scholarly journals Conditional Survival Analysis of 816 Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients Constitutes a Different Way to Provide More Specifically Determined Prognosis

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2091-2091
Author(s):  
Maximilian Schinke ◽  
Inga Promny ◽  
Stefanie Hieke ◽  
Johannes M. Waldschmidt ◽  
Gabriele Ihorst ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Disease monitoring based on genetics or other molecular markers obtained by noninvasive or minimally invasive methods will potentially allow the early detection of treatment response or disease progression in cancer patients. Investigations in order to identify prognostic factors, e.g. patient's baseline characteristics or molecular markers, contributing to long-term survival potentially provide important information for patients with multiple myeloma. Overall survival (OS) is not very informative for patients who already survived one or more years. To better characterize long-term survival respectively long-term survivors, conditional survival (CS) analyses are useful. Conditional survival (CS) describes probabilities of surviving t additional years given they survived s years and provides information, how prognosis evolves over time. We have demonstrated the use of CS in a large data set of multiple myeloma patients with long-term survival which is mandatory for the calculation of CS (Hieke,... Engelhardt, Schumacher. CCR 2015). Methods: We evaluated 816 consecutive multiple myeloma patients treated at our department from 1997 to 2011 with follow-up until the end of 2011. Patients' data were assessed via electronic medical record (EMR) retrieval within an innovative research data warehouse. Our platform, the University of Freiburg Translational Research Integrated Database Environment (U-RIDE), acquires and stores all patient data contained in the EMR at our hospital and provides immediate advanced text searching capacity. We assessed 21 variables including gender, age, stage and admission period. We calculated 5-years CS and stratified 5-years CS according to disease- and host-related risks. Component-wise likelihood-based boosting and variables selected by boosting were investigated in a multivariable Cox model. Results: The OS probabilities at 5- and 10- years were 50% and 25%, respectively. The 5-year CS probabilities remained almost constant over the years a patient had already survived after initial diagnosis (~50%). According to baseline variables, conditional survival estimates showed no gender differences. The estimated 5-year survival probabilities varied substantially, from 25% for patients ages 70 or older to 65% for patients younger than 60 years. Similarly, patients with D&S stage I have an estimated 5-year survival probability of about 75% compared with 40% for patients with D&S stages II and III. Significant risk factors via Cox proportional hazard model were D&S stage II+III, age >70 years, hemoglobin <10g/dl, ß2-MG ≥5.5mg/dl, LDH ≥200U/l. Renal impairment, low albumin and unfavorable cytogenetics increased the risk, but failed to reach significance. Cytogenetics, response, response duration and other risk parameters post treatment are currently included in our assessment. Of note, over the study period, admission of patients <60 years decreased from 60% to 34%, but increased for those ≥70 years from 10% to 35%, respectively, illustrating that not only young and fit, but also elderly patients are increasingly treated within large referral and university centers and that patient cohorts and risks do not remain constant over time. Conclusions: Conditional survival has attracted attention in recent years either in an absolute or relative form where the latter is based on a comparison with an age-adjusted normal population being highly relevant from a public health perspective. In its absolute form, conditional survival constitutes the quantity of major interest in a clinical context. We defined conditional survival by using the fact that the patient is alive at the prediction time s as the conditioning event. Alternatively, one could determine conditional survival, given that the patient is alive and progression-free or alive, but has progression at time s (Zamboni et al. JCO 2010). Analysis of the above and additional variables from diagnosis to prediction time s may refine conditional survival towards an even more specifically determined prognosis; follow-up response and risk parameters most likely further refining these CS analyses. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Wäsch: MSD: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Comprehensiv Cancer Center Freiburg: Research Funding; German Cancer Aid: Research Funding.

