlin ◽

Jessica Flynn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cancer Trial ◽

Oncology Research ◽

Increased Risk

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

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.3884.3884 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 3884-3884

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

Suzanne Hayman ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Francis Buadi ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Initial Therapy ◽

High Dose ◽

Toxicity Profile ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.2877.2877 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 2877-2877

Author(s):

Francesca Gay ◽

S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽

Patrizia Falco ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Case Control Study ◽

Case Control ◽

High Dose ◽

Primary Therapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Control Study

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

Download Full-text

ENESTnd Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Versus Imatinib In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.207.207 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 207-207 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Timothy P. Hughes ◽

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Giuseppe Saglio ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

Saengsuree Jootar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Clonal Evolution ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Superior Efficacy ◽

Rate Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 207 Background: Results from the phase 3, international, randomized ENESTnd trial have demonstrated the superior efficacy of nilotinib over imatinib with significantly higher rates of major molecular response (MMR), complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment. Here, we present data with a median follow-up of 18 months. Methods: 846 CML-CP patients were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (bid) (n=282), nilotinib 400 mg bid (n=281), and imatinib 400 mg once daily (n=283). Primary endpoint was MMR (≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS) rate “at” 12 months, as previously presented. Key secondary endpoint was durable MMR at 24 months. Other endpoints assessed at 24 months include progression to AP/BC (with and without clonal evolution), event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Results: With a median follow-up of 18 months, the overall best MMR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (66%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (62%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (40%). Superior rates of MMR were observed in both nilotinib arms compared with the imatinib arm across all Sokal risk groups (Table). The overall best rate of BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032% (equivalent to complete molecular response, CMR) was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (21%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (17%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (6%). The overall best CCyR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (85%, P < .001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (82%, P=.017) compared with imatinib (74%). The superior efficacy of nilotinib was further demonstrated using the 2009 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 12-month milestone in which fewer patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on nilotinib 300 mg bid (2%, 3%) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (2%, 2%) vs imatinib (11%, 8%). Rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment were significantly lower for nilotinib 300 mg bid (0.7%, P=.006) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (0.4%, P=.003) compared with imatinib (4.2%). The rate of progression on treatment was also significantly lower for nilotinib when including clonal evolution as a criteria for progression (Table). There were fewer CML-related deaths on nilotinib 300 mg bid (n=2), and 400 mg bid (n=1) vs imatinib (n=8). Estimated OS rate (including data from follow-up after discontinuation) at 18 months was higher for nilotinib 300 mg bid (98.5%, P=.28) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (99.3%, P=.03) vs imatinib (96.9%). Both drugs were well-tolerated. Discontinuations due to adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were lowest for nilotinib 300 mg bid (7%) compared with nilotinib 400 mg bid (12%) and imatinib (9%). With longer follow up there has been minimal change in the occurrence of AEs. Minimum 24-month follow-up data for all patients will be presented. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, nilotinib was associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to AP/BC on treatment and lower rates of suboptimal response or treatment failure vs imatinib. Nilotinib resulted in fewer CML-related deaths and a higher OS rate vs imatinib. Nilotinib induced superior rates of MMR, CMR, and CCyR vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Taken together, these data support nilotinib as a new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed CML. Disclosures: Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Reiffers:Novartis: Research Funding. Pasquini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Clark:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gallagher:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

An Open-Label, Dose Escalation, Multi-Center Phase 1 Study of PRLX 93936, an Agent Synthetically Active Against the Activated Ras Pathway, in the Treatment of Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.2140.2140 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 2140-2140 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Peter M Voorhees ◽

Robert L. Schlossman ◽

Cristina J Gasparetto ◽

Jesus G. Berdeja ◽

John Morris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Progressive Disease ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Single Agent ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Ras Pathway ◽

