The MM-021 Trial Of Lenalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone In Chinese Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Impact Of Prior Therapies On Efficacy and Safety

Abstract Background The combination of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) is approved in China for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) who have received at least 1 prior antimyeloma treatment. The MM-021 China registration study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of LEN + LoDEX (Rd). This sub-analysis investigated the impact of the number of prior antimyeloma therapies on treatment outcomes. Methods MM-021 was a phase 2, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study. Relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) pts (aged ≥ 18 yrs) were given LEN (25 mg/day on days 1-21) and LoDEX (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in 28-day treatment cycles until disease progression or discontinuation. Pts included in the pharmacokinetics cohort did not receive DEX on day 1, cycle 1. All pts received thromboprophylaxis during the study. The primary end-point was best overall response rate (ORR), defined as the percentage of pts who achieved a best response of at least partial response. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and safety. Data were analyzed according to the number of therapies that pts had received prior to study screening: 1-2, 3-4, or > 4. Results The analysis cut-off date was January 4, 2013, with a median follow-up of 17.6 mos. All pts in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 199) were included in the safety analysis, and 187 pts were included in the efficacy-evaluable (EE) population. At the cut-off date, 42 pts had completed treatment and 157 had discontinued. Overall, the median age of pts was 59.0 yrs (range 35-81) and 62.8% were male. The majority of pts had advanced disease (85.9% had Durie-Salmon stage III MM); 40.7% of pts (ITT population) had received > 4 prior anti-myeloma therapies; 33.2% had received 3-4, and 26.1% had received 1-2. Most pts had received prior treatment with thalidomide (THAL; 68.8%) or bortezomib (BORT; 63.8%) (Table 1). After a median treatment duration of 8.3 mos (range 0.9-24.8) or 9 treatment cycles (range 1-27), the ORR was 47.6% in the overall EE population, and highest in pts who had received 1-2 prior therapies (Table 2). Median OS, PFS, and TTP were longer in pts who had received 1-2 prior therapies compared with those who had received 3-4 and > 4 prior therapies, and compared with the overall EE population (Table 2). In the safety population, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (26.1%), neutropenia (25.1%), thrombocytopenia (14.6%), pneumonia (13.1%), leukopenia (9.5%), and decreased neutrophil count (8.5%). In general, grade 3-4 TEAE rates were lower in pts who had received 1-2 prior therapies (60%), and comparable in pts who had received 3-4 (71%), > 4 prior therapies (75%), and the overall safety population (70%). There were 2 reports of grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy. AEs resulted in discontinuation of LEN in 5.8% (n = 3), 10.6% (n = 7) and 9.9% (n = 8), of pts who had received 1-2, 3-4 and > 4 prior therapies, respectively. Conclusion Rd is an effective treatment option for Chinese RRMM pts who have relapsed after one or more prior therapies, including THAL and/or BORT. More robust efficacy and higher ORR was observed for Rd in patients who had received 1-2 prior therapies compared to those who had received additional lines of treatment. The tolerability of Rd was similar in heavily and less heavily pretreated pts. Discontinuations were infrequent, even in heavily pretreated pts who had received > 4 prior therapies. Disclosures: Zhang: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wortman-Vayn:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mei:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hou:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J & J: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Pmd-107: Marizomib, Pomalidomide and Low Dose-Dexamethasone Combination Study in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (NCT02103335): Full Enrollment Results from a Phase-1 Multicenter, Open Label Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3326.3326 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3326-3326 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Andrew Spencer ◽