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5953-5953
Author(s):  
Maximilian Schinke ◽  
Inga Promny ◽  
Gabriele Ihorst ◽  
Johannes M. Waldschmidt ◽  
Roland H. Mertelsmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Disease monitoring based on molecular markers obtained by noninvasive or minimally invasive methods will potentially allow the early detection of treatment response or disease progression in cancer patients (pts). Investigations in order to identify prognostic factors, e.g. pt baseline characteristics or molecular markers, contributing to long-term survival potentially provide important information for pts with multiple myeloma (MM). However, overall survival (OS) is not very informative for pts who already survived 5 or 10 more years (yrs). To better characterize long-term survival, conditional survival (CS) analyses are useful. CS describes probabilities of surviving t additional yrs given they survived s yrs and provides information, how prognosis evolves over time. We evaluated relative survival using a conditional approach and have described initial results in a large data set of MM pts with long-term survival, which is mandatory for the calculation of CS (Hieke et al., Clin Cancer Res 2015). The results were further refined here by accumulating time-dependent laboratory and MM-disease specific risks, including cytogenetics and response to treatment over time. Methods: We evaluated 815 consecutive MM pts treated at our department from 1997 to 2011, with follow-up until 6/2016. We assessed >20 variables and risks, including gender, age, stage, admission period, response and relevant MM-related risk factors over time. We calculated 5-yr CS and stratified 5-yr CS according to disease- and host-related risks. Component-wise likelihood-based boosting and variables selected by boosting were investigated in a multivariable Cox model. The median follow-up time was 10.3 yrs and the median OS in the entire cohort 5.1 yrs. Results: Our pts showed typical characteristics for referral centers as previously described (Engelhardt et al. 2014-2016), e.g. pt frequencies of <60, 60-69 and >70 yrs were 42%, 34% and 24%, respectively. The OS probabilities at 5- and 10-years were 50% and 25%, respectively. The 5-yr CS probabilities remained almost constant over the yrs, if a pt had already survived after initial diagnosis (~50%). According to baseline variables, CS estimates showed no gender difference. The estimated 5-yr survival probabilities varied substantially, from 25% for pts aged >70 to 65% for pts <60 yrs. Similarly, pts with D&S stage I had an estimated 5-yr survival probability of about 75% compared with 40% for pts with D&S stages II and III. Relevant risks via Cox proportional hazard model were D&S stage II+III, advanced age, renal impairment, low albumin and unfavorable cytogenetics. Response, response duration and other risk parameters post treatment are currently being included in our CS assessment. Of interest, over the study period, admission of pts <60 yrs decreased from 60% to 34%, but increased for those ≥70 yrs from 10% to 35%, respectively, illustrating that not only young, but also elderly and frail pts are increasingly treated within large referral and university centers and that pt cohorts and risks do not remain constant over time. Despite more high-risk and frail pts within later admission periods beyond 2007 and later, OS did not decrease (HR 0.994; 95%CI 0.715-1.381, p=0.971). Conclusions: CS has attracted attention in recent yrs either in an absolute or relative form where the latter is based on a comparison with an age-adjusted normal population being highly relevant from a public health perspective. In its absolute form, CS constitutes the quantity of major interest in a clinical context. We defined CS by using the fact that the pt is alive at the prediction time s as the conditioning event. Our CS data have considerable clinical implications: because the 5-yr CS remains stable, post treatment surveillance in MM is continuously justified and end points for clinical trial designs should adjust their follow-up accordingly. Even in the modern treatment era, this is different to e.g. Hodgkin lymphoma, where a low risk of relapse has been demonstrated if pts were event free at 2 yrs in a conditional survival approach (Hapgood et al. JCO 2016). CS data in various hematological tumors therefore vary substantially and remain warranted to clearly determine. Our analysis of time-dependent risk variables from diagnosis to prediction time s and use of response, response duration and other MM-specific variables should refine CS towards an even more specifically determined prognosis. Disclosures Engelhardt: MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses , Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4649-4649
Author(s):  
Nicola Lehners ◽  
Natalia Becker ◽  
Axel Benner ◽  
Maria Pritsch ◽  