Label Dose

Abstract Introduction: Overall survival for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved, but most patients relapse and eventually succumb to complications of the disease. The development of new therapeutic agents to treat relapsed and relapsed/refractory MM is therefore vital. Proteins of the Ras family are frequently mutated in human cancers, including MM. However, direct, selective, potent inhibitors of mutant Ras proteins are not clinically available. Extensive efforts have been made to identify agents which are "synthetically active" against the activated Ras pathway which may not inhibit the Ras protein itself, but target other molecules selectively important for cells with, but not those without, Ras mutation. PRLX 93936, 3-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-2-[(1-piperazinyl)methyl]-4(3H)-quinazolinone, is an analog of such a "synthetically active" compound against the activated Ras pathway. The compound has demonstrated promising efficacy in preclinical laboratory studies and mouse models of MM with an improvement in survival and 30% suppression in tumor growth at the lowest tested dose. A phase 1, multi-center, open-label, dose escalation trial was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), assess toxicities, and evaluate response to treatment with monotherapy of PRLX 93936 in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Patients (Pts) with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM in whom at least two prior anti-myeloma regimens had failed (including a proteasome inhibitor and/or immunomodulatory drug) were considered. PRLX 93936 as a single agent was given intravenously 3 days/week for 3 weeks followed by a 9 day rest period constituting a 28-day treatment cycle. Sequential cohorts of at least three pts were treated with escalating doses of PRLX 93936 beginning at 10 mg/m2 and increasing the dose in increments of 5mg/m2 until the MTD was established. Pts received a minimum of 2 cycles of treatment at their assigned dose level for evaluation of anti-myeloma activity of PRLX 93936 and could receive up to 8 cycles followed by an option of maintenance therapy. Dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg provided on each day of PRLX 93936 infusion could be added at the investigator’s discretion after a minimum of 2 cycles or after cycle 1 for patients with progressive disease. Adverse events were assessed according to version 4.0 of the CTC, and response per the International Myeloma Working Group uniform response criteria, incorporating the modified EBMT response criteria, were assessed with each cycle. Correlative studies from peripheral blood and bone marrow were collected. Results: To date, 14 pts (4 women, 10 men) enrolled in the trial and 13 have completed therapy. Mean age was 61 years (range, 48-81). Prior to enrollment, pts had received an average of 5 lines of therapy (median 4, range 2-9) including 6 who received stem cell transplantation (4 autologous, 2 allogeneic). The median time since diagnosis was 5 years (range 2-11.5). Of the 13 pts whom completed treatment, 11 completed at least one full 28 day cycle (range 1-15). This includes 3 pts at the 10mg/m2 dose, 3 pts at the 15mg/m2 dose, 5 pts at the 20 mg/m2 dose, and 2 pts at the 25mg/m2 dose. Of the 13 pts who completed study therapy, 7 experienced at least one serious adverse event (SAE). The most frequently reported SAEs (2 each) included sepsis and cellulitis. Four SAEs were considered related to PRLX 93936 by the investigator (thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting). The MTD was determined to be 20 mg/m2. Dose limiting toxicities that occurred at the next higher level of 25mg/m2 included nausea, vomiting, and neutropenia (both pts) and thrombocytopenia, weakness, elevated AST, and elevated creatinine (1 pt). The best response among 11 evaluable pts was minimal response (MR) in 2 pts (18%). Stable disease (n=4) and progressive disease (n=5) was observed in the remaining pts. Analysis of the impact of dexamethasone is on-going, but no significant additive toxicity has been seen. Conclusions: PRLX 93936, a “synthetically active” compound against the activated Ras pathway, has demonstrated activity as a single agent in relapsed and refractory MM patients with MR in 18% of patients to date. Toxicity has proven manageable and the MTD has been defined at 20 mg/m2. Additional studies, including those involving PRLX 93936 as part of combination therapy and correlative studies to determine those pts most likely to benefit, are warranted. Disclosures Voorhees: Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company : Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: PRLX 93936 is a non-FDA approved drug currently in phase 1 development in multiple myeloma. Gasparetto:Millenium: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jacobstein:Prolexys Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Anderson:BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Oncopep/Acetylon: Equity Ownership. Mitsiades:Millennium: A Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Laubach:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: A Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Richardson:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Requiring Dialysis: Dialysis Independence Is Associated with Rapid Myeloma Response and Predicts for Longer Survival

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4492.4492 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4492-4492

Author(s):