Simon Harrison ◽

Jacob P. Laubach ◽

Jeffrey Zonder ◽

Ashraf Z Badros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Marizomib (MRZ) is a novel, irreversible, pan subunit proteasome inhibitor (PI) with preclinical evidence demonstrating in vitro and in vivo activity in multiple myeloma (MM). This study was designed to evaluate the safety and antimyeloma activity of pomalidomide (POM), MRZ and low dose dexamethasone (Lo-DEX) (PMD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Thirty-eight heavily pretreated patients with RRMM were enrolled [dose-escalation cohort (n=14); recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) cohort (n=24)]. IV MRZ (0.3 to 0.5 mg/m2) was administered on Days (D) 1, 4, 8, 11; POM (3 or 4 mg) on D1 through 21; and Lo-DEX (5 or 10 mg) on D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23 of every 28-D cycle. Patients received a median of 4 (range 1-9) prior lines of therapy; 100% received prior lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BTZ), 34% carfilzomib (CFZ), and 50% thalidomide. 53% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BTZ and 21% were refractory to LEN, BTZ, and CFZ. There were no dose limiting toxicities during the study. The most common study treatment related ≥Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (11/38 pts: 29%), pneumonia (4/38 pts 11%), anemia (4/38 pts; 11%), thrombocytopenia (4/38 pts; 11%), and febrile neutropenia (2/38 pts; 5%), with two grade 4 AEs (neutropenia related to POM and viral infection related to DEX), and one grade 5 AE (cardio-respiratory arrest from a suspected PE related to POM). Overall, MRZ was well tolerated, did not add to the incidence or severity of POM/Lo-DEX AEs and the regimen may have fewer hematological and infectious AEs compared to that observed with POM/Lo-DEX. MRZ pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that it was rapidly cleared with a short T1/2 (6.2-11mins) and a large volume of distribution (41-86L) suggesting extensive tissue distribution. Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated rapid and robust inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity in both packed whole blood (PWB) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs), reflecting the irreversible binding nature of MRZ. Evolving inhibition of trypsin-like and caspase-like proteasome activity was also observed in PWB and PBMC with continued dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) for the 36 response evaluable patients was 53% (19/36) and 64% (23/36), respectively (Table 1). Subpopulation analysis demonstrated an ORR of 50% (5/10) in high risk cytogenetic patients, 56% (10/18) in LEN/BTZ refractory patients, 71% (5/7) in LEN/BTZ/CFZ refractory patients and 80% (8/10) in CFZ refractory patients. These data compare favorably against POM/Lo-Dex with a near doubling of ORR in both the total patient population and the double refractory patients. Substantial activity in high-risk patients that are triple refractory and in patients that are refractory to CFZ in prior last regimen was observed. MRZ activity in RRMM patients exposed and/or refractory to multiple PIs is likely a consequence of its unique pan proteasome subunit inhibitory actions. In conclusion, MRZ in combination with POM and Lo-DEX was well tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pretreated, high-risk RRMM patients. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership. Khot:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacLaren:Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reich:Triphase Accelerator: Consultancy. Trikha:Encycle Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Triphase Accelerator: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Longer Term Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Compared with Intravenous Rituximab: Updated Results of the Phase 3 SABRINA Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.1103.1103 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 1103-1103

Author(s):

Andrew J Davies ◽

Biljana Mihaljevic ◽

Santiago Mercadal ◽

Georgi Mihaylov ◽

Sirpa Leppä ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Injection Site ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety Population ◽

Cutaneous Reactions ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: A new subcutaneous formulation of rituximab (RSC) has been developed which offers reduced treatment burden for patients compared to intravenous rituximab (RIV) as well as resource savings at the treatment facility. Additionally, availability of RSC would potentially allow patients to be treated primarily IV-free with orally administered partner therapies. The Phase 3 SABRINA study (NCT01200758) investigated induction RIV or RSC plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance RIV or RSC in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Pharmacokinetic non-inferiority was previously reported for RSC (1400mg) compared with RIV (375mg/m2) as well as comparable efficacy and safety (Davies et al. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:343-52; Davies, et al. Haematologica 2015;100:P687). Here we present updated efficacy and safety results including overall response rates (ORR) at the end of maintenance and time to event (progression-free [PFS], overall [OS], and event-free [EFS] survival) data with a median follow-up of 37 months. Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve CD20+ grade 1-3a FL (n=410) were randomized to receive RIV or RSC, stratified by FL International Prognostic Index score, chemotherapy regimen, and region. All patients received RIV 375mg/m2 in Cycle 1; for Cycles 2-8, patients received RIV 375mg/m2 or RSC 1400mg every 3 weeks. Patients received ≤8 cycles of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) or 8 cycles of CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone). During maintenance, patients received RIV or RSC every 8 weeks for 2 years. Non-serious adverse events (AEs) were reported for 28 days following the last dose of rituximab. Serious AEs (SAEs) were recorded for 1 year post-treatment or until the start of new anti-lymphoma treatment. SAEs considered possibly related to study treatment were recorded indefinitely. Results: Based on investigator assessments for the intent-to-treat population (RIV n=205; RSC n=205), ORR at the end of maintenance was comparable between treatment arms: (78.1%, 95% CI [71.3, 83.9] for RIV vs. 77.9%, 95% CI [71.0, 83.9] for RSC) (Table 1). Analyses of the time-to-event endpoints PFS (HR, 0.84, 95% CI [0.57, 1.23]) (Fig.1), EFS (HR, 0.91, 95% CI [0.64, 1.31), and OS (HR, 0.81, 95% CI [0.42, 1.57) showed no differences in efficacy for the SC vs. the IV formulation. In total, 407 patients received ≥1 dose of rituximab (safety population). Six RSC patients discontinued treatment after Cycle 1 (RIV in both arms) and were included in the RIV safety population (RIV n=210; RSC n=197); 86% of patients started maintenance (RIV n=178, 85%; RSC n=172, 87%). Overall, there were similar incidences of patients with ≥1 AE (95% vs. 96%), grade ≥3 AEs (55% and 56%), and SAEs (34% and 37%) for RIV vs. RSC, respectively (Table 2). The most frequent AEs reported overall (RIV vs. RSC) were neutropenia (27% vs. 32%), nausea (22% vs. 31%), constipation (26% vs. 25%), cough (13% vs. 23%), and fatigue (18% vs. 20%). The most frequently reported AEs during the maintenance phase of the study were upper respiratory tract infection (7% vs. 11%) and cough (11% vs. 12%) for RIV vs. RSC, respectively. Overall, AEs associated with B-cell depletion, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and grade ≥3 infections, were balanced between the SC and IV treatment arms. The change in route of administration led to an expected higher incidence of local cutaneous reactions in the RSC arm (2% RIV vs. 23% RSC) with injection site erythema, injection site pain, and rash being most frequently reported. All reported events, except for 1 AE of injection site rash in the RSC arm at Cycle 2, were of mild or moderate intensity (grade ≤2). Incidence of local cutaneous reactions decreased over subsequent treatment cycles. At data cut-off, 36 deaths had been reported: 20 (9.8%) in the RIV arm and 16 (7.8%) in the RSC arm. Conclusions: Overall, there were no new clinically relevant safety signals observed with RSC and the safety profile was comparable to that of RIV. Response rates as well as PFS and OS data for rituximab SC were comparable to rituximab IV and indicate that the anti-lymphoma activity of rituximab is not impaired when given subcutaneously. The availability of RSC administration over approximately 6 minutes has positive implications for patient and healthcare professional convenience, as well as healthcare resource savings, without compromising efficacy or safety. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Davies: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel to scientific conferences, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Leppä:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; CTI Bio Pharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Cotting:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Veenstra:Roche: Employment. Zharkov:Roche: Employment. Dixon:Roche Products Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Barrett:Roche Products Ltd.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Macdonald:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide (POM) with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDEX) in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Outcomes Based on Prior Treatment Exposure

