Impact of Poor Tolerance and Discontinuation of the Dexamethasone during Treatment with Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 5379-5379
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Guidez ◽  
Guillemette Fouquet ◽  
Hélène Demarquette ◽  
Morgane Nudel ◽  
Eileen Boyle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Prolonged Exposure ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Real Life ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Long Run ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background. Lenalidomide plus Dexamethasone is approved at first relapse and beyond in Europe, and has transformed the prognosis of Myeloma in the relapse setting. Lenalidomide plus Dexamethasone is approved until progression, that could last for years, the median PFS in phase 3 studies being at 17 months at first relapse, but many patients eventually reach 5 to 7 years these days. Dexamethasone was showed to enhance lenalidomide-antitumor efficacy and to prolong the progression-free survival. However, long term exposure to dexamethasone is also known to be associated to an array of adverse events. Finally, IMiDs are known to act through immunomodulation a class-based mechanism. It is possible that lenalidomide might show efficacy on the long run without need to dexamethasone use, at least for some patients with myeloma. We sought to study the impact of dexamethasone discontinuation beyond six months and one year, and compare this analysis to patients treated on lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Method. We have recruited 200 relapse refractory myeloma patients for this study from various IFM centers. The patients were to be older than 18 years old and treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. We sought to study the impact of the various ways to use dexamethasone in the real life, and therefore dexamethasone was given according to physician decision. We identified groups according to dexamethasone given high dose (4 days 160mg total in a raw), given once a week at 40mg (considered standard dose), given at lower dose (considered low dose) and a group that had dexamethasone discontinued. Patients were not allowed to have other type of combination but lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Result. A total of 200 patients were analyzed, median age of 57 years old (range 25-76). 17,5% patients had renal dysfunction at diagnosis. ISS was 2 for 20% and 3 for 20%. Approximately 10% had either del17p or t(4;14). 7% of patients had previous history of venous thrombosis before the treatment. Response rate, survival, including TTP, PFS, EFS and overall survival will be presented at ASH with updated follow-up. Conclusion. This study aims to investigate the importance of long run and exposure to Dexamethasone in the Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone regimen. We also wished to assess the optimal dose of dexamethasone that could be given to patients with prolonged exposure to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Disclosures Arnulf: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MACRO:millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leleu:LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria.

Secondary Chromosomal Abnormalities Appear to Be Less Prognostic for Children with Philadelphia Chromosome Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Treated with Intensified Imatinib and Chemotherapy: Results of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Study AALL0031.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2606-2606
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Carroll ◽  
Nyla A. Heerema ◽  
Meenakshi Devidas ◽  
W. Paul Bowman ◽  
Chenguang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Unrelated Donor ◽  
Intensive Chemotherapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 2606 Poster Board II-582 Background: Secondary chromosomal aberrations at diagnosis occur frequently in both pediatric and adult patients with Ph+ ALL. Several studies have shown that the presence of additional cytogenetic abnormalities is a major negative prognostic factor among children and adults with Ph+ ALL. A Japanese study in adults with Ph+ ALL indicated that the adverse prognostic significance of secondary rearrangements was seen even in patients treated with imatinib-combined chemotherapy including consolidation with blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) (Haematologica 92:287, 2008). Two-year EFS in that study was 48.5±5.7%, and the 50 patients with secondary chromosomal abnormalities had a 35% - 40% lower EFS than those with t(9;22) only (p=0.003). COG AALL0031 treated children with imatinib in combination with intensive chemotherapy. This study had an overall 3 year EFS of 80±11% for those receiving chemotherapy only, an outcome similar to those receiving allogeneic BMT. We evaluated the impact of secondary chromosomal abnormalities in children and adolescents receiving this regimen. Methods: Children and adolescents (age 1–21 years) with Ph+ ALL enrolled on AALL0031 after completing 3- or 4-drug induction therapy. Imatinib was given at 340mg/m2/day for an increasing number of days in combination with an intense chemotherapy backbone. Cohort 4 received imatinib for 126 (N=12) and cohort 5 for 280 continuous days (N=50) prior to maintenance therapy. The first two cycles of the intensive chemotherapy