A Randomized Phase III Trial of Melphalan and Dexamethasone (MDex) Versus Bortezomib, Melphalan and Dexamethasone (BMDex) for Untreated Patients with AL Amyloidosis

Abstract Background. The combination of melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) is considered standard treatment for patients with AL amyloidosis who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant at most referral centers. When full-dose (40 mg) dexamethasone can be combined with melphalan, hematologic response is achieved in three fourths of patients, with complete remissions (CRs) in 30% of cases and prolonged survival (median >7 years). Several studies showed that bortezomib is highly effective in AL amyloidosis with response rates as high as 80-90%, with 50-60% CRs, when used in combinations with alkylating agents and dexamethasone, suggesting that these regimens could replace current standard of care in AL amyloidosis. A recent case-control study indicated that the addition of bortezomib to MDex (BMDex) does not overcome the poor prognosis of patients with advanced cardiac involvement. Here we report the first interim analysis of a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex) in newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis ongoing in Europe and Australia (EMN-03 study, NCT01277016). Patients and Methods. Main eligibility criteria included measurable disease (M-protein >10 g/L or dFLC >50 mg/L), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ³30 mL/min, and adequate liver function. Previously treated patients, those who had >30% bone marrow plasma cell or lytic bone lesions, NYHA class >II heart failure, grade 3 sensory or grade 1 painful peripheral neuropathy, or ECOG performance status >2 were excluded. In January 2013 the protocol was amended to include Mayo stage III patients, provided their NT-proBNP was <8500 ng/L. Patients were randomized to receive either MDex (melphalan at 0.22 mg/kg and dexamethasone at 40 mg daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (bortezomib added at 1.3 mg/m2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in cycles 1 and 2, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the following cycles). Treatment was continued until completion of MDex cycle 9 or BMDex cycle 8, or achievement of CR or of at least partial response (PR) plus organ response after cycle 6, and was discontinued in case PR was not achieved by cycle 3. Planned enrollment was 110 patients; since January 2011, 70 subjects have been enrolled, 35 in each arm (database lock: July 25, 2014). Results. Heart and renal involvement were present in 26 (74%) and 22 (63%) patients in the MDex arm, and in 25 (71%) and 24 (69%) in the BMDex arm, respectively. Five patients in each arm were stage III. In the MDex arm 15 patients (43%) experienced grade 3-4 adverse events [cytopenia (6), fluid retention (4), fatigue (2), need for a coronary stent (1), diarrhea (1), and renal failure (1)]. In the BMDex arm grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 21 patients (63%, P=0.151 compared to MDex): cytopenia (12, febrile in 1 case), fluid retention (3), insomnia (2), transient troponin increase (1), peripheral neuropathy (1), renal failure (1), and injection site reaction (1). Three patients died in the first three months, 1 was treated with MDex and 2 with BMDex. Response was evaluated by intent to treat. Fifty-one patients, 26 treated with MDex and 25 who received BMDex, completed cycle 3 or died before completion and are evaluable for response. Overall, 15 patients (58%) responded in the MDex arm, and 19 (76%) in the BMDex arm (P=0.166). After cycle 3, nine patients (35%) in the MDex group and 16 (65%) in the BMDex group achieved at least very good partial response (P=0.036). Renal response was achieved in 2 of 8 evaluable patients in the MDex group and in 2 out of 10 subjects in the BMDex arm. Cardiac response was reached in 4 of 15 evaluable patients in the MDex arm and in 2 out of 12 in the BMDex arm. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 9 patients (13%) died, 4 in the MDex arm and 5 in the BMDex arm (Figure 1). Conclusion. This is the first prospective randomized trial of novel agents in AL amyloidosis. The present interim analysis indicates that the addition of bortezomib to MDex grants more profound hematologic responses that should be balanced with relative increase in toxicity. Longer follow-up is required to demonstrate a benefit in terms of organ improvement and of overall survival. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. We would like to acknowledge the European Myeloma Network and the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia for their ongoing support, and Janssen-Cilag for partially funding the trial and providing the study drug. Figure 1 Patients’ survival Figure 1. Patients’ survival Disclosures Leleu: Janssen, Celgene, leopharma, Takeda, Amgen, Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zamagni:Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria. Schönland:Janssen: Honoraria. Moreau:Millenium and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Merck and Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene and Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Celgene, Janssen, Onyx, Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen, Onyx, Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merlini:Millennium Takeda: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Bortezomib in AL amyloidosis.