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4070.4070 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4070-4070 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Craig C. Hofmeister ◽

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Prior Exposure ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 4070 Background: There are currently limited effective treatment options for patients (pts) with RRMM with prior exposure to lenalidomide (LEN), bortezomib (BORT) and chemotherapy. In a multicenter, randomized phase 2 study, POM with or without LoDEX (n=221) was active in RRMM pts who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634); activity was also observed in those with disease refractory to LEN, BORT, or both (Vij R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:abs 8016). Here we characterize outcomes in the POM+LoDEX group (n=113) according to the prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT, and had progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At randomization, pts were stratified by age, prior number of treatments, and prior thalidomide exposure. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. All pts received thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). The endpoints in this study were progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (using European Bone Marrow Transplantation [EBMT] criteria), duration of response, time to response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Response data according to prior therapy were assessed by investigator assessment. Results: All 113 pts assigned to POM+LoDEX had prior exposure to LEN (100%), BORT (100%), and steroids (100%). Most pts had also received prior alkylator therapy (93%), stem cell transplant (SCT) (73%), and thalidomide (THAL) (68%); 49% had received prior anthracyclines. Regimens immediately prior to study entry included BORT (50%), LEN (39%), cyclophosphamide (13%), THAL (8%), vorinostat (8%), carfilzomib (5%), and melphalan (5%). The median number of exposures to LEN and BORT in prior lines was once (range 1–4) and twice (range 1–6), respectively. The majority of pts (80%) had received >3 prior therapies. The overall response rate (ORR) was 48% and 30% in pts who had received ≤3 and >3 prior therapies, respectively. Of the pts who had ≤3 vs > 3 prior therapies, 9% vs 1% pts achieved complete response (CR), 39% vs 29% pts achieved partial response (PR), 9% vs 12% pts achieved minimal response (MR) and 44% vs 36 % pts achieved stable disease (SD), respectively. ORR was 34% and appeared similar regardless of prior exposure to alkylators (33%), anthracyclines (35%), SCT (35%), or THAL (35%). Median duration of response was also similar in pts who had received prior alkylators (8.4 mos), anthracyclines (10.1 mos), SCT (7.7 mos), and THAL (7.7 mos). Of the 69 pts who had a best response of SD or PD to their last prior antimyeloma therapy, 21 pts (12 SD and 9 PD) achieved a PR and 3 pts (1 SD and 2 PD) achieved a CR with POM+LoDEX treatment. Responding pts had longer time to progression (TTP; 11.1 mos) with POM+LoDex compared with the TTP (4.4 mos) observed with their last antimyeloma regimen prior to study. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the POM+LoDEX group were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and fatigue (14%). The incidence of at least 1 grade 3–4 adverse event was 100% in pts with ≤ 3 prior therapies, and 88% in pts with >3 therapies. Conclusions: The combination of POM+LoDEX has demonstrated an ORR of 34% in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM who have been previously exposed to LEN, BORT, steroids, and other treatments. Early treatment of POM+LoDEX (≤3 prior therapies) achieved better ORR (48%) compared with pts who received POM+LoDex later (>3 prior therapies; ORR, 30%). Disclosures: Vij: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other. Jagannath:Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.478.478 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 478-478 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ruben Niesvizky ◽