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Maria Roussou ◽

Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽

Despina Fotiou ◽

Dimitrios Ziogas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Failure ◽

High Risk ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Light Chain ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

High Dose Dexamethasone

Abstract Renal failure (RF) is a common severe complication of symptomatic myeloma and may be severe enough to require extrarenal dialysis in approximately 1-5% of newly diagnosed patients. Severe RF is associated with high risk of early death and increased morbidity. Immediate effective anti-myeloma therapy and vigorous supportive care are the cornerstones of management. The use of high cutoff hemodialysis to rapidly reduce the load of nephrotoxic light chains seems to offer limited additional benefit in patients requiring dialysis when treated with bortezomib-based therapies (Cook M et al EHA 2016, Abs P270). However, outside clinical trials, there are limited data focusing on the management and outcomes of NDMM patients requiring dialysis. Thus, we analyzed the outcomes of consecutive newly diagnosed patients with RF requiring dialysis, who were managed and treated in a single center. Between 1995 and 2016, 50 patients (6.2% of 796 consecutive NDMM) who were treated in the Department of Clinical Therapeutics (Athens, Greece) presented with severe RF requiring dialysis. The analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of any therapy. All patients received similar supportive care and dialysis with regular filters. The median age of patients requiring dialysis was 69 years (37-88), 68% were >65 years of age. At presentation 92% had Hb <10 g/dl, 5 (10%) had platelet count <100x109/l, 12 (24%) had hypeprcalcemia (Ca ≥11.5 mg/dl) and 24 (48%) had elevated LDH (≥250 IU/l). All patients had elevated β2-microglobulin (median 21.7 mg/L, range 6-60 mg/l) and all were ISS stage 3. High risk cytogenetics (N=40) were present in 38% and per R-ISS, 75% were R-ISS-3 and 25% R-ISS-2. Myeloma was light chain only in 42%, IgA in 26%, IgG in 30% and IgD in 1 patient (2%); light chain was κ in 38 (64%) and λ in 18 (36%). Among patients who retained urine flow at presentation, median 24h Bence Jones proteinuria was 2.2 gr (range 0.1-8.8 gr). Among patients with available FLCs, median level of involved free light chain (iFLC) was 9080 mg/l (range 119-201000 mg/l). Treatment was bortezomib-based in 41 (82%) patients: 11 (22%) had bortezomib + dexamethasone (VD), 21 (42%) VD + cyclophosphamide (VCD), 8 (16%) VD + thalidomide (VTD), 1 (2%) VD + doxorubicin (PAD). Nine (18%) patients received non-bortezomib containing regimens: 5 (10%) thalidomide plus high dose dexamethasone and 4 (8%) VAD with high dose dexamethasone. Twenty-five (50%) patients became dialysis independent at a median time of 158 days from start of therapy (range 4-336 days). Age ≤65 years was associated with higher probability (75% vs 38%) and shorter time to dialysis independence (51 vs 336 days; p=0.027); no other baseline factors were associated with dialysis independence in univariate analysis. Among patients treated with bortezomib, three-drug combinations (n=30) vs VD alone (N=11) were associated with higher probability of dialysis independence (57% vs 27%; p=0.06). Among patients who became dialysis independent 12 received VCD, 4 VTD, one PAD, 3 VD, 2 MDT, 2 VAD and one T-VAD. Median follow up for all patients was 33 months and median survival was 29 months. Early mortality (within 2 months from start of therapy) was 16%, mostly due to infectious complications. On intent to treat, 64% achieved ≥PR (CR: 6%, VGPR: 32%, PR: 26%); among patients who survived >2 months, ≥PR was achieved by 76%. At 2-month landmark, patients who achieved ≥PR within the first 2 months had higher dialysis independence rates (68% vs 27%, p=0.004). Becoming dialysis independent was associated with a significant improvement in survival (median OS of 63 vs 22 months of patients who remained on dialysis; p=0.002), even after exclusion of early deaths. Notably, the survival of patients who discontinued dialysis was similar to that of the rest of patients (57 months). High dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation was performed in five patients while on dialysis. Four of them (80%) become dialysis independent approximately one month after HDM. In conclusion, about 6% of NDMM present with renal failure requiring dialysis but half of them can become dialysis independent after bortezomib-based therapy, without the use of special filters, especially if they achieve a rapid myeloma response. VD-based triplets increase the probability of renal response over VD alone and independence from dialysis is associated with a significant improvement in prognosis. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terpos:Celgene: Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Similar Quality of Life with 5mg Versus 25mg Lenalidomide Maintenance after First-Line High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Results of the Lenamain Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-110977 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2003-2003 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Amelie Boquoi ◽

Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽

Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽

Michael Heinsch ◽

Mathias J Rummel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

Event Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Travel Grant ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction The LenaMain study is a prospective, randomized, open label, multicenter phase III trial which included 188 patients 3 months after first-line high dose treatment and autologous stem cell transplantation (NCT number: NCT00891384). Patients were equally randomized to receive either 25 (n = 94, arm A) or 5 mg (n = 94, arm B) lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression following a uniform 6 months of 25 mg lenalidomide consolidation. Final analysis after follow-up of 46.7 months was presented at ASCO 2018 (#8016) demonstrating an extended event-free survival for arm A (11.8 months, p=0.032) and an about 10% increase of grade 3/4 infections per year as main toxicity. Here we report analysis of quality of life (QoL) data as secondary endpoint of the study. Materials & Methods The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) was collected at baseline and then monthly at every new cycle. The Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QoL) scale, the utility score and seven subscales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, physical functioning, role functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment) were compared between groups using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results Baseline questionnaire compliance was excellent (95.7%) and declined over time (82%, 76%, 71%, 54%, 49% after consolidation and after year 1, 2, 3 and 4 of maintenance, respectively). At baseline, GHS/QoL (67/67) and utility (0.73/0.72) scores for arm A/B were generally high and did not differ between both arms. The median GHS/QoL change between consolidation baseline and maintenance baseline was -1%. GHS/QoL scores appear constant for both treatment arms at most time points in the first 2 years of maintenance. Relevant improvements ≥ 5 points were observed in 30% of patients while improvements ≥ 15 points were observed in 20% of patients. During the same time a similar percentage of patients had relevant ≥ 5 and ≥15 point deteriorations, with a general tendency for a slight increase at the end of year 2. Notably, a greater number of deteriorations was found in the 5 mg lenalidomide arm. Mean GHS/QoL was constant during maintenance with a slight decrease of <2 over the 1st year, reaching borderline relevance after the 2nd year with a mean change of -6 which was mainly driven by the 5 mg lenalidomide treatment arm (25 mg arm: -4 vs. 5 mg arm: -8). Utility values remained constant during maintenance (change from baseline 0.003, p=0.9 at year 1; 0.02, p=0.7 at year 2) and the overall pattern in the change over time does not appear to show any clear differences between the two treatment arms. Looking at QLQ-C30 subgroup domains after two years of maintenance, we observed a significantly higher change from baseline for diarrhea in the 25 mg lenalidomide arm, which may be a long-term drug-related effect. Conversely, role functioning was also significantly better in patients treated within the 25 mg lenalidomide arm. Other subgroups did not show significant differences after the second year. Overall GHS/QOL scores were not significantly different in patients with CR vs. ≥ vgPR. Similarly, there was no statistical difference in patients on treatment for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years of maintenance or in patients suffering from grade 3/4 adverse events or not. Thus, neither disease activity, nor duration of treatment nor high-grade toxicity biased our results. Conclusion The LenaMain trial shows that maintenance treatment with 25 mg lenalidomide vs. 5 mg significantly prolongs event-free survival. QoL, as secondary objective, was not different between both treatment arms, even showing a trend for improved QoL in the 25 mg lenalidomide treatment arm. Thus, QoL was not governed by the higher rate of infectious toxicity during high-dose lenalidomide maintenance. Disclosures Boquoi: Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Other: Travel grant. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy. Rummel:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Honoraria. Kroeger:Sanofi: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mai:Celgene: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Onyx: Other: travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: travel grant. Kobbe:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Fenk:Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Midostaurin in Combination with High-Dose Daunorubicin in 7+3 Induction for Acute Myeloid Leukemia with FLT3 Mutation