Download Full-text

A Randomized Phase III Trial of Melphalan and Dexamethasone (MDex) Versus Bortezomib, Melphalan and Dexamethasone (BMDex) for Untreated Patients with AL Amyloidosis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.646.646 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 646-646 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Efstathios Kastritis ◽

Xavier Leleu ◽

Bertrand Arnulf ◽

Elena Zamagni ◽

María Teresa Cibeira ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Cardiac Response ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Al Amyloidosis ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Hematologic Response ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background. Current upfront treatment of light chain (AL) amyloidosis is often based on bortezomib in patients. However, data on the safety and efficacy of bortezomib in this setting mostly derive from uncontrolled, retrospective series, that are difficult to compare due to different proportion of patients with advanced disease. Here we report the analysis of a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing MDex, a current standard of care, and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex) in newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis that was performed in Europe and Australia (EMN-03 study, NCT01277016). Patients and Methods. Main eligibility criteria included measurable disease (M-protein >10 g/L or dFLC >50 mg/L), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ³30 mL/min, and adequate liver function. Previously treated patients, those who had >30% bone marrow plasma cell or lytic bone lesions, NYHA class >II heart failure, grade 3 sensory or grade 1 painful peripheral neuropathy, or ECOG performance status >2 were excluded. In January 2013 the protocol was amended to include Mayo stage III patients, provided their NT-proBNP was <8500 ng/L (stage IIIa). Patients were randomized to receive either MDex (melphalan at 0.22 mg/kg and dexamethasone at 40 mg daily for 4 consecutive days every 28 days) or BMDex (bortezomib added at 1.3 mg/m2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in cycles 1 and 2, and on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the following cycles). The primary endpoint was overall hematologic response at 3 months. Treatment was continued until completion of MDex cycle 9 or BMDex cycle 8, or achievement of CR or of at least partial response (PR) plus organ response after cycle 6, and was discontinued in case PR was not achieved by cycle 3. Enrollment is now completed (110 patients) with the last patient enrolled in February 2016 (database lock: July 25, 2016). Results. Patients' characteristics are reported in the Table. The proportion of patients experiencing at least 1 grade 3-4 severe adverse events (SAE) was similar in the MDex and BMDex arms (49% vs. 60%, P=0.11). The total number of reported adverse events per cycle was lower in the MDex group (10% vs 23%, P<0.01). Most common SAEs (MDex vs. BMDex) were cytopenia (4% vs. 7%, P=0.04), fluid retention (3% vs. 6%, P=0.02), and neuropathy (0 vs. 2%, P<0.01). One patient died within 3 months in the MDex arm and 3 in the BMDex group (P=0.28). Response was evaluated by intent to treat. Hematologic response rates after cycle 3 were 51% and 78% (P=0.001), with 28% and 53% complete response (CR) /very good partial response (VGPR) (P=0.003), in the MDex and BMDex arms, respectively. Overall hematologic response at the end of treatment, after a median of 5 cycles, was 56% and 81% (P=0.001), with 38% and 64% CR/VGPR in the MDex and BMDex arms, respectively (P=0.002). Cardiac response was reached in 8 of 33 evaluable patients treated with MDex (24%) and 10 of 26 (38%) who received BMDex (P=0.119). Renal response was attained in 17 of 35 patients (48%) in both arms. However, there was a higher proportion of cardiac progression in the MDex arm with borderline statistical significance (32% vs. 15%, P=0.054). After a median follow-up of living patients of 25 months, 26 patients (24%) died, 16 in the MDex arm and 10 in the BMDex arm with no significant difference in survival (Figure 1a). Achievement of hematologic and cardiac response at 3 months significantly improved survival (Figures 1b and 1c). Conclusion. This is the first prospective randomized trial of novel agents in AL amyloidosis. The criteria of hematologic and cardiac response are validated in the prospective setting for the first time. The primary endpoint, hematologic response at 3 months has been reached, showing more frequent and more profound hematologic responses with BMDex, preventing progression of cardiac dysfunction, with a modest increase in toxicity. This regimen can be proposed as a new standard of care in AL amyloidosis. We would like to acknowledge the European Myeloma Network, the Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group and the Leukaemia Foundation of Australia for their ongoing support, and Janssen-Cilag for partially funding the trial and providing the study drug. Disclosures Kastritis: Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mollee:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nilelse: Research Funding. Hajek:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS: Honoraria. Wechalekar:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Merlini:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Takeda: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Palladini:Prothena: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Rituximab Maintenance Treatment for a Maximum of 5 Years In Follicular Lymphoma: Safety Analysis of the Randomized Phase III Trial SAKK 35/03