Ian W. Flinn ◽

Robert Rifkin ◽

Nashat Gabrail ◽

Veena Charu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Treatment Period ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Community Based ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

Analysis of Second-Line Lenalidomide Following Initial Relapse in the MM-015 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.944.944 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 944-944 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Meletios A Dimopoulos ◽

Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽

Robin Foa ◽

John V. Catalano ◽

Martin Kropff ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Second Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Third Line Therapy ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Third Line ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 944 Background: MM-009/010 established lenalidomide (LEN) + dexamethasone (DEX) as a standard of care in the treatment (Tx) of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Dimopoulos, NEJM. 2007; Weber, NEJM. 2007). The greatest benefits were observed when LEN + DEX was used at first relapse (Stadtmauer, Eur J Haematol. 2009). MM-015 is a pivotal, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with fixed-cycle melphalan-prednisone (MP) and melphalan-prednisone-LEN (MPR) in elderly patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplant. The final analysis demonstrated unprecedented improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts receiving MPR-R vs MP (31 vs 13 months [mos]; P < 0.001) with manageable toxicity (Palumbo, NEJM. 2012). The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess post-progression outcomes by second-line Tx and by initial MM-015 Tx arm (MPR-R, MPR, and MP). Methods: Induction and maintenance Tx has been described (Palumbo, NEJM. 2012). Pts with progressive disease during MM-015 could enroll in an open-label extension phase (OLEP) to receive LEN 25 mg (D1-21) ± DEX 40 mg (D1-4, 9–12, and 17–20) or could receive any other anti-myeloma Tx outside of the protocol. This analysis includes data up to Apr 10, 2012 (median follow-up: 48 mos after initial randomization). Time to progression (TTP) was assessed from randomization to disease progression as assessed by investigator. Time from start of second line to start of third-line Tx was assessed as a surrogate for TTP in second line. Safety data were assessed only for pts enrolled in the OLEP. Results: A total of 459 pts were enrolled in MM-015. Consistent with the superior PFS of MPR-R, fewer pts from the MPR-R arm progressed compared with the MPR and MP arms: 54% (81/150) vs 77% (117/152), and 83% (127/153) respectively. Compared with the overall population, pts receiving second-line Tx had shorter median first-line TTP (29 vs 20 mos), particularly for the MPR-R arm. This suggests that the present subset of pts in the MPR-R arm who started second-line therapy represents the early progressors, those with worse prognosis or more aggressive disease (Table). More pts received second-line Tx in the MP (72%) and MPR (58%) arms vs MPR-R arm (30%, Table); second-line Tx type was heterogeneous for MPR-R pts. Median time from second- to third-line Tx was significantly longer for LEN-based Tx vs non-LEN-based Tx across the 3 arms: MPR-R (18 vs 13 mos; P = 0.044), MPR (23 vs 8 mos; P = 0.02), and MP (18 vs 10 mos; P = 0.001). Median time from second- to third-line therapy with bortezomib (BORT)-based regimens was 14, 16, and 12 mos, respectively. This corresponded to higher proportions of pts remaining on second-line LEN at 2 yrs (38%, 44%, and 40%) vs non-LEN (15%, 30%, and 13%) for MPR-R, MPR, and MP, respectively. When evaluating second-line BORT, 22%, 33%, and 17%, respectively, had not progressed from second- to third-line therapy at 2 years. Prior LEN maintenance did not appear to induce resistant relapses as time from second- to third-line Tx was similar for all arms (Table) and all comparisons: MPR-R vs MP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.924; P = 0.69), MPR-R vs MPR (HR = 1.076; P = 0.71), and MPR vs MP (HR = 0.895; P = 0.53). With limited follow-up, no significant differences in post-relapse OS have been detected. Newly occurring grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) reported for ≥ 5% of pts entering the OLEP (n = 153) were neutropenia (11%) and anemia (5%). Grade 3/4 deep vein thrombosis and peripheral neuropathy occurred in 3% and 1% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: LEN-based Tx was active in the second line, with comparable efficacy regardless of first-line therapy (MPR-R, MPR, or MP). Although pt numbers are relatively small, and this is a non-randomized comparison, results with second-line LEN-based therapy compared favorably to outcomes with other Tx. The OLEP tolerability profile was favorable, with limited newly occurring grade 3/4 AEs. Importantly, LEN maintenance does not appear to induce resistant relapses. These results support the known activity of LEN as second-line MM therapy. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene Corp: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as frontline treatment of multiple myeloma. Petrucci:Celgene Corp: Honoraria. Foa:Celgene Corp: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Catalano:Celgene Corp: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herbein:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palumbo:Celgene Corp: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

