Significant Survival Improvement with Maintenance in Patients Achieving a Complete Response: Pooled Analysis of 4 Italian Phase III Trials in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1974-1974
Author(s):  
Chiara Cerrato ◽  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Pellegrino Musto ◽  
Gianluca Gaidano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction Several trials have shown that maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, eligible and ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); conflicting data exist about its impact on overall survival (OS). The role of maintenance in patients with a sensitive disease is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis to clarify the impact of continuous treatment in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Methods Data from newly diagnosed MM patientsenrolled in 4 phase III trials were analysed. Two trials included ASCT-eligible patients: RV-MM-209 [melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) vs melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), followed by lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance), RV-MM-EMN-441 (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs Mel200, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). Two studies enrolled elderly, ASCT-ineligible patients: GIMEMA-MM0305 (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) and EMN01 (MPR vs cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of maintenance on PFS and OS in patients who achieved CR. Univariate analyses of OS and PFS were performed. Response was considered as a time-dependent variable with a landmark point at 12 months. Lastly, a multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of maintenance and ASCT as independent variables. Results A total of 1964 patients were retrospectively analysed. Of 1503 patients who received maintenance therapy, 254 achieved a CR and 931 a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR). After a median follow-up of 41 months, a significant 5-year OS (80% vs 54%; HR 0.55, p=0.02; Figure 1) and 5-year PFS (52% vs 19%; HR 0.47, p<0.001; Figure 2) advantage was reported among CR patients who received maintenance in comparison with no maintenance. The same analysis was conducted in patients achieving a suboptimal response (VGPR or PR): the 5-year PFS advantage was confirmed in patients who received maintenance vs patients who did not (30% vs 13% HR 0.65, p<0.001); the 5-year OS was 68% vs 38% in patients who received maintenance vs no maintenance respectively (HR 0.8, p=0.2). A subgroup analysis was conducted in CR patients according to the treatment received [ASCT vs conventional chemotherapy (CC)]; the PFS benefit among patients treated with maintenance was confirmed across both the subgroups (ASCT group: HR 0.45, p=0.02; CC group: HR 0.45 P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, maintenance therapy and treatment with ASCT confirmed the favourable impact on PFS and OS in patients achieving CR. Conclusion In CR patients,maintenance therapy significantly prolongs PFS and OS. In order to optimize treatment efficacy and to prolong survival in patients with a sensitive disease, the intensification with maintenance is strongly recommended. Disclosures Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association. Gay:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Celgene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Morphosys: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Patriarca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Achievement of Complete Response Is a Strong Prognostic Factor In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: Retrospective Analysis of 1175 Patients