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.1802.1802 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 1802-1802 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Christian J. Taverna ◽

Simona Bassi ◽

Felicitas Hitz ◽

Walter Mingrone ◽

Thomas Pabst ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Safety Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Rituximab Maintenance ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Unacceptable Toxicity

Abstract Abstract 1802 Background: Rituximab maintenance has been shown to be effective in patients with follicular lymphoma. The optimal duration of maintenance remains unknown. Methods: We prospectively registered 270 patients with untreated, chemotherapy resistant or relapsed follicular lymphoma. All patients received rituximab induction consisting of 4 weekly doses (375 mg/m2). Responding patients (PR and CR) were randomized to a short maintenance consisting of four doses of rituximab (375 mg/m2) every two months (arm A) or prolonged maintenance consisting of rituximab every two months for a maximum of five years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm B). Primary endpoint is event-free survival. Here we present the safety analysis results after a median long-term maintenance period of 3.3 years. Results: From October 2004 to November 2007 165 patients were randomized, 82 in arm A and 83 in arm B. The median follow-up time is 3.2 years for arms A and B combined. While receiving maintenance therapy a total of 899 hematological and non-hematological adverse events were observed, 28 of grade 3 and 6 of grade 4. After randomization five patients experienced subsequent cancers. Seven grade 3 and 4 infections were reported. Two grade 3 infections occurred after 2 years of maintenance. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 6 (3.6 %) patients, decreased levels of IgG were observed in 24 (14.6 %) patients. In arm B, maintenance was stopped due to unacceptable toxicity in 2 patients after 16 and 42 months respectively and due to subsequent breast cancer in 1 patient after 20 months. One patient died 4 months after randomization because of ileus and consecutive peritonitis, considered to be unrelated to therapy. Sixty-three patients are on maintenance for two or more years of which 48 patients are on for three or more years. Two patients have completed the 5 years of maintenance. Conclusions: Rituximab maintenance beyond two years is feasible without evidence for increased toxicity. However, close follow up of patients under prolonged rituximab maintenance is still necessary. The trial has been closed for accrual but there are still patients on treatment. Disclosures: Taverna: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghielmini:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.763.763 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 763-763 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

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.

Download Full-text

Obinutuzumab (GA101) in Combination with Pixantrone for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma:Â a Phase II Trial (GOAL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116670 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1678-1678 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Georg Hess ◽

Andreas Hüttmann ◽

Julia Meissner ◽

Reinhard Marks ◽

Martin Dreyling ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Median Number ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial ◽