Elias Karl Mai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: In the last decade, the introduction of novel agents into multiple myeloma (MM) therapy has significantly improved response rates and enabled long-term survival in a subset of patients. Yet, clinical characteristics of these long-term survivors as well as the exact impact of depth and sustainment of response still remain a matter of debate. Methods: MM patients treated at our center with high-dose melphalan supported by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as part of their first-line therapy between June 1992 and July 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Response assessment was performed 100 days after ASCT according to EBMT criteria, since 2008 response according to IMWG criteria was also available. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from day of first ASCT. Additionally, landmark analyses regarding OS were performed at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years after ASCT. Impact of variables on PFS and OS were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression models. Furthermore, in order to assess evolution of prognosis over time, the conditional survival CS(t|s), which expresses the conditional probability of surviving further t years, was calculated as the ratio of two Kaplan-Meier estimates Ŝ(t) with . Results: 865 patients were included in this analysis, median age was 57.0 years (range 24-74), 509 were male. New agents based induction therapy was administered in 358 patients, 258 patients underwent tandem ASCT. Following ASCT, 386 patients received maintenance therapy, mainly with interferon or thalidomide. 75 patients proceeded to allogeneic transplantation and were censored at that time. Median PFS was 2.1 years, median OS was 6.4 years. Analysis of clinical influence factors revealed novel agent based induction therapy (p<0.01), maintenance therapy (p<0.01) and achievement of complete response (CR) (p=0.01) to be significantly associated with prolonged PFS, while older age (p=0.01) and thrombocytes at diagnosis < 150/nl (p=0.02) were identified as risk factors; a negative trend was seen for ISS stage 3 (p=0.067). With regard to OS, novel agent based induction therapy (p<0.01), maintenance therapy (p<0.01) and duration of time to progression (p<0.01) showed a highly significant positive impact, older age (p<0.01) and renal insufficiency at diagnosis (p=0.048) exerted a negative influence. To assess the importance of duration of response, landmark analyses were performed at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years after ASCT evaluating OS of patients with sustained CR, sustained inferior responses (non-CR), lost CR and lost non-CR at these respective time points. Remarkably, sustainment of any response showed a highly significant impact on survival at each of these time points (p<0.01) with no discernable difference between sustained CR and sustained non-CR patients. Landmark analysis at 1 year is shown in Figure 1. Administration of maintenance therapy independently improved outcome (p<0.01). Conditional survival regarding the probability to survive further three years CS(3|s) was calculated starting from the time of first ASCT stratified for the different response cohorts (see Figure 2). No significant differences could be found between patients with complete and partial response. In contrast, patients with progressive disease (PD) at day 100 after ASCT had a much lower probability of surviving the following three years after ASCT compared to patients responding to ASCT. However, those patients with PD that did survive the first year after ASCT, achieved a similar conditional three-year survival to that of patients responding initially. Conclusions: In this large retrospective study, sustainment of response after first-line ASCT was revealed as a major impact factor for OS independent of the depth of response. Administration of maintenance therapy further improved outcome, supporting the hypothesis that interventions prolonging responses achieved after ASCT are essential to reach long-term survival. Figure 1 OS of patients with sustained vs not-sustained responses at 1-year landmark analysis. Figure 1. OS of patients with sustained vs not-sustained responses at 1-year landmark analysis. Figure 2 3-year-conditional survival CS(3|s) after ASCT stratified for responses achieved. Figure 2. 3-year-conditional survival CS(3|s) after ASCT stratified for responses achieved. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Hillengass: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Raab:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3274-3274
Author(s):  
Neha S Korde ◽  
Dickran Kazandjian ◽  
Mark Roschewski ◽  
Sham Mailankody ◽  