included ifosfamide and etoposide (cycle 1) and high dose (HD) methotrexate and HD cytarabine (cycle 2). Patients were non-randomly assigned to an HLA-identical related donor BMT, if a donor was available, or to an intensive chemotherapy regimen that continued for approximately 2.2 years. Unrelated donor BMT was not allowed; these patients were taken off protocol but included in survival evaluation by an intent-to-treat evaluation. Results: Satisfactory cytogenetic results were available for 71 (76%) of 93 enrolled children. Secondary aberrations were present in 46 (65%) patients. The most frequent secondary aberrations were +der(22) (N=21), =50 chromosomes (N=14), −7/del(7p) (N=11), abnormal (9p) (N=7), and +8 (N=5). The overall 3 year CCR was 79±6% for patients in cohorts 4/5, including those with non evaluable cytogenetics (N=55). When outcome analyses were limited to Ph+ ALL patients in cohorts 4/5 (N=43), three-year CCR for patients with Ph+ alone (N=14) was 86±10% versus 71±9% for those with Ph+ and secondary abnormalities (N=29) (p=0.19). Conclusions: In this study, the lower 3 year CCR seen in patients with Ph+ ALL with secondary chromosomal abnormalities was not significantly different than for children with Ph+ alone possibly reflecting small patient numbers. The lower 3 year CCR for Ph+ ALL with secondary chromosomal abnormalities in those treated on AALL0031 (∼15% lower) appeared to be less than that seen in the previous adult trial (∼35%). This may be the result of the addition of imatinib to intensified chemotherapy reducing the poor prognostic significance of additional chromosome abnormalities seen in previous studies. Larger patient numbers and longer follow-up will be necessary to answer this question. Disclosures: Schultz: DOR Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genzyme Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 Validation of SIE, Sies, GITMO Operational Criteria for the Definition of Fitness in Elderly Patients Affected with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Six-Years Retrospective Real-Life Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2150-2150
Author(s):  
Raffaele Palmieri ◽  
Giovangiacinto Paterno ◽  
Eleonora De Bellis ◽  
Elisa Buzzatti ◽  
Valentina Rossi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Italian Society ◽  
Intensive Chemotherapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Actual Treatment ◽  
Operational Criteria ◽  
The Impact

Introduction:Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) predominantly affects the older population, with a median age at diagnosis of 67 years (yrs). In the last decades, Overall Survival (OS) has not changed meaningfully for these patients (pts). This worse outcome is explained by the poor-risk biological profile of the disease but also by the scarce propensity in administering curative treatments in this age category. Despite this general attitude, there is consensus that age alone should not be representative of the functional profile of older pts and that making decisions based on the sole age parameter can compromise possible therapeutic attempts. Therefore, a panel of experts from SIE (Italian Society of Hematology),SIES (Italian Society of Experimental Hematology) and GITMO (Italian Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation) summarized a list of operational criteria to be used in the process of treatment allocation, identifying 3 fitness categories of patients to address to differentiated strategies: 1)Fit pts (FP), eligible to intensive chemotherapy (IC) with the aim to achieve complete remission (CR); 2)Unfit pts (UP), eligible to non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC) with the aim to prolong survival; 3)Frail pts (FP) for whom, since the natural course of disease cannot be altered, supportive therapy (ST) is the best option in the attempt to preserve an acceptable quality of life (Ferrara et. al, Leukemia 2013). Aim: We retrospectively applied the operational SIE, SIES, GITMO criteria to a series of 180 consecutive non-APL AML pts diagnosed at our institution from 2013 to 2018 to investigate (1) the degree of concordance between the "operational criteria derived categories" and the actual treatment received; (2) the impact of this evaluation on long-term OS. Methods: We analyzed 180 consecutive pts with AML (median age 66 yrs, range 21-91) diagnosed at our institution from January 2013 to December 2018. We mainly focused on 125 pts older than 60 yrs (median 70 yrs, range 61-91). For the purpose of comparison, 55 younger pts, submitted to IC (51/55, 93%), were also analyzed. Results: SIE, SIES, GITMO operational criteria were retrospectively applied through medical files backtracking. One-hundred-48 out of 181 pts were stratified according to ELN 2010 as follow: 24 (16%) low risk, 59 (40%) intermediate-I, 25 (17%) intermediate-II and 40 (27%) high risk. This risk stratification did not differ between younger and older pts, suggesting that risk distribution may not be always an age-related factor. Overall, according to physician choice, 98 pts were submitted to IC, 40 to NIC, 42 to ST (54%, 22%, 24%, respectively). When focusing on pts older than 60 yrs, 47/125 were submitted to IC, 39/125 to NIC, 39/125 to ST (38% vs. 31% vs. 31%, respectively). A high concordance between treatment actually given and the one derived from the application of the "operational criteria" (165/180, 