A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 763-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Adam Zdenek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Long Term Outcome of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) Vs Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Vs Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) As Induction Followed By Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) Vs Lenalidomide (R) As Maintenance in a Community-Based Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Population: Updated Analysis of EMN01 Phase III Study

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 901-901
Author(s):  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Giulia Benevolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction : Rd and MPR showed to be effective combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Cyclophosphamide is a less toxic alkylating alternative agent. EMN01 is the first trial to formally compare these three different Lenalidomide-based combinations. Maintenance with Lenalidomide has been recently approved in patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Few data are available about the best combination as maintenance in patients not eligible for ASCT. Methods : 662 pts with NDMM were randomized to receive 9 28-day cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those &gt;75 years), MPR (lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days) or CPR (lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day in &gt;75 years pts; prednisone 25 mg every other day). After induction, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (R; 10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (RP; R, 10 mg/day for 21 days and P, 25 mg every other day), until disease progression. Results : Pts characteristics were well balanced in all groups; 217 pts in Rd, 217 in MPR and 220 in CPR arms could be evaluated. After a median follow-up of 63.7 months, median PFS was 23.2 months in MPR, 18.9 months in CPR and 18.6 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.02; MPR vs Rd p=0.08). Median overall survival (OS) was 79.9 months in MPR, 69.4 months in CPR and 68.1 months in Rd (MPR vs CPR p=0.98; MPR vs Rd p=0.64). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AEs) was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR and 25% in Rd pts (p&lt;0.0001). Grade ≥3 non hematologic AEs were similar among arms. At the end of induction, 402 pts were eligible for maintenance, 198 in the RP and 204 in the R groups. PFS from start of maintenance was 22.2 months in the RP group and 17.6 in the R group, with 20% reduced the risk of death/progression for pts receiving RP maintenance (HR 0.81, p=0.07; Figure 1). A subgroup analysis was performed to determine the consistency of RP vs R treatment effect in different subgroups using interaction terms between treatment and cytogenetic abnormalities, ISS, age, sex, induction treatment and response before maintenance (Figure 1). No difference in OS was observed (HR 1.02, p=0.93) but the OS analysis was limited by the low number of events. Median duration of maintenance was 23.0 months in RP pts and 20.5 months in R pts, 14% and 13% of pts discontinued due to AEs, in RP and R groups, respectively. Conclusion : This phase III trial compared 2 different Lenalidomide-containing induction regimens and 2 different Lenalidomide-containing maintenance regimens in an elderly community-based NDMM population. MPR prolonged PFS by approximately 5 months, yet the higher incidence of hematologic toxicity should be carefully considered. The addition of low-dose prednisone to standard lenalidomide maintenance reduced the risk of death/progression by 20%, with a good safety profile. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Bringhen: Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyipharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musto: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. De Sabbata: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Binding Site: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hájek: Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Maintenance Therapy With Lenalidomide Significantly Improved Survival Of Yong Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2089-2089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Tommaso Caravita ◽  
Maide Cavalli ◽  
Arnon Nagler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplant improves outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in comparison to conventional chemotherapy. The incorporation of new drugs into induction, consolidation and maintenance therapy is changing the treatment paradigm and is questioning the role of HDT in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients <65 years. Previous finding have been presented (Boccadoro, ASCO 2013) and this analysis provides a longer follow-up. Aims To compare in a prospective randomized trial melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) both followed by maintenance with lenalidomide or no maintenance in NDMM patients. Methods A 2x2 factorial randomized trial was designed. The induction treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg d 1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg d 1,8,15,22) (Rd). As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/k g d 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d 1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d 1-21)] or MEL200 (N=200)[tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support]. Patients were further randomized, within each group, to receive lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg, days 1-21, N=198) or no maintenance (N=204). Primary study endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The secondary study endpoints included response rates, safety and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results From November 2007 to July 2009, 402 patients with NDMM <65 years of age were enrolled. All patients were stratified according to International Staging System (ISS) and age. Patient characteristics were well balanced in all groups. In the MPR group, the Very Good Partial Response (VGPR) rate was 50% with 13% of Complete Response (CR) while the VGPR rate was 52% including 19% of CR in the MEL200 group. In the MPR group the CR rate improved from 13% after consolidation to 17% after maintenance. In the MEL200 group the CR rate