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129331 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3896-3896

Author(s):

Yehuda E. Deutsch ◽

Robert Wilkinson ◽

Amanda Brahim ◽

Stephanie Boisclair ◽

Jose Sandoval-Sus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cancer Center ◽

High Dose ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Acute Myeloid

Introduction: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous disease with varied outcomes dependent on patient cytogenetic and mutational status. Thirty percent of adults with newly diagnosed AML have a mutation in the fms-related tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) gene. Midostaurin is a small molecule inhibitor that acts on multiple receptor tyrosine kinases, including FLT3. The RATIFY trial showed improved overall survival (OS) and event-free survival in patients treated with daunorubicin and cytarabine (7+3) plus midostaurin (Stone et al, NEJM 2017). In this trial, a dose of daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 was administered. High dose (HD) 90 mg/m2 daunorubicin significantly improved the rate of complete remission and overall survival, including in patients with FLT3-ITD (Luskin et al, Blood 2016). HD daunorubicin has also been shown to be more effective than idarubicin in patients with FLT3-ITD AML (Lee et al, J Clin Oncol 2017). This data raises the question of whether the combination of midostaurin and HD daunorubicin would further improve outcomes of FLT3 mutated AML patients, while maintaining a tolerable safety profile. The objective of this study is to describe the safety and efficacy endpoints of FLT3 mutated AML patients treated with HD daunorubicin plus midostaurin as part of induction therapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and molecular data of patients at Memorial Healthcare System, Moffitt Cancer Center, and Sylvester Cancer Center with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutated AML treated from May 1st, 2017 to July 1st, 2019. Clinical data was abstracted in accordance with institutional review board approved protocol. All patients were induced with HD daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 on days 1-3, cytarabine 100 mg/m2 on days 1-7, and midostaurin 50 mg PO twice daily on days 8-21. Growth factor and antimicrobial support were used per institutional guidelines. Demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. OS was analyzed using Kaplan Meier method. Other efficacy outcomes were CR, CRi (assessed according to the European Leukemia Network Criteria for AML), proportion of patients needing re-induction, and proportion of patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and early (30- and 60-day) mortality. Results: Twenty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Patient characteristics are outlined in TABLE 1. All patients were FLT3 mutated, as confirmed with molecular studies. The FLT3 subtype was ITD (high) in 3 patients, ITD (low) in 16 patients, TKD in 5 patients, and both in 2 patients. Seventy-seven percent of patients achieved a CR/CRi after one induction cycle, and 96.2% attained CR after two induction cycles. Median time to ANC and platelet recovery was 28 and 26 days, respectively. One patient died during the first 60 days, due to Enterococcus sepsis. The most common non-hematological AEs were nausea (77%), diarrhea (62%), mucositis (58%), rash (54%), and increased ALT (54%). Cumulative incidence of relapse in the cohort was 28% (n=7). Four patients relapsed pre-transplant and achieved CR2 with additional therapy. All 7 of these patients had co-occurring mutations of various types. Of the 20 patients who were considered transplant eligible, 13 (65%) underwent HSCT and 4 (20%) are pending transplant. Of the 13 transplanted patients, 3 experienced relapse post-transplant. After a median follow up of 14.5 months, median OS has not been reached. Conclusion: In our multi-center experience, induction with HD daunorubicin, cytarabine, and midostaurin is clinically effective and seems to be well tolerated. Short term mortality was low and AEs were manageable, with no unexpected safety signals. Also, CR/CRi rates were higher than previously reported, suggesting that the combination of HD daunorubicin and midostaurin may improve the outcomes of patients with FLT3 mutated AML. Future analyses with larger patient samples and longer follow up are warranted to further evaluate long-term safety and efficacy for this regimen. Figure Disclosures Sandoval-Sus: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bradley:AbbVie: Other: Advisory Board. Talati:Agios: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Watts:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sallman:Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Celyad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sweet:Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lancet:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services ; Agios, Biopath, Biosight, Boehringer Inglheim, Celator, Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text