MM-008: A Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability Of Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone In Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Renal Impairment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.5393.5393 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 5393-5393 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jeffrey Matous ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

Hien K. Duong ◽

Claudia Kasserra ◽

Min Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Renal Function ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Impaired Renal Function ◽

Low Dose ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Pomalidomide (POM) is indicated for patients (pts) with multiple myeloma who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. Renal impairment (RI) is a common comorbidity in multiple myeloma (MM), occurring in > 40% of pts. POM is extensively metabolized, with < 5% eliminated renally as the parent drug. Thus, renal function may not substantively affect exposure of the active parent compound. POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) has shown efficacy in pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) with moderate RI in phase 2 and phase 3 trials. However, pts with severe RI were excluded from these trials. MM-008 is an active multicenter, open-label, phase 1 study designed to prospectively assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of POM + LoDEX in pts with RRMM and normal or severely impaired renal function. Methods Pts with RRMM and ≥ 1 prior therapy were eligible for enrollment. Pts in Cohort A (creatinine clearance [CrCL] ≥ 60 mL/min) served as the control population and received POM 4 mg on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle. Pts in Cohort B (CrCL < 30 mL/min but not requiring dialysis) followed a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, receiving POM 2 mg on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle and based on results, escalating to 4 mg. Dosing for Cohort C (CrCL < 30 mL/min and requiring dialysis) was informed by the results from Cohort B. All cohorts received dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Pts were not permitted to enroll in more than 1 cohort. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for management of neutropenia was not permitted in cycle 1, but could be started on day 1 of the next cycle at the physician’s discretion. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (V 4.0). PK samples were obtained pre- and post-POM dose on days 1, 2, and 3 (after single doses) and days 21, 22, and 23 (after multiple doses) of cycle 1 for cohorts A and B. PK data were dose-normalized for comparison across cohorts by dividing the measured exposure by the POM dose in milligrams. Results As of April 1, 2013, 11 pts have been treated (8 in Cohort A; 3 in Cohort B at 2 mg). At screening, median age (range) was 68 years (46-71 years) and 64 years (57-64 years) while median CrCL (range) was 85 mL/min (53.1- 114.8 mL/min) and 18.4 mL/min (12.5-25.7 mL/min) in cohorts A and B, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were neutropenia (Cohort A: 4 pts; Cohort B: 1 pt), infections (Cohort A: 2 pts; Cohort B: 2 pts), and anemia (Cohort A: 2 pts; Cohort B: 1 pt). No dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1 have been reported. Median duration of treatment and relative dose intensity were similar between cohorts A and B, 4.1 months (range, 1.8-5.1 months) vs 3.9 months (range, 1.8-8.5 months) and 1.0 (range, 0.5-1.1) and 1.1 (range, 1.0-1.1), respectively. Only 1 pt (Cohort A) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Five pts remain on study (Cohort A: 3 pts; Cohort B: 2 pts). Initial PK analyses showed that mean dose-normalized AUC024 in Cohort B was approximately 20% lower than in Cohort A. Mean dose-normalized Cmax in Cohort B was approximately 30% lower than that in Cohort A after a single dose but comparable after multiple doses. Based on these results, additional pts in Cohort B and pts in Cohort C will receive POM 4 mg. Updated PK and adverse event data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion MM-008 is an ongoing trial prospectively evaluating the PK and safety of POM + LoDEX in pts with severe RI. Preliminary data suggest that dose-normalized exposure in pts with RRMM with severe RI is similar to that in pts with normal to mildly impaired renal function. No dose-limiting toxicities have been reported, and early tolerability data are encouraging. Disclosures: Matous: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Approved in the US but not in Europe. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Duong:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kasserra:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Doerr:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shah:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide (LEN) Versus Placebo (PBO) in RBC-Transfusion Dependent (TD) Patients (Pts) with IPSS Low/Intermediate (Int-1)-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) without Del(5q) and Unresponsive or Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs): Results from a Randomized Phase 3 Study (CC-5013-MDS-005)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.409.409 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 409-409 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Valeria Santini ◽