improved from 19% after consolidation to 25% after maintenance. After a median follow-up of 48 months, the median PFS was 24.2 months in MPR group and 38.6 months in MEL200 group ( P< 0.0001). A multivariate analysis confirms the PFS benefit associated with MEL200 across all subgroups of patients defined by stratification factors and baseline characteristics. The 5-year OS rate was similar between MPR (62%) and MEL200 (71%; P= 0.27). In a landmark analysis, lenalidomide maintenance significantly extended PFS from the start of maintenance (median 42,7 months) compared with no maintenance (median 17.5 months; P<.0001). The 4-year OS rate from the start of maintenance was higher in patients who received lenalidomide maintenance (80%) compared with patients who did not (62%; P= 0,01). No significant interaction was detected between MPR/MEL200 (P=0.704) and maintenance/observation (P=0.984) effects. During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) between MPR and MEL200 were as follow: neutropenia (50% vs. 90%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 89%), infections (1% vs. 15%) and gastrointestinal (0% vs. 18%), with complications being higher with MEL200. During the maintenance phase, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were reported in 17% of patients receiving lenalidomide (16% neutropenia). For individual group comparisons during maintenance, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were observed in 20% of patients receiving MPR plus lenalidomide maintenance compared with 15% receiving MEL200 plus lenalidomide maintenance. Second primary malignancies were observed in 11 patients (3%), and were mainly solid tumors. Four solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and one in the MPR group in the maintenance arm, while three solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and three in the MPR group in no maintenance arm. Conclusion The administration of MPR was significantly inferior to MEL200 in terms of PFS. Toxicities were significantly higher in MEL200 group, but manageable. OS is similar between MPR and MEL200. Lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression and of death independently from the previous treatment. Disclosures: Gay: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 123-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vij ◽  
Nitya Nathwani ◽  
Thomas G. Martin ◽  
Mark A. Fiala ◽  
Abhinav Deol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Oral Regimen ◽  
Grade 3

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

A Phase III Study of Enoxaparin Vs Aspirin as Thromboprophylaxis for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Treated with Lenalidomide-Based Regimen.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1092-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Izhar Harda ◽  
Barbara Lupo ◽  
Alessandra Romano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 1092 Background: Newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide-based regimens have a high risk of thromboembolic events. Preliminary studies on MM patients receiving a combination of lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone have shown an increased incidence of thrombosis as well, with a calculated odds ratio of about 3.5 of developing thrombosis. Aims: In a prospective, multicenter phase III trial (RV-MM-PI-209) newly diagnosed patients were treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) induction and subsequently randomized to receive consolidation with lenalidomide + melphalan + prednisone (MPR) or high dose melphalan (MEL200). In this sub-study we evaluated the safety and the efficacy of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin (ASA) as anticoagulant prophylaxis during Rd induction and MPR consolidation. End-points were incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute cardiovascular events, sudden death, major and minor bleeding. Methods: 402 newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled in the randomized trial RV-MM-PI-209. Treatment schedule included four 28 day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to receive six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg days 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg days 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg days 1–21) (MPR, N=202) or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support (MEL200, N=200). All eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive LMWH (Enoxaparin 40 mg/d, N=166) or ASA (Aspirin 100 mg/d, N=176) for the duration of the induction therapy and for consolidation therapy in the MPR group; 60 patients were excluded from this sub-study because of indication for anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy or high-risk of bleeding. Results: Patient characteristics and distribution of major risk factors were similar in the two groups. At the time of the present analysis 381 and 130 patients are evaluable during Rd induction and consolidation respectively. During the induction phase, the overall incidence of any grade 3–4 thrombotic events was 1% in the LMWH group, 2,4% in the ASA group (p=.45). VTE, mostly of the lower limbs were equally distributed in the two groups (1%; p not significant), while pulmonary embolism was observed only in the ASA group (2%; p not significant). Median time to onset of thrombotic events for patients who received LMWH or ASA were 2.1 and 1 months, respectively. No acute cardiovascular events were observed and only minor bleeding was detected in the LMWH group (1%). During consolidation no thrombotic events were observed in the MPR group, only one central venous catheter thrombosis was observed in the MEL200 group. Conclusion: The overall incidence of thrombotic events was less than 5% in all groups and confirmed the safety of low dose dexamethasone in association with Lenalidomide. No significant benefit was seen with LMWH over ASA in this patient population. LMWH and ASA are likely to be effective thromboprophylactic regimens in lenalidomide treated patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The analysis will be updated for the meeting. Disclosures: Cavallo: CELGENE: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria. Boccadoro:CELGENE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; JANSSEN-CILAG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:CELGENE: 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.