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1949-1949
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
P.W. Wijermans ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Tommasina Guglielmelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Maximal Response ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Best Response ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1949 Introduction: There is extensive evidence from numerous studies in the transplant setting that achievement of complete response (CR) or at least very good partial response (VGPR) is significantly associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In elderly myeloma patients CR was a rare event since new drugs has been added to standard melphalan-prednisone (MP). After the introduction of novel agents, CR represents an achievable goal, also outside of the transplant setting. Aims: to assess the impact of response to treatment on time-to-event parameters (PFS and OS) in elderly myeloma patients. Methods: We retrospectively analysed newly diagnosed myeloma patients, older than 65 years old, or younger but not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and transplant. Patients were enrolled in 3 multicentre randomized European trials of the GIMEMA and Hovon groups, and were treated with MP (n=332), MP plus thalidomide (MPT, n=332), MP plus bortezomib (VMP, n=257) or MP plus bortezomib-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT, n=254). PFS, OS and duration of CR were analysed by the Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the two arms by the Wald test and calculating 95% confidence interval (CI). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the following variables: age at diagnosis (>75 vs. ≤75 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) stages, type of chemotherapy and best response achieved. Best response was treated as a time-dependent variable. Results: A total of 1,175 patients, enrolled from November, 2001 to January, 2009, were retrospectively analysed. The best response to treatment was available in 1,136 patients: CR was reported in 195, VGPR in 212, PR in 397. Baseline characteristics according to best response achieved in patients who obtained CR, VGPR or PR were similar. Since response rates vary according to treatment regimens the proportion of patients who received MP, MPT, VMP, and VMPT-VT was different in the different response categories. After a median follow-up of 29 months, PFS was significantly higher in patients who achieved CR compared to those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10–0.24; p<0.001) or PR (HR 0.07; 95% CI 0.04–0.13; p<0.001). The advantage in PFS translated into an advantage in OS: patients obtaining CR have a significantly prolonged OS than patients who achieved VGPR (HR 0.15; 95% CI 0.08–0.28; p<0.001) or PR (HR 0.08; 95% CI 0.04–0.16, p<0.001), (table). In multivariate analysis CR achievement was as an independent predictor of longer PFS and OS, regardless of age, ISS stage, and treatment administered. In patients > 75 years, both PFS and OS were shorter as compared to younger patients. Despite these differences, the impact of CR on outcome was identical. In the subgroup of patients > 75 years, PFS was significantly prolonged in patients who achieved CR, compared with those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.12–0.58, p = 0.001) or PR (HR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10–0.41, p < 0.001). Accordingly, OS was significantly higher in patients who achieved CR, compared with those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.13; 95% IC 0.03–0.58; p = 0.007), or PR (HR 0.12; 95% IC 0.03–0.51, p = 0.004), (table). No significant PFS differences between patients obtaining CR during the first 6 months of treatment or later were seen (HR 1.06; 95% IC 0.49–2.27; p=0.878). Similarly, no OS differences between these two groups were detected (p = 0.676). Duration of CR was comparable in patients who obtained CR during or after the first 6 months of treatment (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30–1.45; p = 0.305). Patients whose CR lasted more than 18 months have a significant OS benefit compared to patients who did not (p=0.006). Conclusions: These finding highlight the importance of CR, also outside of the transplant setting, regardless of age, ISS and treatment administered, and support the use of new drugs, also in patients older than 75 years, to achieve and maintain maximal response. Disclosures: Gay: Celgene: Honoraria. Bringhen:Calgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson : Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. 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.

scholarly journals Characterization of Exceptional Responders to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4615-4615
Author(s):  
Ashley Paquin ◽  
Morie A. Gertz ◽  
Hafsa Chaudhry ◽  
Shaji K. Kumar ◽  
Francis K. Buadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Time Point

Abstract Aims: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is an important component in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). However, relapse following ASCT is considered almost inevitable, with a median time to progression (TTP) of approximately 23-26 months (without maintenance) and 40-46 months (with maintenance)(Attal MA et al. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1782-1791; McCarthy PM et al. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1770-1781). However, some patients can experience a prolonged period of remission with ASCT. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize patients who have an exceptional response to upfront ASCT without maintenance therapy, and to determine the frequency of relapse in such patients. Methods: We searched the Mayo Clinic Multiple Myeloma bone marrow transplant database for patients who were diagnosed with MM between Aug 1, 1988 to Jan 3, 2006, and underwent ASCT within 12 months of initial diagnosis. For the purposes of this study, we defined exceptional responders as patients who were free of progression for 96 months or more, which is 2-3 fold more than the median TTP expected in this population. Since maintenance therapy was not standard of care at the time, only a small minority (6) of patients with prolonged TTP had received maintenance therapy; these patients were excluded since the study was focused on exceptional response with ASCT alone. One patient who had a tandem autologous transplant was excluded. Results: 509 patients underwent transplant during the study period. Of those, 46 (9%) met criteria for exceptional response. Twenty seven (59%) were female, 19 (41%) were male. Median age was 57.28 years, range, 31.9-73.0. Of 45 patients with response data available, the best response status was complete response or better in 32 patients (73.3%), VGPR in 4 patients (8.9%), and PR in 8 patients (17.7%). FISH data were available during the disease course for 41 patients. Of these, the majority, 28 patients (68.3%), had no abnormalities detected by the probes used; 3 patients (7.3%) had high risk cytogenetics (t(4;14) in 2 patients and t(14;16) in one patient) , 4 (9.8%) had trisomies; 6 patients had other isolated abnormalities. At last follow up, 23 patients have progressed (50%); 14 (30.4%) have died, including one who died without progression to MM. The median overall survival from time of diagnosis of the exceptional responders was 18.5 years, range 9.2-22 years. From the landmark time of 96 months, the median TTP was 6.2 years, range, 0.4-10.6 years (Figure 1); No plateau was seen in the TTP curve. From the landmark time of 96 months, the median OS was 10.5 years, range, 0.4-14 years. Conclusions: We conclude that approximately 10% of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma have an exceptional response to a single ASCT without maintenance therapy. These patients have a remarkable overall survival, both from diagnosis and from the landmark time point where they are classified as having achieved an exceptional response. Although TTP from the landmark time point is excellent, with median TTP of 6.2 years, there appears to be no plateau in the curve indicating ongoing risk of relapse despite a prolonged period of disease stability. Exceptional responders tended to have normal FISH studies (likely an indicator of responsive, low-tumor burden disease), and nearly 20% achieved this state despite not attaining a complete response. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: Research to Practice: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy. Kumar:KITE: 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; Janssen: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