Grade 3 ◽

One Year

Abstract Background: A substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently available salvage therapies are often ineffective and cannot be tolerated, especially for elderly patients. Thus, probably less than 25% of patients achieve a long lasting remission. Regimens like gemcitabine/oxaliplatin, or bendamustin, both in combination with rituximab are available for elderly or after failure of HDT, however induce only short lived responses. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody, with preclinical evidence of superiority over rituximab in xenograft models of MCL and DLBCL. Recently a large phase III trial failed to show a benefit in patients with untreated DLBCL, although a subset analysis showed a potential benefit in a subset GCB DLBCL of patients, its value in relapsed disease is not yet finally determined. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclines from relapse treatments. With pixantrone, a drug related to anthracyclines, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible, a best EOT-ORR of 37% (20% CR/CRu) was observed in a phase III trial. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q3/2015 and recruitment of 70 patients is completed as of 7/2018. Primary endpoint is the ORR, secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. We report about available data after enrollment of the last patient. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Main inclusion criteria: histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed iNHL (20% Quorum), no curative option available, relapsed and measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient BM reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit of prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of up to 6 cycles of pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. Interim staging was scheduled after 3 cycles. Results: Basic data are available of 67 patients, all were caucasian, 37 were female the other 30 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (49 pts, 68%), 68% had advanced stage at diagnosis and the median secondary IPI was 3. Data collection is ongoing, until now data of 32 patients are fully available and updated results will be presented. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Treatment seemed to be well tolerated, median number of cycles applied was 3, pre-mature stop of treatment was primarily based on progression. Response evaluation: at this time 13/32 (40.6%) evaluable patients responded with 5 patients achieving CR/CRu (15.6%) and 8 a PR. One year after initiation of treatment 54% of patients remained alive. Median follow up is 8.2 months. Median PFS and OS is 82 day and not reached, 1 year PFS and OS are 37% and 54%, respectively, no patient experienced relapse if the patient remained free from relapse at one year. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed: leukopenia (9.4%) neutropenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (12.5%). The febrile neutropenia rate was 6.3%. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were very rare, no single side effect was observed with a frequency of 5% or more. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone is feasible and safe. Early response rates are interesting. Importantly, although some patients experience progress early, a promising proportion shows long lasting remissions. Molecular analyses are ongoing, as well as a detailed analysis on the impact of factors such as of number of prior treatments, status at inclusion. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hess: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Marks:BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Dreyling:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Keller:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lenz:Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase III PETHEMA/GEM Randomized Trial of Postransplant (ASCT) Maintenance in Multiple Myeloma: Superiority of Bortezomib/Thalidomide Compared with Thalidomide and Alfa-2b Interferon,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3962.3962 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3962-3962 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Laura Rosiñol ◽

María Teresa Cibeira ◽

Maria Victoria Mateos ◽

Joaquin Martinez ◽

Albert Oriol ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Single Agent ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Hematological Toxicity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Maintenance Program ◽

Response Status ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3962 Introduction: In April 2006, the Spanish Myeloma Group (PETHEMA/GEM) activated a randomized phase III trial comparing induction with TD vs. VTD vs. VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib (VBMCP/VBAD/B) in patients 65 years-old or younger with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM and ASCT with MEL-200 followed by maintenance with thalidomide/bortezomib (TV) vs. thalidomide (T) vs. alfa-2b-interferon (alfa2-IFN). Primary end points : response rate after induction and after ASCT and time to progression. Patients and Methods: The maintenance program consisted of TV (thalidomide 100 mg daily plus one cycle of bortezomib-1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 every 3 months) versus T (single agent thalidomide at a dose of 100 mg daily) versus alfa2-IFN (subcutaneous alfa2b-IFN at a dose of 3 MU three times per week). The planned maintenance duration was three years or until disease progression or toxicity. From February 1, 2007 to January 27, 2011 266 patients were randomized to maintenance therapy (TV:90; T: 89, alfa2-IFN: 87). Response and survival were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. Responses and progressions reported by the investigators were centrally reassessed. Results: the patient's characteristics at diagnosis such as age, ISS stage, cytogenetics and presence of extramedullary plasmacytomas as well as induction regimen (VTD, TD and VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib) and diagnosis-randomization interval were similarly distributed among the 3 arms. The response status at the time of randomization after ASCT was CR: 51%, VGPR: 23%, PR: 24% and SD: 2% and was well balanced in the three groups. The CR rate with maintenance was improved by 23% with TV, 11% with T and 19% with alfa2-IFN (p=NS). After a median follow-up of 24 months, the PFS was significantly longer with TV compared with T and alfa2-IFN (PFS at 2 yrs: 78% vs. 63% vs. 49%, p=0.01). However, OS was not significantly different among the 3 arms. Grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicity was similar (22.2% vs. 16% vs. 21.8%). No peripheral neuropathy (PN) was observed with alfa2-IFN being its frequency similar with TV (12.2%) and T (10.1%). No grade IV PN was observed. Dose reductions for TV, T and alfa2-IFN were required in 33.3%, 33.7% and 19.5% of the patients, respectively. The discontinuation rate due to toxicity was significantly higher with thalidomide compared with TV (30.3% vs. 15.6%, p= 0.08) and with alfa2-IFN (30.3% vs. 18.3%, p= 0.17). Conclusion: the addition of bortezomib to thalidomide maintenance resulted in a significantly longer PFS when compared with thalidomide alone or with IFN with no increased toxicity. Disclosures: Rosiñol: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Martinez:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de la Rubia:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Díaz-Mediavilla:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: 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. Blade:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib or Lenalidomide Maintenance Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation and Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (IRD) Consolidation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results from a Large Multi-Center Randomized Phase II Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-130644 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 602-602 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Thomas G. Martin ◽