Malin Hultcrantz ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a patchy bone marrow based malignancy of plasma cells, resulting in painful bone lytic lesions that can be visualized by 18F-FDG-PET-CT. We treated 45 NDMM patients with CRd-R therapy that resulted in high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (62%)(Korde et al. JAMA Onc 2015). In this study, we assessed longitudinal FDG response through lenalidomide (Len) maintenance period and aimed to correlate with clinical findings and MRD status. Methods: The details of treatment received, study design and patients' characteristics have already been published. As part of the study design, all patients had serial PET imaging at baseline, after achievement of CR and/or at completion of 8 cycles of CRd, and at year-1 and -2 of Len maintenance, or termination of protocol therapy. Whole body (vertex to toes) static FDG imaging was performed at 1-hour post injection, implemented according to institutional practice. Focal lesions on FGD were defined as: increased uptake (above background reference) within the bone, (excluding articular regions due to high prevalence and likelihood of confounding arthritic disease), maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) >1.5 for lesion size on CT ranging from 0.5-1.0 cm, or maximum SUV >2.5 for lesions >1.0 cm. Results: At baseline, 37/45(82.2%) patients had FDG-positive lesions and 8/45(17.8%) were negative. Median follow-up for longitudinal analysis is 30.1 months. Among initial FDG-negative patients, 7/8 (87.5%) patients remained negative throughout follow-up; 1/8 (12.5%) patients developed a sclerotic FDG-positive lesion deemed not to be progression (rib 5 SUV 1.7). Among the 37 patients with baseline FDG-positive lesions, 12/37(32.4%) patients had complete resolution of FDG-PET-CTs (FDG-responders); 25/37(67.5%) remained FDG-long-term positive at time of last protocol scan. Eight of the 25(32%) FDG-long-term positive patients met IMWG criteria for progression, compared to 0/12 FDG-responders (p value=0.04). For patients with available data, MRD negative status after initial CRd (prior to Len maintenance) was not associated with long-term PET-CT response [19/24(79.2%) vs. 8/11(72.7%), FDG-long-term positive vs. FDG-responders, p=NS]. For the remaining FDG-long-term positive patients not meeting progression criteria, all 17 patients had low-positive persistent FDG with decreased or partial SUV response that decreased over time while on Len maintenance. Conclusions: In patients receiving CRd followed by long-term Len maintenance, 68% of baseline FDG-positive patients have persistent longitudinal FDG-positive myeloma lesions. While there is an increased risk of clinical progression among these patients, the majority showed low-positive FDG lesion uptake that decreased over time with long-term Len maintenance. Long-term resolution of FDG-positive lesions is not associated with MRD status after initial CRd therapy. Further follow-up is needed to examine the significance of persistent FDG-positive lesions in relationship to residual disease and mechanisms of resistance. Figure Figure. Disclosures Korde: Medscape: Honoraria. Hassoun:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Binding Site: Research Funding. Landgren:Medscape Myeloma Program: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3226-3226
Author(s):  
Eli Muchtar ◽  
Morie A. Gertz ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
David Dingli ◽  
Francis K. Buadi ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Prognosis of AL amyloidosis has improved in recent years; however for many patients prognosis remains poor. We aimed to define patient-, disease- and treatment characteristics which are associated with long-term survival. Method: A retrospective chart review of all patients with biopsy-proven systemic AL amyloidosis, who were seen within 90 days of the confirmed diagnosis. Long-term survival was defined as 5-year and 10-year survival from the time of diagnosis. For 5-year survival we selected patients seen between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012 (allowing a minimum of 5-year follow-up, n=1331) and for 10-year survival we screened patients seen between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2007 (allowing a minimum of 10-year follow-up; n=779). Treatment allocation was defined as the first regimen given, irrespective of subsequent treatment modifications. Results: Of the screening population, 498 patients survived ≥5 years from diagnosis (37% of the 5-year screening cohort) and 168 patients survived 10 years or more (22% of the 10-year screening cohort). Five-year survivors and 10-year survivors as compared to their counterparts were (Table): younger, higher proportion of women, more likely to have single organ involvement, less heart/liver/nerve involvement and more kidney involvement. Long-term survivors also had lower bone marrow plasma cell percentage at the time of diagnosis and lower tumor burden measured by the difference between involved to uninvolved light chain (dFLC). Similarly, long-term survivors had lower Mayo stages and higher systolic blood pressure. No difference in light chain isotype was observed between long-term survivors to long term non-survivors. Long-term survivors were less likely to be seen within 30 days of diagnosis compared to their counterparts (52% among 5-year survivors vs 67% among 5-year non-survivor; P<0.001). FISH abnormalities (data available for 555/1331 patients, 42%) were comparable between groups with regard to t(11;14) (50% among 5-year survival compared to 50% among 5-year non-survivors; P=0.93) and 13q abnormalities (34% vs 36%, respectively; P=0.53). However, trisomies were less frequently encountered in the 5-year survivor group (20% vs 29%, respectively; P=0.01), and far less common among 10-year survivors (11% vs 26%, respectively; P=0.04). Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was more likely to be associated with long-term survival. Of all patients who underwent ASCT, 74% survived more than 5 years and 49% survived more than 10 years. In comparison, among the standard-intensity therapies, 5-year survival rates for melphalan-dexamethasone, bortezomib-based regimens, immunomodulatory drug-based regimens and single agent dexamethasone/ melphalan-prednisone were 29%, 28%, 30% and 10%, respectively. The corresponding 10-year survival rates were 15%, 20%, 20% and 5%, respectively. Conclusions: Long-term AL survivors have distinct favorable baseline characteristics (including those introduced by referral bias) and ASCT as their initial therapy. Identification of these patients, especially the Mayo 2004 stage III and the Mayo 2012 stage III-IV patients who unexpectedly survived 10 years, will allow for further study and insights. Disclosures Gertz: Teva: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 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.. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kumar:KITE: 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2287-2287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Zugmaier ◽  
Nicola Goekbuget ◽  
Andreas Viardot ◽  
Matthias Stelljes ◽  
Svenja Neumann ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-precursor ALL in adults has an unfavorable prognosis with a median overall survival of 4–8 months and a 5-year survival of <10%. Long-term follow-up data are presented from an exploratory phase 2 study with blinatumomab, an investigational bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct that directs cytotoxic T-cells to CD19-expressing target cells (Topp MS et al. Blood 2012;120(21):670). Methods: The primary endpoint was hematologic complete remission (CR) or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh*) within 2 cycles of blinatumomab. Secondary endpoints included rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) response (defined as < 10-4), overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Blinatumomab was administered by continuous intravenous infusion for 28 days followed by a 14-day treatment-free interval. Responding patients had the option to receive 3 additional cycles of treatment or to proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT). Results: 36 patients were treated; 25 (69%) responded, with 15 (42%) achieving CR and 10 (28%) CRh*. MRD response was achieved in 22 (88%) of these 25 patients with CR or CRh*. Thirteen patients with CR or CRh* proceeded to aHSCT after blinatumomab treatment. In addition, one patient with hypocellular bone marrow and MRD response after the first cycle underwent aHSCT. Follow-up for RFS is 22.4 months; median RFS is 8.8 months. Median follow-up for OS is 30.2 months; median OS is 12.9 months. Ten patients (28%) are alive at 29.7 months (Figure). We analyzed the characteristics of the 10 living long-term survivors, defined as OS of 2 years or longer, seven of whom were relapse-free. The age of these 10 patients at the time of first infusion ranged from 21 to 72 years; the blast count at screening ranged from 8% to 97% (median, 56%). Four of the 10 patients alive had received aHSCT prior to blinatumomab treatment. Of the six patients without a prior aHSCT, two were primary refractory; two had the first relapse within 12 months and two after 12 months post first diagnosis. In the 10 surviving patients blinatumomab treatment induced CR in seven patients, CRh* in two patients, and blast-free hypo-cellular bone marrow in one patient. All 10 surviving patients had an MRD response following blinatumomab treatment. The patient with hypocellular bone marrow received a transplant after the first cycle before potential recovery of blood counts qualifying for CR/CRh* could occur. Seven of the surviving patients underwent aHSCT after blinatumomab, including four patients who received a second aHSCT after they had already received an aHSCT prior to blinatumomab. One of the three patients who did not undergo aHSCT after CRh* had grade 4 cytokine release syndrome requiring resuscitation after 1 day of blinatumomab treatment and has remained in ongoing remission for 22 months without any further treatment aside from 5 cycles of blinatumomab. Another one of these three patients, who had a grade 3 neurologic event on day 2 of cycle 2, has remained in ongoing remission for 34 months without any further treatment aside from 5 cycles of blinatumomab. The third of these three patients had two CD19-positive relapses after CR following blinatumomab treatment. The patient was retreated with 3 cycles of blinatumomab, resulting twice in CR and MRD response. Two of the 10 surviving patients relapsed after blinatumomab and aHSCT; one patient with a CD 19-negative relapse achieved another hematologic remission by chemotherapy. Summary: These data show that patients with r/r ALL, who achieved MRD response and received subsequent aHSCT following blinatumomab immunotherapy may achieve long-term survival longer than 2 years. Studies with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm these data. Two patients with grade 3 or 4 toxicities showed long-term survival without aHSCT after blinatumomab. Figure Figure. Disclosures Zugmaier: Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Off Label Use: This presentation will discuss the off-label use of blinatumomab, as this agent is not approved for use by the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authorities.. Goekbuget:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viardot:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel support Other; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel support, Travel support Other; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Travel support Other. Horst:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Brueggemann:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Holland:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmidt:Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Mergen:Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership; Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment. Bargou:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Topp:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 594-594
Author(s):  
Elena Zamagni ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Francesca Patriarca ◽  
Patrizia Tosi ◽  
Annalisa Pezzi ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 594 Survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has been extended with the introduction of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). More recently, availability of highly effective novel agents has further improved patient outcomes. However, it is still the matter of debate whether a proportion of patients treated with ASCT can enjoy a long term survival, while sustaining prolonged high quality response. To address this issue and to identify those variables which were related to long-term survival, we performed a post-hoc analysis of two large prospective clinical trials of ASCT in newly diagnosed MM patients, the first one comparing single versus double ASCT and the second one incorporating thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) into double ASCT. A total of 321 patients were randomly assigned in the first study to receive either a single or double ASCT, as previously described (Cavo M et al, JCO 2007). Three hundred and fifty seven patients were enrolled in the subsequent multicenter phase 2 study incorporating TD from the outset until the second ASCT; details of the protocol were previously reported (Cavo et al, J. Clin. Oncol 2009). Results were updated as of 30 March 2012 and compared with those previously reported. All the analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. After a median follow-up of 61 months for the entire treatment population of the first study, PFS remained significantly longer with tandem versus single ASCT (median 37 vs 25 months, P= 0.012), while OS was similar in the two groups (median 71 vs 67 months). 47% and 33% of the patients in the double and single ASCT group achieved a CR+nCR (P= 0.008). Overall, in 24% and 11% of the patients, CR+nCR was sustained for more than 5 and 10 years, respectively. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, best response (CR+nCR) ever achieved was the most important variable significantly extending PFS (P= 0.003) and OS (P=0.050); random assignment to double ASCT was an additional variable predicting for prolonged PFS(P= 0.026). After a median follow-up of 84 months from starting TD in the second study, median values of PFS and OS were 47.2 and 109.6 months, respectively. The final rate of CR+nCR was 34%, which was maintained for a median of 53 months. Overall, in 42.1% and 9.1% of the patients CR+nCR was sustained for more than 5 and 8 years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, failure to ever achieve at least CR+nCR, low Hb, high β2-m and t(4;14)±del(17p) were found to be independent variables predicting for poorer outcomes. In particular, a shorter OS was seen for patients ever lacking high-quality responses (HR: 0.35, 0.23–0.54, p<0.0001) and with t(4;14)±del(17p) (HR: 0.51, 0.33–0.79, p=0.0030). Overall, 23% and 20% of patients in the first and second study were alive over 10 or 8 years, respectively (long-term survivors). Median PFS of long-term survivors in the 2 studies were 74 and 87.7 months, respectively, versus 25 and 37 months for the rest of the population (P= 0.0000). Median duration of CR+nCR were 70 and 78 months in the long-term survivors group for the first and second study, respectively, in comparison with 21 and 49 months in the remaining patients (P<0.001 for both). The 10 and 8-year estimates of OS after relapse or progression in the long-term survivors of the two protocols were 58% and 72%, respectively, in comparison to a median value of 24 and 23 months for the control group (p<0.0001 for both). In a logistic regression analysis, attainment of high-quality responses was independently associated with long-term survival in both the studies (first study: OR: 1.8, 1.06–3.01, P= 0.03; second study: OR: 4.3, 2.17–8.60, P= 0.000). In conclusion, although the comparison between TD incorporated into ASCT and ASCT without thalidomide was not directly addressed by this analysis, TD + ASCT was associated with extended PFS and OS. Approximately 20% of the patients undergoing up-front ASCT can achieve long term survival (8–10 years from start of treatment), with 33% of them remaining relapse free. Attainment of sustained high-quality responses was the leading independent variable predicting for long-term OS. Prolonged survival after relapse was a contributing factor to long-term OS. Disclosures: Off Label Use: One of the 2 protocols discussed includes the use of thalidomide as induction prior to ASCT.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4485-4485