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 Lenalidomide Maintenance with or without Prednisone in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients: A Pooled Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonello ◽  
Pulini ◽  
Ballanti ◽  
Gentile ◽  
Spada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Impact

: We conducted a pooled analysis of two phase III trials, RV-MM-EMN-441 and EMN01, to compare maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone vs. lenalidomide in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible and -ineligible myeloma patients. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival, progression-free survival 2 and overall survival with both regimens. A secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of duration of maintenance on overall survival and on outcome after relapse. A total of 625 patients (lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n = 315; lenalidomide arm, n = 310) were analyzed. The median follow-up was 58 months. Median progression-free survival (25 vs. 19 months; p = 0.08), progression-free survival 2 (56 vs. 49 months; p = 0.9) and overall survival (73 months vs. NR; p = 0.08) were not significantly different between the two arms. Toxicity profiles of lenalidomide-prednisone and lenalidomide were similar, with the exception of neutropenia that was higher in the lenalidomide arm (grade ≥ 3: 9% vs. 19%, p < 0.001), without an increase in the rate of infections. Overall survival (median NR vs. 49 months, p < 0.001), progression-free survival from relapse (median 35 vs. 24 months, p = 0.004) and overall survival from relapse (median not reached vs. 41 months, p = 0.002) were significantly longer in patients continuing maintenance for ≥2 years. We showed that the addition of prednisone at 25 or 50 mg every other day (eod) to lenalidomide maintenance did not induce any significant advantage.

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.

scholarly journals Treating Acute Leukemia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Latin American Registry

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Roberta Demichelis ◽  
Martha Alvarado ◽  
Jule F Vasquez ◽  
Nancy Delgado ◽  
Cynthia Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Acute Leukemia ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Latin American Countries