Nitya Nathwani ◽

Mark A. Fiala ◽

Feng Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Grade 3

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 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]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of >1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

Download Full-text

Five-Year Follow-up of Safety and Efficacy of a Phase III Randomized Trial of Ofatumumab Therapy Versus Physicians' Choice in Patients with Bulky Fludarabine Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113295 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 5569-5569

Author(s):

Udvardy Miklos ◽

Vladimir Strugov ◽

Catharina Lewerin ◽

Sebastian Grosicki ◽

Grzegorz Mazur ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

To Receive ◽

Travel Expense

Abstract Background : In 2014, a planned interim analysis of an open-label, two-arm, randomized, phase III study of ofatumumab (OFA) vs physicians' choice (PC) treatment (most patients received rituximab-, alemtuzumab-, alkylator-, or fludarabine-based therapies) in patients with bulky fludarabine-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (BFR CLL) was performed to assess the effectiveness of OFA in the time-period prior to administering small molecule kinase inhibitors. The study did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by the independent review committee (median PFS 5.4 months vs 3.6 months; hazard ratio [HR]=0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50, 1.24; p=0.268). Here, we report the 5-year follow-up of the study. Methodology : Patients with BFR CLL who required therapy and had received at least 2 prior therapies were randomized (2:1) to receive either OFA or PC therapy. Eligible participants were stratified based on del (17p) status, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (0, 1, or 2), and fludarabine-refractory status (no response vs <6 months response).Patients in the OFA arm received an initial dose of 300 mg, followed 1 week (w) later with 2000 mg once weekly for 7 w, followed 4 w later by one infusion of 2000 mg every 4 w for 4 infusions, with total 12 infusions over 24 w. Patients in PC therapy received non-OFA regimen permitted therapies for CLL and standard of care regimens for up to 6 months. After 24 w in the OFA arm, if patients achieved at least stable disease or better, they were further randomized to either OFA extended arm (additional dose regimen of 2000 mg once every 4 w up to 24 w) or OFA observation arm (no further therapy). Patients in PC arm who received OFA after experiencing progressive disease (PD) had an option to receive single-agent OFA therapy in the salvage arm. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate improvement in PFS. The key secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and evaluation of safety and tolerability of OFA. Results: After 24 w of OFA treatment, 122 patients who were randomized to PC (n=43) or OFA (n=79) underwent a second randomization (24 continued OFA in the extended arm and 13 stopped OFA in the observation arm). Of the 43 patients who were randomized to PC arm, 22 received OFA salvage therapy at PD. Patient disposition is described in Figure 1. Patients received a median of 6 and 3 treatment cycles in the OFA and PC arms, respectively. The interim analysis of PFS was presented earlier (Osterborg et al., 2016). The investigator-assessed ORR for the OFA and PC arms remained unchanged from the interim analysis (49% vs 37%, respectively). However, in the OFA salvage arm (55%), there was a 5% increase in the investigator-assessed ORR compared to that of the previous analysis. The median OS for the OFA arm vs PC arm was 19.2 months vs 14.5 months (HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.48, 1.17; p=0.173, log-rank test). The most common adverse events (AEs) in the OFA and PC arms (>15% in either) were neutropenia (21% vs 19%), pneumonia (18% vs 19%), and anemia (9% vs 19%), respectively. Grade 3, 4, and 5 AEs (>10%) in the OFA and PC arms were neutropenia (17% vs 16%), pneumonia (14% vs 9%), febrile neutropenia (9% vs 12%), and anemia (6% vs 14%), respectively. Serious AEs (≥5%) in the OFA and PC arms were pneumonia (13% vs 16%), febrile neutropenia (9% each), pyrexia (5% vs 7%), anemia (3% vs 9%), sepsis (0% vs 9%), autoimmune hemolytic anemia (0% vs 5%), and neutropenic sepsis (1% vs 5%), respectively. There were 8 (10%) on-treatment deaths in the OFA arm and 5 (12%) on-treatment deaths in the PC arm. Post-treatment anti-cancer therapies are described in Table 1. Conclusions: At the 5-year follow-up of this phase III trial, there was a numerical but statistically not significant longer median OS (+4.7 months) in the OFA arm. As only few patients had the chance to receive a kinase inhibitor later, the study displays the survival of BFR CLL patients in the period prior to receiving small molecule inhibitors. This and other studies have demonstrated a longer PFS with the use of low-dose maintenance CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy vs not, a finding that may be re-explored in the new targeted therapeutic landscape in CLL. OFA is a safe option in multi-resistant advanced CLL cases. Disclosures Miklos: AOP Orphan: Honoraria; Novo nordisk: Honoraria. Strugov:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel expense, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Travel expense. Lewerin:Abbvie: Consultancy. Grosicki:Affimed: Research Funding. Steurer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Montillo:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Middeke:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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. Stefanelli:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vincent:Novartis: Employment. G:Novartis: Employment. Österborg:Beigene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Longer Term Follow up of the Â Randomized Phase III Trial SWOG S0777: Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Vs. Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Patients (Pts) with Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma without an Intent for Immediate Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117003 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1992-1992 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Brian GM Durie ◽