92%) was observed. The highest concordance was observed for the association of ST with FrP (39/40, 98%), whereas the associations IC with FP (96/107, 90%) and NIC with UP (30/33, 91%) showed a lower level of concordance. Overall, by applying the "operational criteria" the 3 categories differed significantly in terms of OS: 15,3 mos (range 0,4-78) for FP, 8,6 mos (range 2,2-47,9) for UP and 1 mos (range 0,1-29,9) for FrP, respectively (p<0.001). For pts older than 60 yrs, OS was 9,1 mos (range 0,4-78), 9,2 mos (range 2,2-47,9) and 1 mos (range 0,1-29,9) for FP, UP and FrP, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig. 1A). According to the treatment actually received, OS of pts older than 60 yrs was 6,9 mos (range 0,4-78) for IC, 11.0 mos (range 2,2-47,9) for NIC and 1 mos (range 0,1-29,9) for ST, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig. 1B). Conclusions: In our real-life analysis, we confirmed that SIE, SIES, GITMO "operational criteria" represent a powerful tool to discriminate categories of older pts with different outcome.In pts older than 60 years, it was observed a high degree of concordance (>90%) between the "operational criteria" and the actual treatment delivered. However, long-term OS was longer when plotted according to the 3 fitness categories rather than to treatment intensity stratification (Fig.1 A and B). Such a discrepancy can be explained by a higher incidence of toxicity/early mortality in the IC group and also by a suboptimal application of treatment selection criteria. Reproducibility of operational criteria applications in a prospective fashion is currently underway. Disclosures Venditti: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Buccisano:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Patients Under 50 Years of Age Do Not Present Specific Prognostic Characteristics: An IFM Study in 1897 Patients Under 65 Years of Age.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2837-2837
Author(s):  
Virginie Roland ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Claire Mathiot ◽  
Catherine Charbonnel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Young Age ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Prognostic Parameters ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Melphalan ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 2837 Poster Board II-813 Age is a critical prognostic factor in many hematological malignancies. The reasons for this major prognostic impact are not univocal. For a large part, its prognostic value is in fact related to the therapy intensity tolerated by the patients. Because of frequent renal, hepatic, cardiac impairments, intensive therapies are not tolerated after 60 or 65 years, leading physicians to dramatically reduce treatment intensity in elderly patients. The question of a specific prognostic value of age in a more homogeneous population is an unresolved issue. In myeloma, it has been suggested that patients under 50 years of age presented more favorable features, explaining the better outcome observed in these patients (Ludwig et al., Blood 2008). However, the population was highly heterogeneous, treated both with conventional and intensive therapeutic strategies. In order to address this question, we reviewed the files of 1897 patients under 65 years of age, homogeneously treated within the IFM with high-dose melphalan, from 2000 to 2007. The median age was 56 years (range=23-65), the sex-ratio male/female was 54%. We addressed the issues of the prognostic impact of young age (<50), but also of older patients (60 to 65). The following prognostic parameters were tested: b2-microglobuline, high creatinine (>177 μmol/l), hypercalcemia, low hemoglobin (<10 g/dl), thrombocytopenia (<130 G/l), ISS, del(13), t(4;14), and del(17p). In the first comparison (<50 vs others), the only statistically different parameters were b2-microglobuline (p=.009) and ISS distribution (p=.004). All the other parameters were not significantly different. Similar results were observed in the second comparison (<60 vs 60-65). Only b2-microglobuline values (p=.0001) and ISS distribution (p<.0001) were different. These differences in b2-microglobuline levels probably reflect the decrease of glomerular filtration with age. We then looked at the impact of age on outcome. We found that patients under 50 years of age displayed a better overall survival than patients between 50 and 65 (p=.007), with no difference in PFS. We also found that patients between 60 and 65 presented a poorer outcome than younger patients (OS, p=0.002, EFS, p=0.01). However, when patients under 50 were compared with those between 50 and 60, no difference was observed, both for OS and EFS. Thus, in conclusion, young age is not a prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. In contrast, older age (60 to 65) remains an adverse prognostic parameters, even in patients treated with high-dose melphalan. Disclosures: Attal: Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harousseau:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Analysis of Immunophenotypic Response (IR) by Multiparameter Flow Cytometry In 516 Myeloma Patients Included In Three Consecutive Spanish Trials

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1910-1910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Paiva ◽  
María-Belén Vidriales ◽  
María-Angeles Montalbán ◽  