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world. Health systems have been affected in such a way that patients with diseases other than COVID-19 have suffered serious consequences. In Latin America, the disease has emerged in a fragile system with more disparities, making our patients more vulnerable. Acute leukemia patients have a high risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Various expert recommendations have emerged with the aim of minimizing the risk of COVID-19 without affecting leukemia-related outcomes. However, multiple logistical issues tangentially associated with the pandemic have also appeared, potentially limiting the quality of management of these patients. The objective of this study was to register treatment modifications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and its short-term consequences in Latin American countries. Methods We included patients older than 14 years, from 14 centers of 4 Latin American countries (Mexico, Peru, Guatemala and Panama), with the diagnosis of acute leukemia, who were on active treatment since the first case of COVID-19 was documented in each country. We documented their baseline characteristics and followed the patients prospectively until July 15, were data-cutoff for this pre-planned analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of COVID-19 disease and its complications. Secondary outcomes included treatment and consult modifications, and cause of death during the study period. Logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Results We recorded the information of 635 patients: 58.1% Ph-negative ALL, 25.7% AML, 9% APL and 7.2% Ph+ALL. The median age was 35 years (14-90 years); 58.8% were consideredf high-risk patients. The majority were on CR (68.3%) receiving consolidation or maintenance therapy, while 14.5% were newly diagnosed and 17.2% with relapsed/refractory disease. The majority (91.8%) were treated in centers that were also receiving COVID-19 patients, 40.2% in centers were patients could not be electively hospitalized for leukemia treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-pandemic led to treatment-modifications in 40.8% of the cases. Reasons for modifications were associated with logistical issues (22.4%), medical decisions (15.1%) or patient choice (3.3%). The most frequent modification was chemotherapy delay (17.3%) followed by regimen modification (13.4%) and dose-reductions (10.1%). (Figure 1) 83 patients (13.1%) developed COVID-19 disease, the majority mild-moderate disease (54.2%), 27.7% severe disease and 18.1% critically ill; 27.7% required mechanical ventilation and 37.7% died from COVID-19 disease, representing 4.9% of the entire cohort. We identify as risk factors for COVID-19 disease the presence of active leukemia (newly diagnosed or relapsed) (OR 3.46 [95% CI: 2.16-5.5], p&lt;0.001), high-risk leukemia (OR 1.63 [95% CI: 1.54-4.52], p&lt;0.001) and being treated in a center were elective hospitalization was possible (OR 2.17 [95% CI 1.29-3.67], p=0.004). Treatment modifications, appointment prolongations or the use of virtual consultation were not associated with a reduction in the risk of COVID-19. On the other hand, 16.7% of patients died during period analyzed due to leukemia (57.5%), COVID-19 (29.2%) or treatment related-mortality (13.2%). Independent factors associated with mortality were AML vs. ALL (OR 1.89 [95% CI: 1.12-3.18], p=0.016), relapsed-refractory disease (OR 8.34 [95% CI: 4.83-14.41], p&lt;0.001), induction/consolidation vs. maintenance therapy (OR 2.20 [95% CI: 1.25-3.18], p&lt;0.001) and the use of virtual consultation (OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.13-0.94] p=0.037). (Table 1) Discussion/Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant modifications in the standard of care treatment of patients with acute leukemia. The incidence of COVID-19 disease in acute leukemia patients was considerable and more than a third of the patients with acute leukemia and COVID-19 disease died. Despite a short-follow up, 16.7% of the patients died and leukemia-related deaths were the most frequent. In low- and middle-income countries with fragile health systems, the collateral damage for patients with acute leukemia may be just as important as the direct consequences of COVID-19. Disclosures Alvarado: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau. De la Peña-Celaya:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Perez:Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gomez-Almaguer:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

A Phase III Study to Determine the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide in Combination with Melphalan and Prednisone (MPR) in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 613-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Michel Delforge ◽  
Martin Kropff ◽  
Robin Foa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Abstract 613 Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) is an oral immunomodulatory agent with clinical efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In patients with relapsed/refractory MM, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone improved time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) in comparison with dexamethasone alone. In newly diagnosed MM patients, the current study compares the efficacy and safety of melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide (MPR) with that of MP alone. Methods: Key inclusion criteria were: ≥65 years of age, newly diagnosed and symptomatic MM. 459 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy or MPR followed by placebo maintenance therapy or MP followed by placebo maintenance therapy (Figure 1). The study induction and maintenance phases were followed by an open label lenalidomide extension and a follow-up phase. All patients received aspirin 100 mg/day as thrombo-prophylaxis. The primary endpoint of the study is progression free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints are OS, time-to-progression, response rate, time to response, response duration, time-to-next anti-myeloma therapy, safety, quality of life and exploratory assessment of cytogenetic abnormalities. Primary comparison is based on the intent-to-treat population comparing PFS between MPR followed by lenalidomide with MP followed by placebo; secondary comparisons are between MPR followed by lenalidomide and MPR followed by placebo, and between MPR followed by placebo and MP followed by placebo. Results: The first patient was enrolled in February 2007. A pre-planned interim analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety was performed at 50% information. An independent central adjudication committee determined the assessment and timing of progressive disease prior to the interim analysis. At the interim analysis, it was determined by the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) that the study had crossed the O'Brien Fleming superiority boundary for the primary endpoint, demonstrating a highly statistically significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with MPR compared with MP as first-line treatment for MM patients. The topline results will be availabel at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: MPR is an effective and safe regimen for front-line use in MM. PFS was significantly improved in patients who received MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance compared with those who received MP followed by placebo maintenance. MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance is a new therapeutic option and can be considered a new standard for patients older than 65 years old. Disclosures: 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; Pharmion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for first line use in multiple myeloma. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kropff:Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Foa:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Herbein:Celgene: Employment. Mei:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Catalano:Celgene: Research Funding.