Carfilzomib Combined with Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (CARTHADEX) As Induction Treatment Prior to High-Dose Melphalan (HDM) in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM). A Trial of the European Myeloma Network EMN

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 633-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
Emilie Hacker ◽  
Sonja Zweegman ◽  
Marie Jose Kersten ◽  
Edo Vellenga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Tumor Lysis Syndrome ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Tumor Lysis ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cell Harvest

Abstract Abstract 633 Introduction: This independent phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate carfilzomib (C) combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone during induction and consolidation for feasibility, response and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM, who were candidates for high-dose therapy. Patients with symptomatic MM and measurable disease, age 15 to 65 and no significant co-morbidity were eligible. At diagnosis Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) was performed of recurrent translocations, trisomy 9, del(17p), del (13q) and add(1q) Patients received 4 cycles of carfilzomib at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 & 2 followed by 27mg/m2 on days 8,9,15,16 of cycle 1 and on days 1,2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of all subsequent 28-day cycles, thalidomide 200 mg days 1 – 28 of a 28 day cycle and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15 & 22 of a 28 day cycle. Stem cell harvest was performed with cyclophosphamide 2 g/m2 and G-CSF. Following HDM (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), consolidation therapy consisted of 4 cycles of carfilzomib 27 mg/m2 days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 & 16 of a 28 day cycle, thalidomide 50 mg days 1–28 of a 28 day cycle and dexamethasone 20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22 of a 28 day cycle. The primary endpoint was response, other endpoints were complete response (CR) according to IMWG criteria, immunofixation-negative CR (sCR), VGPR all pre-and post HDM, PFS and overall survival (OS). An interim analysis was planned after 20 evaluable patients, primarily to guard against excessive toxicity and/or lack of response. Results: While recruitment is still ongoing, 34 patients have been included, of which the first 20 patients were are evaluated for response and toxicity, with a median follow-up of 5 months. One patient was excluded because unavailability of data. Median age was 60 yr and ISS stages I/II/III were 8/6/5, respectively. Four patients went off treatment because of intolerance to thalidomide (n=1), tumor lysis syndrome with renal failure (n=1) or respiratory infections (n=2). Adverse events CTC grade 3+4 included tumor lysis syndrome (n=2), metabolic disorders (n=4), cardiovascular including DVT (n=5), gastrointestinal (n=2), skin rash (n=2) and reversible renal failure (n=3). Peripheral polyneuropathy grades 1+ 2 was observed in 7 (35%) of patients, but no grade 3 or higher. Responses after cycle 1 were CR + sCR 5%, VGPR 32%, PR 47%, SD 10%, NE 5% and after induction overall CR + sCR 21%, VGPR 47%, PR 16%, SD 10%, NE 5%. Median time to maximum response was 1 cycle. Secondary analysis revealed that responses occurred across cytogenetic subgroups as determined by FISH, i.e. add (1q) (n=2), t(4;14) (n=2), del(17p) (n=1) and del(13q) (n=5). Stem cell harvest was accomplished with standard CD34+ yield in all patients and HDM/ASCT was performed with complete hematologic recovery in 4/4 patients. Conclusion: Carfilzomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone during induction and consolidation is feasible and effective. The complete data including response after consolidation will be reported at the ASH meeting. This EMN trial was registered as NTR2422. Carfilzomib and an unrestricted grant was provided by ONYX Pharmaceuticals. Disclosures: Sonneveld: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