María-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Laura Rosiñol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 1910 The outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has markedly improved in the last decade. Thus, overall response rates between 85%-95%, with 30%-50% complete remission (CR) rates are now being reported in young patients treated with novel agents plus high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). A similar scenario is also emerging in the elderly (non-transplant candidates) population. Accordingly, more sensitive techniques are needed to assess patients’ response; these may contribute to compare the efficacy of different treatment schemas, to monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) and for prognostication. In the present study we have assessed the frequency and the prognostic value of IR by multiparameter flow cytometry in a total of 516 newly diagnosed MM patients included in three consecutive PETHEMA/GEM Spanish trials: two designed for transplant candidate patients - GEM 2000 (n=157) and GEM2005<65y (n=206) - and one for elderly patients - GEM2005>65y (n=153). The GEM2000 trial was based on 6 induction cycles of VBMCP/VBAD followed by HDT/ASCT; the GEM2005<65y included three arms with 6 cycles each (Thalidomide/Dexamethasone -TD-, Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Dexamethasone -VTD- and, VBMCP/VBAD with Bortezomib in the two final cycles -VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib) followed by HDT/ASCT; and the GEM2005>65y compared 6 cycles of Bortezomib/Melphalan/Prednisone -VMP- vs. Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Prednisone -VTP-. All three trials had in common that patients received 6 induction cycles and IR was evaluated at this time point. In addition, IR was assessed on day +100 after HDT/ASCT in the first two trials. Patients were defined to be in IR when myelomatous plasma cells (MM-PCs) were undetectable by MFC or when less than one phenotypically aberrant PC was detected among 104 cells analyzed. Patients were referred for MRD studies if they were mainly in CR or VGPR. The IR rates reported here were calculated on intention to treat analysis. Figure 1 summarizes the IR rates after induction. The lowest IR rates corresponded to the VBMCP/VBAD and TD schemes (5% and 6%, respectively) while with the bortezomib-based regimens an approximately 3-fold increment in the IR rates was observed: VTP (12%), VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib (15%), VMP (16%) and VTD (17%). After HDT/ASCT, IR rates were found to be significantly increased (p<.001) in the GEM2000 protocol (14%) and in all arms of the GEM2005<65y trial: TD (18%), VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib (30%) and VTD (34%). Thus, a minimum 2-fold increment of IR rates was further achieved after HDT/ASCT. In addition, IR rates achieved after HDT/ASCT in patients included in all three arms of the GEM2005<65y trial were significantly superior (p≤.008) to cases treated according to the GEM2000 protocol, indicating that induction regimens with novel agents improved post-transplantation rates of IR. Moreover, bortezomib-based regimens vs. TD were associated with increased IR rates not only before but also after HDT/ACSCT (p=.06 and p=.02 for VBMCP/VBAD/Bortezomib and VTD, respectively). We further compared the impact of achieving an IR after induction and at day+100 after HDT/ASCT in the progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) within the three protocols. Patients in IR status after an induction regimen according to the GEM2000, GEM2005<65y and GEM2005>65y protocols showed significantly longer (p<.001) 3-year PFS rates (100%, 100% and 90%, respectively) compared to patients in a no-IR status (61%, 59% and 35%, respectively). Similarly, 3-year OS rates were significantly longer (p=.01) in IR vs. no-IR patients status (100%, 100% and 94% vs. 84%, 90% and 76% for the GEM2000, GEM2005<65y and GEM05>65y protocols, respectively). Likewise, an IR vs. no-IR status after HDT/ASCT in both the GEM2000 and GEM05<65y trials was also associated with significantly increased 3-year PFS (p<.001) and OS (p=.007) rates. In summary, this study demonstrates that the achievement of an IR is a strong prognostic factor regardless of the type of treatment; thus, higher IR rates may help to identify optimal therapeutical schemes. In this sense, HDT/ASCT is able to markedly increase IR rates after induction even in the era of novel agents, and this translates into extended survival. Disclosures: Off Label Use: VTP is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients and VT and VP are not approved for maintenance therapy. None of the combinations proposed, VBCMP/VBAD plus bortezomib, VT and VTD are approved as induction therapy in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Mateos:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rosiñol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oriol:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de Arriba:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Díaz-Mediavilla:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia-Laraña:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Sureda:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Superior CMR-Rates with Tolerability-Adapted Imatinib 800 Mg Vs. 400 Mg Vs. 400 Mg + IFN In CML: The Randomized German CML-Study IV