Author(s):  
Anja Seckinger ◽  
Hans Jürgen Salwender ◽  
Hans Martin ◽  
Christof Scheid ◽  
Thomas Hielscher ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction The inclusion of "novel" agents including proteasome inhibitors or IMiD-derivatives in the treatment of multiple myeloma significantly improves patient survival. Results of several study groups suggest incorporating at least one "novel agent" in first-line treatment before and after high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. Here we address four main questions: First, what determines (excellent) long-term survival for different treatment regimen? Second, can we show benefit of novel agents for all patients and molecular subentities, including low risk? Third, can the prognostic impact of molecular entities be explained by different association with response, proliferation, and renal impairment? Fourth, does it matter regarding long-term survival by which agents, i.e. "old" vs. "new", a response was reached? Patients and Methods Patients were included in the prospective phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4-trial (German part, n=354) randomizing VAD-induction, autologous tandem-transplantation and thalidomide-maintenance vs. PAD-induction, tandem-transplantation and bortezomib-maintenance. Plasma cells after CD138-purification were subjected to interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization and gene expression profiling using Affymetrix U133 2.0 DNA-microarrays. Median follow-up (time to censoring) was 93 months. Results Low proliferation, revised-ISS I and cyto-ISS I delineate excellent long-term survival (70-75% after eight years, both arms). Molecular entities are associated with proliferation-rate, i.e. higher (del17p13, del8p21, del13q14, 1q21+, t(4;14)) or lower proliferation (hyperdiploidy), and response: bad response/survival in case of del17p, bad response/no survival impact (t(11;14)), and good response/bad survival (1q21+, t(4;14), and del13q), depending on the treatment regimen. Thus, it does not hold true that good response = good survival if patients are substratified according to their molecular background. Renal insufficiency is associated with 1q21+, del17p13, and t(4;14). For patients with ≥1 of the chromosomal aberrations del17p13, t(4;14), 1q21+ (i.e. cytogenetic high risk, 27.5% of patients) or renal insufficiency (10.6%), risk is abrogated; in absence of these risk features, no benefit could be shown. Patients reaching a near complete remission or better (≥nCR) with VAD-based regimen, HDT followed by thalidomide maintenance show significantly better survival compared to those reaching ≥nCR after bortezomib-based induction/HDT followed by bortezomib maintenance treatment. Conclusions Taken together, adversely prognostic molecular entities are associated with proliferation but can show association with better or adverse remission. Bortezomib-based upfront treatment abrogates chromosomal high-risk aberrations and renal insufficiency; however, no long-term survival-benefit is evident for those without these risk factors or low proliferation, i.e. the majority of patients. Responses achieved by different regimen are not equal in transmission in long-term survival. Responses (≥nCR) are not equivalent regarding their biological and prognostic role in patients with different molecular background and different treatment regimen. Disclosures Seckinger: Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding. Salwender:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Scheid:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Knauf:Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy. Duehrsen:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dürig:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Schmidt-Wolf:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Haenel:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Raab:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Blau:Celgene: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory boards; BMS: Other: Advisory board. Hillengass:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt:Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; ArtTempi: Honoraria. Hose:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1003-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Macciò ◽  
Paraskevas Kotsonis ◽  
Giacomo Chiappe ◽  
Luca Melis ◽  
Fausto Zamboni ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document