A Randomized Phase 3 Trial Of Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Or Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) Vs Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethsone (Rd) In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 536-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Giuseppe Pietrantuono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Rd and MPR are effective treatments in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). In this study we compared a non-alkylating containing regimen (Rd) vs alkylating-based regimens (MPR/CPR) in elderly transplant ineligible NDMM pts. Methods Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nine 28-day cycles of MPR/CPR or Rd. MPR: lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days; CPR: cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day (eod) in >75 years pts; lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; prednisone 25 mg every other day. Rd: lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years. After induction, patients were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (25 mg eod on days 1-28), until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between October 2009 and October 2012, 659 pts were enrolled ( MPR/CPR:439 and Rd:220), and 641 pts were evaluable (MPR/CPR:430 and Rd:211). Patient characteristics were well balanced in the 2 groups: median age was 73 years in both groups, 38% of pts were older than 75 years, 27% had ISS stage III in both groups, 21% of patients both in the MPR/CPR and in the Rd groups had unfavorable FISH profile [t(4;14) or t (14;16) or del17p]. After induction, the response rates were similar in the 2 groups: at least PR rate was 75% versus 79% (p=0.52) and CR rate was 9% versus 7% (p=0.35), in the MPR/CPR and Rd group, respectively. No significant difference in response rate were reported between two alkylating containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 2-year PFS was 55% in MPR/CPR and 49% in Rd (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.66-1.12, p=0.26), and 2-year OS was 84% in MPR/CPR and 80% in Rd (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.41, p=0.71) At least one grade ≥3 hematological adverse event was reported in 51% with MPR/CPR and 29% with Rd (p<0.001), with a significant difference between the two alkylating agents (67% MPR and 31% CPR, p<0.001). At least one grade ≥3 extra-hematologic toxicities were similar in the two groups (31% with MPR/CPR and 28% with Rd, p=0.77). with no difference between two alkylating agents (31% both in MPR and CPR group). Second primary malignancies (SPM) were reported in 5 MPR patients (1 hematologic and 4 solid) in 1 CPR patient (hematologic) and in 2 Rd patients (both solid). Conclusion In a community-based population, triplet alkylating combinations did not lead to different PFS or OS clinical benefits over doublet therapy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria. Giuliani:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Elderly Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients: A Prospective Multicenter Study

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1989-1989
Author(s):  
Laurent Garderet ◽  
Cyrille Touzeau ◽  
Anne-Marie Stoppa ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
Lionel Karlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction: Previous trials have shown that autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is superior to conventional chemotherapy in terms of remission rate and PFS in younger MM patients. Concerns about toxicity and potential efficacy of ASCT in older MM patients lead most centers to limit ASCT indications to patients aged <65 years. However, at the era of novel induction regimens, and because of better patient selection and supportive care, ASCT may prove to be a valid treatment option even in older MM patients. Therefore, some investigators are questioning the widely used 65 years age limit. Patients and Methods: We prospectively analyzed the outcomes of 56 consecutive MM patients who had received ASCT between September 2012 and September 2014 in 6 institutions in France (protocol ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01671826). Patients were newly diagnosed MM. For induction therapy, all patients received a bortezomib-based induction regimen (VD, VTD, VCD, or VRD, 4 to 6 cycles) according to center's local guidelines. Mobilization was performed with G-CSF or G-CSF+cyclophosphamide and plerixafor whenever needed. High-dose chemotherapy consisted of either 140 mg/m2 or 200 mg/m2 Melphalan. A short two months consolidation phase post ASCT was allowed (lenalidomide-dexamethasone, VD, VTD, VCD or VRD). No maintenance treatment was given. Response, disease progression and relapse were defined according to the IMWG uniform response criteria. All patients signed an informed consent form according to the EBMT guidelines. Results: At time of diagnosis, median age was 67 (range, 64-74) years with 23% of patients being >70 years. There were 30 males and 26 females. The immunoglobulin subtype was IgG (n=29), IgA (n=15), light chain (n=10), other (n=2). The Salmon and Durie stage was III in 89% of cases (n=47), and the ISS score was I (n=18; 35%), II (n=19; 37%), III (n=14; 27%). Patients had high risk cytogenetics features (t(4;14) and/or del17p) in 9 cases (16%). 