Antje Hoering ◽

Rachael Sexton ◽

Muneer H. Abidi ◽

Joshua Epstein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hazard Ratio ◽

Phase Iii ◽

P Value ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Iii Trial

Abstract Background: SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) using a pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02. The stratification factors were International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II or III) and intent to transplant (yes or no), among a total of 6 strata. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary end points. Results of the primary analysis of this trial were published in Lancet (2016, Volume 389, Issue 10068, 519 - 527). Methods: This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 patients to VRd. Rd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. VRd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-14 and dexamethasone 20/mg/day on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV push on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received aspirin 325 mg/day and VRd patients received VZV prophylaxis per institutional standard. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients until progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Results: Between 2008 and 2012, 525 patients from 48 institutions were randomized. Patient data have been rigorously updated for this analysis based upon a May 15, 2018 datalock. The median follow up is now 84 months (7 years). The median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003 (see Figure 1). The median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114 (see Figure 2). The impact of age was assessed in several ways including using 3 cutoffs (<65 years; 65-75 years; >75 years) and multivariate cox proportional hazards regression analyses adjusted for age. As in prior analyses, both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Depth of response was assessed incorporating new serial data and additional bone marrow results. The CR plus VGPR was 74.9% for VRd versus CR plus VGPR of 53.7% for Rd (P-value 0.006 for response differences using a stratified Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel analysis). The median duration of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance was 17.4 months. The number of second cancers was 19/235 (8%) with VRd and 16/225 (7%) with Rd. Conclusion: The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy in previously untreated myeloma results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS with follow up of 7 years. VRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age. Disclosures Durie: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Abidi:Millenium Takeda: Research Funding. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Reu:Bristol Myers Squibb: Employment; Millenium Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Barlogie:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Enestpath: A Phase III Study to Assess the Effect of Nilotinib Treatment Duration on Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) in Chronic Phase-Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) Patients (pts) Previously Treated with Imatinib: Interim Analysis from the First Year of Induction Phase

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.4040.4040 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 4040-4040 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Delphine Rea ◽

Gianantonio Rosti ◽

Nicholas C.P. Cross ◽

Andrzej Hellman ◽

Dietger Niederwieser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Discontinuation ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Optimal Duration ◽