PCR-Based Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Detection Is a Strong Independent Outcome Predictor Also in Rituximab-Intensive Non-ASCT-Based Programs: Results From the ML17638 Multicenter Randomised Phase III Trial for Elderly Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Patients of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (FIL)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 787-787
Author(s):  
Marco Ladetto ◽  
Chiara Lobetti-Bodoni ◽  
Barbara Mantoan ◽  
Andrea Evangelista ◽  
Carola Boccomini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Marker ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Outcome Predictor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 787 Background: Many studies support the value of PCR-based MRD detection using the bcl-2-IgH translocation as an outcome predictor in FL but some failed to confirm this observation. Concerns have been raised particularly for programs which are highly Rituximab (Rtx) intensive (with or without maintenance) and non-ASCT-based. The ML17638 study, contained an extensive centralized MRD monitoring program, whose results are here presented. Patients and methods: Clinical results of study have been already reported (Vitolo et al, ASH 2011). The program consisted of 4 R-FND courses (Rtx, fludarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone) followed by 4 doses of weekly Rtx. Patients (pts) achieving 3partial response (PR) were randomized to Rtx maintenance (arm A) or observation (arm B). A total of 234 untreated elderly (age 60–75 years) pts at diagnosis were enrolled. With a median follow-up from randomization of 34 months, 3-year PFS and OS were 66% (95%CI:59-72%) and 89% (95%CI:85-93%), with a clear trend in favor of arm A for 2-year PFS (81% vs 69%). At enrolment, pts were screened for a molecular marker based on the bcl-2/IgH MBR or mcr. If found, pts were tested at 8 fixed timepoints: at month 5 (M5) after 4-R-FND, at the end of induction therapy (M8) and during maintenance/observation and follow-up (M12,M18,M24,M30,M36 and M42) or until relapse. MRD was assessed by both nested PCR (n-PCR) and real time quantitative PCR (RQ-PCR) on BM cells. Methods have been already reported (Ladetto Exp Hematol 2001). RQ-PCR was performed and analyzed according to the Euro-MRD guidelines (Van der Velden Leukemia 2007). The lab performs routine quality controls in the context of Euro-MRD and was blinded to clinical results and radomization arm. The impact of MRD on PFS was evaluated by log-rank tests and Cox models including age, sex, FLIPI, ECOG PS and complete remission (CR). In addition, the effect of PCR negativity on PFS during the whole follow-up period was evaluated by a time-varying covariate included in the models, also considered in a cumulative way (0, 1, 2, 3 or more consecutive PCR-negative timepoints). Results: 229 of 234 enrolled pts (98%) were screened at study entry. A molecular marker was found in 118 (51.5%). Of these, 9 were excluded due to withdrawal before M5 (7) or inadequate sampling (2). Overall, 800 follow-up samples were expected. Of these, 707 (88%) were received and analysed: 98% of pts were evaluable for 350% of timepoints and 87% for 375%. Pts with and without a marker had identical PFS (61% at 42m for both). Sixty six per cent of pts achieved PCR-negativity after R-FND and 81% at the end of treatment, with a mean tumor burden reduction of 11 natural logaritm after R-FND and a further decrease of 1.6 after the 4 weekly Rtx. At randomization, PCR-positivity rate was similar in the two arms while during and after maintenance pts in Arm A had a lower rate of PCR-positivity (9% vs 17% p=0.02). The achievement of PCR-negativity by both n-PCR and RQ-PCR at timepoints M8,12,18 and 24 predicted a better PFS (M5 not predictive, M30, 36, 42 have too early follow up for meaningful evaluation). After M8, 2-year PFS was significantly better in PCR-negative than PCR-positive pts: 72% vs 39% (p=0.007, Fig. 1). Achieving a double PCR-negativity at M8-M12 or triple molecular negativity at M8-M12-M18 was associated with a further increase of PFS (82% vs 46% for months 8–12, p=0.001 and 87% vs 53% for months 8–12-18, p=0.001). PCR-negativity at M8 ensured a subsequent better PFS both in CR (p=0.023, HR=0.33, 95%CI: 0.13–0.86) and PR (p=0.074, HR=0.28, 95%CI: 0.07–1.13) pts (Fig. 2). Disclosures: Ladetto: Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi:Roche: Honoraria. Musto:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gamba:Roche: Employment. Vitolo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssin-Cilag: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document