10% of patients had a serum creatinine level >176 micromol/L. None of the patients underwent hemodialysis. The Sorror comorbidity score was 0 (34), 1 (6), 2 (2), 3 (6), 6 (1), unknown (7). The median age at time of ASCT was 68 years, and the median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 5 months. In an intention to treat analysis, out of 56 patients, 6 patients could not proceed to ASCT because of an early infectious death (n=1), serious comorbidity (n=2), disease refractoriness to induction (n=1), and failure to collect an adequate PBSC graft (n=2). A median of 5.31x106/Kg CD34+ cells could be collected. Disease status at time of ASCT was: CR (n=12; 24%), VGPR (n=19; 38%), PR (n=17; 34%), and SD/non-responding (n=2; 4%). The conditioning regimen consisted of 140mg/m² melphalan in 18 cases (36%) and 200mg/m2 in 32 patients (64%). Moreover, 4 patients (8%) received a tandem ASCT. The median time for neutrophils and platelets engraftment was 12 days. The day-100 post ASCT non-relapse mortality was 0% and the 2-year NRM was 4.2% (95% CI:[0.3-18.3]). The overall response rate at day 100 was 96% (CR: 34%, VGPR: 47%, PR: 15%, SD/non-responsive: 4%). At 3 months post ASCT, 82% patients were able to receive the planned post ASCT consolidation treatment. After a median follow-up of 12 months, the estimated progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 2 years were 76% (95%CI: [61.6-94.1]) and 88% (95%CI: [76.7-100]), respectively. The incidences of infectious complications post ASCT, and response rates were comparable between the two melphalan dose levels (p=0.28). However, in the univariate analysis, the 200 mg/m2 melphalan conditioning group showed a better OS rate compared to the 140 mg/m2 group (1-year OS: 100% vs. 67%; p=0.012). Conclusion: These prospective multicenter results indicate that ASCT is a safe and effective treatment modality for elderly, but fit MM patients at the era of novel induction agents. Of note, patients above age 70 did not experience a worse prognosis. Thus, age per se should not be used as an exclusion criterion for ASCT. Longer follow-up data will be presented, but these results already set the frame for a randomized comparison to the non-transplant approaches in this patients' subgroup. Disclosures Garderet: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Stoppa:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Treatment-Free Remissions in Newly Diagnosed CP CML Patients Treated with the Combination of Nilotinib + Pegylated Interferon Alpha 2a Versus Nilotinib Alone in the National Phase III Petals Trial

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2553-2553
Author(s):  
Franck E. Nicolini ◽  
Gabriel Etienne ◽  
Francoise Huguet ◽  
Agnès Guerci-Bresler ◽  
Aude Charbonnier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

Abstract Aims: Combining 2GTKI+pegylated IFN-a (Peg-IFN) represents an attractive approach for first-line treatment of CP CML, while providing somewhat light additional AEs, it induces high rates of deep molecular responses. We evaluated nilotinib (NIL) alone versus NIL+Peg-IFN in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients (pts) in a randomised phase III trial (PETALs, EudraCT 2013-004974-82) and analysed here the proportion of patients reaching Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) and outcome. Methods: Newly diagnosed CP CML pts ≤65 years, without vascular history were randomized 1:1 to get NIL 300 mg BID alone [M0 to M72 (unless TFR), arm A] vs Peg-IFN alone for 30 days (M-1→M0) 30 mg/wk, prior to NIL 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 30 mg/wk 2 wks, upgraded to 45 mg/wk thereafter, for up to 2 y (M0 to M24, arm B) followed by NIL alone until M72 unless TFR. The primary endpoint was the rate of MR4.5 by M12, and after amendment, the trial was extended to 72 months follow-up in order to add, as a secondary endpoint, the TFR rate in pts reaching MR4.5 ≥2 y. The trigger for treatment resumption was loss of MMR. All molecular assessments were centralised until M36, and in case of TFR, MR4.5 was centrally confirmed at M0 TFR, and further molecular follow-up was then performed locally. All molecular quantifications are expressed as BCR-ABL1/ABL1 (IS) in % with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control in the central lab and in the local labs all involved to the pluri-annual