Phase Iii Study ◽

Grade 3 ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard of care for pts with CP-CML. Current recommendation is to continue TKI therapy indefinitely but previous studies indicate that pts with deep and sustained molecular responses (MRs) on imatinib (IM) may achieve long-lasting TFR. Nilotinib (NIL) at 300mg BID induces higher rates of deep MRs compared to IM and high dose NIL (400mg BID) enables a substantial proportion of pts who do not obtain MR4 (BCR-ABL1IS £ 0.01%) or MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS £ 0.0032%) with IM to reach such deep MRs levels, potentially compatible with TFR. However, optimal duration of treatment with NIL to ensure the highest rate of TFR after treatment discontinuation is unknown. Objective ENESTPath was designed to assess the optimal duration of NIL therapy that is necessary to achieve and maintain TFR upon treatment discontinuation in pts pretreated with IM. Methods ENESTPath is a randomized, phase III study enrolling CP-CML pts who after at least 2 years (yrs) of IM therapy achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), but not yet a MR4. After enrollment, pts were assigned to receive NIL at 300 mg BID for 2 yrs or 3 yrs (Arm 1 and Arm 2, respectively). Patients who will obtain a stable MR4 or better for at least 12 months (mo) will enter the TFR phase. Primary endpoint is to evaluate the proportion of pts in both arms who will remain in TFR for ≥1 yr after NIL discontinuation. Results 620 pts were enrolled in the study between May-2013 & Apr-2015. In this interim analysis, the first 300 pts (mean age 50.8 yrs; 63.7% male) enrolled and treated with NIL for ≥1 yr have been included. Baseline characteristics are detailed in the Table. By 12 mo of NIL treatment, cumulative incidences of newly acquired MR4 and MR4.5 were 57.4% and 30.5%, respectively. Further analysis of MR4 achievement showed that pts with a major molecular response (MMR: BCR-ABL1IS >0.01% - ≤0.1%) at baseline had a higher probability to achieve a MR4 than those lacking MMR at baseline, with a cumulative incidence of MR4 by 12 months of 64.8% and 30.8%, respectively (Figure). Adverse events (AEs) were mostly of grade 1-2, manageable with supportive care or NIL dose interruption/reduction and included pruritus (19%), headache (9%), skin rash (9%), upper abdominal pain (8%) and constipation (7%). Grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were uncommon. The incidence of grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities was low: lipase increase, hyperglycemia, ALT and AST increase, hyperbilirubinemia and hypercholesterolemia reported in 3.7%, 1.3%, 1%, 0.7%, 0.3%, 0.3% pts, respectively. Grade 3-4 ischemic cardiovascular events were experienced by 5% of pts including peripheral artery occlusive disease (1.7%) and coronary artery disease (3.7%) (1 pt experienced both AEs). Sub-analyses aiming to evaluate the impact of baseline SCOREa CV risk factor on the onset of arterial ischemic events are currently ongoing. Results on 168 pts showed grade 3-4 ischemic CV events in 19% of pts who were at very high or high risk (n = 47) compared to 1.7% of in pts with moderate or low risk (n = 121). During the first 12 mo, 48 (16%) pts discontinued NIL therapy: 32 discontinued due to AEs/laboratory abnormalities, 12 withdrew consent, 4 due to other reasons (protocol deviation, pregnancy and non-compliance). No patients left the study due to progression to AP/BP. Till date there were no on-treatment deaths. Conclusions This interim analysis shows that a switch to NIL at lower doses than in prior studies (300mg BID instead of 400mg BID) induces high rates of MR4 and MR4.5 in pts without such MR levels on IM. The safety profile of NIL at 300mg BID is consistent with that described in other prospective studies.Thus a switch to NIL for pts not achieving a deep MR during IM therapy is predicted to substantially increase the probability of achieving TFR requirements. A longer follow-up is necessary to assess what may be the best duration of NIL prior to treatment discontinuation. aRisk factors evaluated by applying the SCORE chart proposed by the European Society of Cardiology Table 1. Table 1. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Rea: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Rosti:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cross:Qiagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hellman:Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Almeida:Shire: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Meyer Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Dezzani:Novartis: Employment. Pellegrino:Novartis: Employment. Costantini:Novartis: Employment. Walasek:Novartis: Employment. Saglio:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Steegmann:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding. Baccarani:NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib, Thalidomide and Dexamethasone (IxaThalDex) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): An Interim Analysis of a Phase II Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3335.3335 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3335-3335 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Heinz Ludwig ◽