Antonio Almeida ◽

Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽

Stephanie Gröpper ◽

Anna Jonasova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Double Blind ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Treatment options for RBC-TD pts with lower-risk MDS without del(5q) who are unresponsive or refractory to ESAs are very limited. In a previous phase 2 study, MDS-002 (CC-5013-MDS-002), LEN was associated with achievement of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 56 days in 26% of pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) (Raza et al. Blood 2008;111:86-93). This international phase 3 study (CC-5013-MDS-005) compared the efficacy and safety of LEN versus PBO in RBC-TD pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) unresponsive or refractory to ESAs. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study included RBC-TD pts (≥ 2 units packed RBCs [pRBCs]/28 days in the 112 days immediately prior to randomization) with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q), who were unresponsive or refractory to ESAs (RBC-TD despite ESA treatment with adequate dose and duration, or serum erythropoietin [EPO] > 500 mU/mL). Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral LEN 10 mg once daily (5 mg for pts with creatinine clearance 40–60 mL/min) or PBO. Pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days or erythroid response by Day 168 continued double-blind treatment until erythroid relapse, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was RBC-TI ≥ 56 days (defined as absence of any RBC transfusions during any 56 consecutive days). Secondary endpoints included time to RBC-TI, duration of RBC-TI, RBC-TI ≥ 168 days, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML; WHO criteria), overall survival (OS), and safety. Baseline bone marrow gene expression profiles were evaluated according to the Ebert signature (PloS Med 2008;5:e35) identified as predictive of LEN response. Clinical trial identifier: CT01029262. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprises 239 pts (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 79). Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups; median age 71 years (range 43–87), 67.8% male, and median time from diagnosis 2.6 years (range 0.1–29.6). Pts received a median of 3.0 pRBC units/28 days (range 1.5–9.8) and 83.7% received prior therapy, including ESAs (78.7%). Significantly more LEN pts achieved RBC-TI ≥ 56 days versus PBO (26.9% vs 2.5%; P < 0.001; Table). The majority (90%) of pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days responded within 16 weeks of treatment. Median duration of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days was 8.2 months (range 5.2–17.8). Baseline factors significantly associated with achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days with LEN were: prior ESAs (vs no ESAs; P = 0.005), serum EPO ≤ 500 mU/mL (vs > 500 mU/mL; P = 0.015), < 4 pRBC units/28 days (vs ≥ 4 pRBC units/28 days; P = 0.036), and female sex (vs male; P = 0.035). RBC-TI ≥ 168 days was achieved in 17.5% and 0% of pts in the LEN and PBO groups, respectively. The incidence of AML progression (per 100 person-years) was 1.91 (95% CI 0.80–4.59) and 2.46 (95% CI 0.79–7.64) for LEN and PBO pts, respectively, with median follow-up 1.6 and 1.3 years. Death on treatment occurred in 2.5% of pts on either LEN or PBO. The follow-up period was insufficient to permit OS comparison between the 2 groups. Myelosuppression was the main adverse event (AE); in the LEN versus PBO groups, respectively, grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 61.9% versus 11.4% of pts, and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in 35.6% versus 3.8% of pts. Discontinuations due to AEs were reported in 31.9% LEN and 11.4% PBO pts; among the 51 LEN pts who discontinued due to AEs, 14 discontinuations were due to thrombocytopenia and 8 due to neutropenia. In the subset of pts evaluated for the Ebert signature (n = 203), the predictive power of the signature was not confirmed. Conclusions: LEN therapy was associated with a significant achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days in 26.9% of pts with a median duration of RBC-TI of 8.2 months; 90% of pts responded within 16 weeks of treatment. These data were consistent with response rates seen in the MDS-002 trial. The overall safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of LEN and these data suggest LEN can be safely and effectively used in this patient population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Santini: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Trial of Lenalidomide in non-del5q MDS. Almeida:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vey:Celgene: Honoraria. Mufti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Research Funding. Mittelman:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Shpilberg:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. del Canizo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gattermann:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ozawa:Celgene: Consultancy, not specified Other. Zhong:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Séguy:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Analysis of Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Vs without Moderate Renal Impairment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3031.3031 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3031-3031 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

David S Siegel ◽

Katja C. Weisel ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Rachid Baz ◽

Paul G. Richardson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Pooled Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Support Research