French external quality controls. Results are analysed in intention-to-treat. Results: As previously reported, 200 pts were randomized (99 in A, 101 in B), 130 M and 35 F in each arm, median age of 46 (18-66) y. The median follow-up (FU) since diagnosis is now 47.5 (33.77-62.39) Mo. and the median FU since discontinuation is 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. in arm A and 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo. in arm B. Sokal and ELTS scores were high in 25% and 2.5%, intermediate in 33% and 16.5% and low in 42% and 81% pts respectively, equally balanced. All pts harboured a "Major" BCR transcript. We have previously shown that by M12, the rate of MR4.5 was 15.9% vs 21.5% (primary endpoint met, p=0.049) and that the overall cumulative incidence of MR4.5 was somewhat superior in arm B (54.6 [43.7-65.5] %) vs A (44 [31.5-54] %), p=0.05. Two pts died, one from myeloid blast crisis before TFR (arm A), one from a solid tumour (arm A). Overall, 40 pts (20%) reached the TFR criteria, 21 in arm A with a median FU of 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. and 19 in arm B with a median FU since Nilo cessation of 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo, partly related to slightly different time for obtaining sustained MR4.5 in favour of arm B (16 vs 13 Mo.). For these 40 pts reaching TFR criteria, there was no statistical difference in terms of age at diagnosis and age at TFR, gender, Sokal, ELTS, FU since diagnosis, undetectability at cessation, BCR-ABL1 levels at 3 Mo. after cessation between the 2 arms. The survival without loss of MMR after cessation is illustrated in Figure 1. It looks superior in arm B over arm A, but did not reach statistical difference (p=0.445), but the FU is very short after cessation yet, especially in arm A. Once NIL was resumed in the pts that failed TFR, all pts recovered MMR within 6 Mo., with no difference between arms (p=1.00). In univariate analysis, we did not identify significant factor impacting on the TFR success (age at cessation, sex, undetectability at cessation, Sokal, ELTS) except the BCR-ABL1 value at M3-TFR (undetectable versus detectable, HR 7.15 [2.06-24.75], p=0.002), and the duration of MR4.5 before discontinuation (HR 1.11 [1.03-1.19], p=0.004). During this TFR phase 7 SAEs were reported in arm A (2 pregnancies, 1 obstructive sleep apnea, 1 fever episode, 1 carotid stenosis and 1 femoral stenosis in the same patient at 2 Mo. after cessation, 1 lung carcinoid tumor) and 2 in arm B (1 persistent atrial fibrillation, 1 cholecystectomy). Conclusions: The combination of NIL + Peg-IFN induces higher MR4.5 rates by M36 in newly diagnosed CP CML pts that may translate in higher successful TFR rates, however a longer follow-up is needed to see consistent significant differences. Updated data will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Kartos Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Huguet: Novartis: Other: Advisor; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisor; Celgene: Other: Advisor; BMS: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Other: Advisor; Pfizer: Other: Advisor. Guerci-Bresler: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Charbonnier: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot: Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Rea: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem-Cell (PBSC) Collection Is Not Impaired by Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (VTD) Induction Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 317-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annamaria Brioli ◽  
Giulia Perrone ◽  
Silvestro Volpe ◽  
Silvana Pasini ◽  
Anna Mele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cd34 Cells ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 317 Introduction: The novel agents bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide have been successfully incorporated into autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) as up-front therapy for newly diagnosed MM. However, several reports have raised concerns about the impact of novel agent-based induction regimens on PBSC collection. Furthermore, the ability to successfully collect PBSCs following initial therapy with two of these newer drugs needs to be confirmed in large phase III clinical trials. Methods: The GIMEMA Italian Myeloma Network designed a phase III study to compare VTD with thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy prior to double ASCT. Primary study endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to each of these two induction regimens, while