Eberhard Gunsilius ◽

Michael Fridrik ◽

Richard Greil ◽

Andreas Petzer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Clinical Benefit Rate ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction Ixazomib, a second generation proteasome inhibitor provides the advantage of combining oral administration with pronounced activity and a favorable toxicity profile. Phase II studies employing ixazomib-dexamethasone established a once weekly dosing regimen and showed substantial activity in RRMM yielding response rates of up to 58% when combined with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Ld). A recent phase III trial proved the superiority of the triple combination ixazomib-Ld compared to Ld in patients with RRMM. Here, we evaluate the activity and tolerability of the all oral combination ixazomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with RRMM. Methods Patients with RRMM with at least 1 prior line of therapy were enrolled. Patients had to have measurable disease, ECOG performance status ≤2, ANC ≥1000/µL, platelet count ≥50000µL, GFR ≥15mL/min. The treatment regimen consisted of ixazomib (4mg, d 1, 8 and 15), thalidomide (100mg daily) and dexamethasone (40mg once weekly). Patients aged ≥75 years received a reduced dose of both thalidomide (50mg daily) and of dexamethasone (20mg, once weekly). A total of 8 cycles was planned, followed by ixazomib maintenance therapy (4mg, days 1, 8, 15 of a 28 cycle and 3mg in patients aged ≥75 years) for one year. Progression-free survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The EORTC Q30 instrument was used for evaluation of changes in overall health and global QoL during therapy. Results Thirty-nine of 77 planned patients have been enrolled so far. Intent-to treat group (ITT), age, median: 67, range 42 to 85; ISS stage I: 13, II 14, III: 10, not known: 2, number of prior treatment lines, median: 2, (range: 1-5). Seven patients have discontinued treatment before completion of 2 cycles (early death: 3, progressive disease: 2, protocol violation: 1, patients request: 1). At present, 8 patients are too early (not yet completed 2 cycles) for evaluation per protocol (PP). Full documentation of at least 2 cycles of therapy is available for 24 patients. In this group, the median number of cycles administered is 4, and the median follow up is 4.5 months. Responses to IxaThalDex were seen in 14 patients (35.8% and 58.3% of ITT and PP group, respectively), 3 achieved ≥ VGPR (8%/ITT, 13%/PP), 10 PR (26%/ITT, 42%/PP) and 2 MR (5%/ITT, 8%/PP), yielding a clinical benefit rate of 38.5%/ITT, 62.5%/PP. FISH data are available in 17 of the 24 PP patients. Responses (≥PR) were seen in 5/6 patients with t (4;14) and/or t (14;16) and/or del17p and in 5/8 with standard risk cytogenetics. Median PFS at the time of reporting is 5.7 and 6.4 months in the ITT and PP group, respectively. An improvement in overall health and of general QoL was noted in 6 and 7 of the 14 responders, respectively. Toxicity data are presented for the PP group. Neutropenia was the most common hematologic toxicity noted in 20 (83.3%) patients; all of them had grade 1/2, and none higher grade neutropenia. Leukopenia was seen in 15 (62.5%) patients, (14 grade 1/2 and one grade 3). Sixteen (66.7%) had grade 1/2 anemia. Grade 1/2 thrombocytopenia was noted in 8 (33.3%) patients. The most frequent non hematological toxicity was infection seen in 7 (29%) patients. Six were grade 3; pneumonia was seen in 4, sepsis in 1 and other infections in 2 patients. Polyneuropathy at baseline was seen in 7 patients (grade 1 in 2, and grade 2 without pain in 6 patients). During the study the incidence of new PNP was relatively rare (3 new and one worsening PNP) with presently 9 (37.5%) patients with grade 1-2 and only 1 (4.2%) with grade 3. Other notable toxicities were acute renal failure (grade 3) in 2 (8.3%), fatigue in 8 (4 grade 1, 4 grade 2), constipation and diarrhea (all grade 1) each in 4, and edema and vision impairment (all grade 1), each in 3 patients. Conclusion The entirely oral IxaThalDex regimen resulted in an ORR of 58.3 in the PP and of 35.8% in the ITT population (with 8 patients being too early for PP evaluation and not having reached 2 cycles as yet). The clinical benefit rate was 62.5% and 38.5% for the PP and ITT group, respectively. Median PFS was 6.4 months in the PP group. General health and QoL improved in 42.8% and 50% of the responders. The ixazomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone regimen was well tolerated and with relatively few side effects being noted. As exposure to therapy is still short at this point of time it is anticipated that efficacy data will further improve with longer therapy and follow up. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Ludwig: Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Gunsilius:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: 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. Greil:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Petzer:Roche: Honoraria. Knop:Takeda: Consultancy. Poenisch:Mundipharma: Research Funding.

Download Full-text