Abstract Introduction: Renal impairment (RI) occurs in ≈ 20% to 40% of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM; Kastritis et al, Haematologica, 2007) and is a major comorbidity with this disease (Korbet et al, J Am Soc Nephrol, 2006). Pts with MM who relapse on or become refractory to treatment (Tx) experience shortened overall survival (OS; Kumar et al, Leukemia, 2012). Pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) is approved for the Tx of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) in pts who have had Tx failure with lenalidomide and/or bortezomib. POM + LoDEX demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with RRMM (MM-010; Dimopoulos et al, EHA 2015) as well as extended progression-free survival (PFS) and OS vs high-dose dexamethasone (MM-003; San Miguel et al, Lancet Oncol, 2013) or POM alone (MM-002; Richardson et al, Blood, 2014). Each trial included pts with moderate RI, and this pooled analysis examines the safety and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in pts with moderate RI. Patients and Methods: Pts from MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 who had received POM + LoDEX were grouped by RI status (with moderate RI [creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min] and without RI [CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min]) and assessed for safety and efficacy. Results: Overall, from the 3 trials, data from 356 pts with moderate RI and 716 pts without RI were analyzed. Pts with moderate RI were slightly older (70 vs 63 yrs) and more commonly had International Staging System stage III disease (45.8% vs 25.4% in the 271 and 544 pts with available data). Median time from diagnosis was similar, 5.2 yrs (with moderate RI) vs 5.3 years (without RI); pts in both subgroups had a median of 5 prior Tx. The proportions of pts with moderate RI vs without RI who were refractory to LEN (95.5% vs 93.0%), BORT (82.0% vs 80.7%), and both LEN and BORT (78.4% vs 76.1%) were similar. The median Tx duration was slightly shorter for pts with moderate RI vs without RI (16.6 vs 20.4 weeks), but the median average daily dose (4.0 mg/day) and median relative dose intensity (0.9) were the same between renal subgroups. There were similar frequencies of discontinuations (7.4% vs 5.8%), dose reductions (22.7% vs 21.1%), and interruptions (63.1% vs 63.5%) due to adverse events (AEs) between subgroups of pts with moderate RI vs without RI. The most common grade 3/4 AEs for pts with moderate RI vs without RI were neutropenia (45.5% vs 48.3%), anemia (34.9% vs 27.5%), infections (31.3% vs 32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (21.3% vs 22.6%). The frequency of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or peripheral neuropathy was ≤ 2% in both subgroups. The overall response rate (ORR) was 32.0% vs 33.0%, the median PFS was 18.1 weeks (95% CI, 15.6-20.9 weeks) vs 21.1 weeks (95% CI, 19.0-24.3 weeks), and median time to progression (TTP) was 20.3 weeks (95% CI, 17.3-24.1 weeks) vs 24.0 weeks (95% CI, 20.1-25.6 weeks) in pts with vs without moderate RI, respectively. Consistent with the poor prognosis associated with RI, median OS was shorter for pts with moderate RI (45.6 weeks [95% CI, 37.9-50.1 weeks]) vs those without RI (62.7 weeks [95% CI, 54.9-70.3 weeks]). Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of 3 trials of pts with RRMM treated with POM + LoDEX, ORR, PFS, TTP, and tolerability results appeared to be independent of the presence or absence of moderate RI. This analysis supports the use of POM + LoDEX as a standard of care in RRMM for pts with or without moderate RI. Disclosures Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Noxxon: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Baz:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hong:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Selinexor, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (SRd) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124370 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3165-3165 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Darrell J White ◽

Suzanne Lentzsch ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

Nizar Bahlis ◽

Christine I Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Nuclear Export ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: The nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1) is overexpressed in a wide variety of cancers including multiple myeloma. Selinexor is a novel, first-in-class selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE), which blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins. Selinexor in combination with low dose dexamethasone (Sel-dex) was recently approved based on data from the STORM study, wherein Sel-dex induced an overall response rate (ORR) of 26.2% in patients with penta-exposed, triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone has been approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with an ORR of 60-76%. The STOMP study assessed the efficacy and safety of the all oral combination of selinexor, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (SRd) in patients with relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We previously reported the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of once weekly selinexor 60 mg, lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone achieved an ORR of 92% in patients with RRMM who were lenalidomide naive. Here we evaluated once weekly selinexor in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods: STOMP is a multicenter, open-label study with a dose escalation (phase 1) and expansion (phase 2) to assess the maximum tolerated dose, RP2D, efficacy and safety of SRd in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were eligible if they had symptomatic myeloma per the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines with either hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, bone lesions (CRAB) criteria or myeloma defining events needing systemic therapy. Enrollment in this arm is ongoing. Results: As of July 01 2019, 8 patients (4 males and 4 females ) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were enrolled at the starting dose level of selinexor 60 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; lenalidomide 25 mg daily 1-21and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly on a 28 day cycle. The median age was 74 years (range: 51-86 years). No dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed in 5 DLT evaluable patients, 3 patients were not DLT evaluable because 1 patient did not finish cycle 1 due to social reasons and 2 patients missed doses due to serious adverse events (SAEs) unrelated to study drugs.. Common treatment related hematologic AEs (Grades 1/2, ≥3) were neutropenia (0%, 75%), anemia (0%, 25%), and thrombocytopenia (0%, 25%). Common non-hematologic AEs were diarrhea (63%, 0%), nausea (50%, 0%), fatigue (0%, 38%) decreased weight (38%, 0%), constipation (25%, 0%), hypokalemia (25%, 0%), and hypomagnesemia (25%, 0%). Among 7 efficacy evaluable patients, 6 patients achieved a response (ORR of 86%) including 1 complete response, 1 very good partial responses, 4 partial responses (2 unconfirmed), and 1 patient achieved a minimal response. With a median follow-up of 6.1 months, median progression-free survival was not reached. Conclusions: The all oral combination of SRd has promising activity with 6 of 7 efficacy evaluable patients achieving an objective response in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and no new or unexpected safety signals. Disclosures White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lentzsch:Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Proclara: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Honoraria; International Myeloma Foundation: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Columbia University: Patents & Royalties: 11-1F4mAb as anti-amyloid strategy; Caelum Biosciences: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lipe:Celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy. Schiller:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Tuchman:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Prothena: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kotb:Karyopharm: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Leblanc:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sebag:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. Venner:Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Bensinger:Amgen, Celgene: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Karyopharm: Other: Grant. Sheehan:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kai:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Baljevic:Karyopharm: Other: Internal Review Committee participant; Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide (POM) with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDex) in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Who Have Received Prior Therapy with Lenalidomide (LEN) and Bortezomib (BORT): Updated Phase 2 Results and Age Subgroup Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.450.450 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 450-450 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Craig C. Hofmeister ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