their toxicity profile – including the impact on PBSC mobilization and collection - was a secondary study endpoint. To address this latter issue, we performed a post-hoc analysis to compare the effect of the triplet VTD induction regimen versus the doublet TD combination on CD34+ cell collection. After three 21-day cycles of VTD or TD induction therapy, patients received intermediate dose cyclophosphamide (CTX 4 g/m2) followed by G-CSF (10 mcg/Kg/die) to mobilize and collect PBSCs. The target threshold to safely perform double ASCT was 4 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg. Results: Patients evaluable for PBSC collection were 435 out of the 474 who received induction therapy. Of these, 223 were initially randomized to VTD and 212 to TD induction therapy. The median number of collected CD34+ cells was 9.7 × 106/Kg in the VTD arm and 10.7 × 106/Kg in the TD arm (p= n.s.). The planned yield of 4 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg was achieved with a single harvest in more than 90% of patients in both treatment groups (96% in VTD and 92% in TD, p= n.s.). A yield of CD34+ cells >10 × 106 /Kg was reported in 51% and 56% of patients treated with VTD and TD, respectively (p= n.s.). Only 5 patients (2%) in VTD group and 2 patients (1%) in the TD arm failed to collect more than 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg (p= n.s.). The majority of patients (86% in VTD and 82% in TD, p=n.s.) received CTX as an in-patient procedure, the median time of hospitalization being 4 days. Less than 5% of patients developed grade 3–4 infectious complications (2% in the VTD group vs 3% in TD, p=n.s.) which required hospitalization in only 2 patients. Following ASCT, no significant difference was observed between the two treatment arms in terms of hematologic recovery and non hematological toxicity. Kaplan-Meier curves of TTP and PFS were almost superimposable for patients with a CD34+ yield >10 × 106/Kg and in the range between 4 and 10 × 106/Kg (group 1). These curves were very similar also for patients who collected between 2 and 4 × 106/Kg CD34+ cells or <2 × 106/Kg (group 2). These two groups had significantly different clinical outcomes. Indeed, the 40-month estimates of TTP and PFS were 75% for group 1 vs 40% for group 2 and 60% vs 25%, respectively. OS at 40 months for patients with >10 × 106/Kg CD34+ cells was in the 90% range, a value significantly better than what was seen in the remaining subgroups. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, yields of CD34+ cells >10 × 106/Kg and in the range of 4 to 10 × 106/Kg were independently associated with prolonged PFS (p=0.001 and =0.027, respectively), while CD34+ cells >10 × 106/Kg predicted for extended OS (p=0.002). Absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17q), and ISS stage 1 or 2 were additional favorable prognostic factors for both PFS and OS, while randomization to VTD independently predicted for longer PFS. Conclusions: Results of the present analysis showed that both TD and VTD shared the advantage of no adverse impact on PBSC collection and the engraftment potential of collected PBSCs. The target for CD34+ cell collection (>4 × 106/Kg) was achieved with a single harvest in more than 90% of patients in both treated groups and a collection failure was reported in 1% to 2% of patients. These favorable results are due to early PBSC collection, which was performed after 3 cycles of TD and VTD, and use of CTX plus G-CSF which allows better stem cell collection and less likelihood of a collection failure. Of particular note, both VTD and TD were associated with a 50% to 59% probability to collect >10 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg, a variable independently associated with extended PFS and OS. Disclosures: Off Label Use: bortezomib and thalidomide used as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Baccarani:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo:Janssen: Consultancy, 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Bosutinib Vs Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in the BFORE Trial: 18 Month Follow-up

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 896-896
Author(s):  
Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽  
Michael W. Deininger ◽  
Michael J. Mauro ◽  
Charles Chuah ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Bosutinib is a potent SRC/ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of adults with CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. Here we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line bosutinib versus imatinib in patients with chronic phase (CP) CML enrolled in BFORE after ≥18 months of follow-up. Methods: BFORE (NCT02130557) is an ongoing, multinational, open label phase 3 study that randomized 536 patients 1:1 to 400 mg QD bosutinib (n=268) or 400 mg QD imatinib (n=268 [3 not treated]). The prespecified primary endpoint was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as Philadelphia chromosome‒positive (Ph+) patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts, and excluding Ph- patients and those with unknown Ph status and/or BCR-ABL transcript type (mITT: BOS, n=246; IM, n=241). Efficacy results refer to the mITT population unless otherwise noted. Results: MMR rate was higher with bosutinib versus imatinib at 18 months (56.9% vs 47.7%; P=0.042). Among all randomized patients (ITT) 18-month MMR rates were higher for bosutinib (56.7% vs 46.6%; P &lt;0.02). Earlier analyses (Table) showed complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% vs 66.4%; P=0.0075) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib. Rates of BCR-ABL1 transcript ratio ≤10% (International Scale) at 3 months (75.2% vs 57.3%), as well as MR4 at 12 months (20.7% vs 12.0%) and MR4.5 at 12 months (8.1% vs 3.3%), were all higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (all P &lt;0.025). By comparison at 18 months, rates of MR4 (24.4% vs 18.3%) and MR4.5 (11.4% vs 7.1%) were consistent with this trend. Also after ≥18 months follow-up, time to MMR (hazard ratio=1.36, based on cumulative incidence; P=0.0079) and time to CCyR (hazard ratio=1.33; P=0.0049) were shorter for bosutinib (Figure). Cumulative incidence of transformation to accelerated/blast phase disease at 18 months was 2.0% and 2.9% for bosutinb and imatinib, respectively, of which 2 bosutinib and 4 imatinib patients discontinued treatment due to transformation. Additional treatment discontinuations due to suboptimal response/treatment failure occurred in 11 (4.1%) and 35 (13.2%) of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Dose increases happened in 20% of bosutinib-treated and 31% of imatinib-treated pts There were 2 deaths and 9 deaths in the bosutinib and imatinib arms, respectively. One patient taking bosutinib died within 28 days of last dose, while 4 patients taking imatinib died with that period from last dose. Overall survival at 18 months was 99.6% vs. 96.6% for bosutinib and imatinib groups, respectively. Grade ≥3 diarrhea (8.2% vs 0.8%) and increased alanine (20.9% vs 1.5%) and aspartate (10.1% vs 1.9%) aminotransferase levels were more frequent with bosutinib. Cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and cerebrovascular events were infrequent in both arms (3.4%, 1.9%, and 0.4% bosutinib vs 0.0%, 1.1%, and 0.8% imatinib; grade ≥3: 1.5%, 0%, and 0.4% vs 0%, 0%, and 0.4%). There were no deaths in the bosutinib arm and 1 death in the imatinib arm due to treatment-emergent vascular events. Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related toxicity occurred in 15.3% and 9.4% of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Conclusion: After 18 months of follow-up,the MMR benefit seen with bosutinib over imatinib was sustained. These results are in line with observations at 12 months where patients taking bosutinib had significantly higher response rates (primary endpoint) and achieved responses sooner than those on imatinib. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profiles. These results suggest that bosutinib may be an important treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CP CML. Disclosures Gambacorti-Passerini: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Deininger: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma Corp, Gilead, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Blue Print, Galena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy. Mauro: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Chuah: Avillion: Honoraria; Chiltern: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Novartis: Honoraria. Kim: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Il-Yang: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Milojkovic: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria. le Coutre: BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria. García Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Crescenzo: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leip: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bardy-Bouxin: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hochhaus: Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Brümmendorf: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document