Ravi Vij ◽

Sagar Lonial ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Low Dose ◽

Dose Intensity ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

The Mean ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 450 Background: New antimyeloma treatments that re-establish tumor response are required to improve survival for pts with advanced, treatment-refractory MM. The MM-002 phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral pomalidomide, in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDex), in pts with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have who have received ≥2 prior therapies including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634). Updated results from March 2012 for pts and the outcomes of subgroup analyses are presented. Methods: Eligible pts with MM who had received at least 2 prior therapies (including LEN and BORT) and had disease progression within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to either POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. Pts aged over 75 years received LoDex, 20 mg/week. All pts received mandatory thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). Pts were stratified within each treatment group according to age. The key efficacy endpoints included the objective response rate using European Bone Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria, duration of response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and safety. This updated analysis focused on pts on the POM+LoDex arm. Results: The intention-to-treat efficacy analysis included 113 pts in the POM+LoDex group. The mean age of pts treated with POM+LoDex was 64 years (range, 34–88); 99 pts (88%) were aged ≤75 years. Response rates, median duration of response, and age subgroups are presented in the Table. Median PFS and OS were 4.6 months (mos) and 16.5 mos, respectively, in the POM+LoDex group overall. In the age subgroup analysis of pts treated with POM+LoDex, the median PFS was 4.7 mos in pts aged ≤65 years, and 3.7 mos in pts >65 years. Median OS was 19.7 mos in pts aged ≤65 years and 11.8 mos in pts >65 years. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) occurring in >5% of pts were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), fatigue (14%), dyspnea (13%), leukopenia (10%), back pain (10%), and urinary tract infection (9%). AEs led to at least one dose reduction in 26% of pts; neutropenia was associated with a dose reduction in 4% of pts. Overall, 78% of pts who developed grade 3 or 4 neutropenia used G-CSF during study treatment. There were no reports of grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy (PN); grade 1 or 2 PN occurred in 7% of pts treated with POM+LoDex. Deep vein thrombosis (any grade) occurred in 2 pts (2%), both aged ≤65 years. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 46% of pts aged ≤65 years and in 35% of pts aged >65 years. Despite this, only 1 pt in each age group developed febrile neutropenia (2%). The mean relative dose intensity (dose intensity/planned dose intensity) was 0.9 in both pt groups of ≤65 years and > 65 years receiving POM+LoDex. Overall, 21 pts (19%) of the POM+LoDex group died during the study. The most common cause of death was progressive MM (52%; only in 14% of all cases was it due to disease progression); other causes of death (48%) included infections, cerebral/intracranial/subarachonoid hemorrhage, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and suicide in one pt with a history of severe depression. Conclusions: POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle in combination with LoDex, is clinically effective and generally well tolerated in pts with RRMM who have received multiple prior treatments including LEN and BORT. POM+LoDex represents an important potential new treatment option for pts with advanced MM and appears active in both younger and older pts, with tolerability similar across different age groups. Phase 3 studies of POM+LoDEX in combination with other agents (e.g. bortezomib) are ongoing. Disclosures: Jagannath: Millennium Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, BMS, Onyx, Merck; all < $10,000 per year and disclosed to my institution: Consultancy. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other.

Download Full-text