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 357-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Hehlmann ◽  
Susanne Jung-Munkwitz ◽  
Michael Lauseker ◽  
Martin C. Müller ◽  
Armin Leitner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Good Tolerability ◽  
First Choice ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 357 Treatment of CML with imatinib of 400 mg can be unsatisfactory. Treatment optimization is warranted. The German CML-Study group has therefore conducted a randomized study comparing imatinib 800 mg vs 400 mg vs 400 mg + IFN. A significantly faster achievement of MMR at 12 months has been observed with imatinib 800 mg in a tolerability adapted manner and MMR by 12 months has been found to translate into better overall survival. Since stable CMR has been associated with durable off-treatment remissions we sought to analyse the impact of tolerability-adapted imatinib 800 mg on CMR and survival. Standardized determinations of molecular response and evaluation of its impact on outcome are goals of CML-Study IV. CMR4 is defined as a BCR-ABL/ABL ratio of <0,01 on the International Scale. From July 2002 – April 30, 2009 1022 newly diagnosed patients with CML in chronic phase were randomized, 1012 were evaluable (338 with imatinib 800 mg, 324 with imatinib 400 mg, 350 with imatinib plus IFN). Median observation time was 40 months. The median average daily imatinib doses were 628 mg in the 800 mg arm and 400 mg in the 400 mg based arms. The actual median daily doses in the 800 mg arm per 3-months periods were: 555 mg, 737 mg, 613 mg, 600 mg, and 600 mg thereafter, reflecting the run–in period with imatinib 400 mg for 6 weeks in the first period and the adaptation to tolerability from the third 3-months period onwards. Median daily imatinib doses in the 400 mg arms were 400 mg throughout. Adaptation of imatinib dose in the 800 mg arm according to tolerability is reflected by similar higher-grade adverse events rates (WHO grades 3 and 4) with all treatments. Significantly higher remission rates were achieved with imatinib 800 mg by 12 months. The cumulative incidences of CCR by 12 months were 63% [95%CI:56.4-67.9] with imatinib 800 mg vs 50% [95%CI:43.0-54.5] with the two 400 mg arms. The cumulative incidences of MMR by 12 months were 54.8% [95%CI:48.7-59.7] with imatinib 800 mg vs 30.8% [95%CI:26.6-36.1] with imatinib 400 mg vs 34.7% [95%CI:29.0-39.2] with imatinib + IFN. The cumulative incidences of CMR4 compared with the MMR incidences over the first 36 months are shown in Table 1. Imatinib 800 mg shows superior CMR4 rates over the entire 36 months period, CMR4 is reached significantly faster with imatinib 800 mg as compared to the 400 mg arms. The CMR4 rates reach 56.8% by 36 months [95%CI:49.4-63.5] as compared to 45.5% with imatinib 400 mg [95%CI:38.7-51.0] and 40.5% with imatinib plus IFN [95%CI:34.6-46.3]. Most patients have stable CMR4 over the entire period. Time after start of treat-ment (months) Cumulative incidences MMR(%) CMR4 (%) IM400 n=306 D IM800 n=328 D IM400 +IFN n=336 IM400 n=306 D IM800 n=328 D IM400 +IFN n=336 6 8.6 9.5 18.1 9.7 8.4 3 0.7 3.7 1.3 2.4 12 30.8 24.0 54.8 20.1 34.7 7.5 12.3 19.8 7.4 12.4 18 50.3 18.1 68.4 14.3 54.1 21.2 12.2 33.4 9.8 23.6 24 63 13.0 76.0 13.2 62.8 30.7 12.3 43 13 30.0 36 79.3 2.3 81.6 10.9 70.7 45.5 11.3 56.8 16.3 40.5 In summary, superior CMR4 rates are achieved with high-dose imatinib adapted to good tolerability, and more patients in the tolerability-adapted 800 mg arm have stable CMR4 qualifying for treatment discontinuation as compared to the 400 mg based arms. With improved application imatinib remains first choice for early CML. Disclosures: Koschmieder: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schnittger:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. German CML-Study Group:Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Essex: Research Funding.

Time to Spare Newly Diagnosed Non Transplant Eligible Myeloma (eNDMM) from Thalidomide

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4245-4245
Author(s):  
Hélène Demarquette ◽  
Stéphanie Guidez ◽  
Artur J. Jurczyszyn ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
Brigitte Pegourie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Exposed Group ◽  
Disease Course ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background. Thalidomide is one of the most prescribed regimens upfront in eNDMM, e.g. elderly myeloma, essentially as melphalan-prednisone-Thalidomide (MPT). Several options are offered at 1st and 2nd relapse to patients initially exposed to Thalidomide with either bortezomib or lenalidomide-based therapy. On the other hand, the second most prescribed drug in elderly myeloma upfront is Bortezomib, primarily as Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP), the 2nd standard of care upfront in Multiple Myeloma (MM) ineligible for transplantation. Interestingly, lenalidomide is the drug of choice at first relapse in the vast majority of cases in most countries where lenalidomide is approved at first relapse and beyond. In this situation, it is likely that the patients would not receive thalidomide throughout the disease course of myeloma. We sought to analyse whether patients not exposed to thalidomide upfront, and that were solely exposed to the 2 drugs, bortezomib-based regimen and lenalidomide-based therapy would have a lower survival than patients exposed to all 3 drugs, e.g. thalidomide, lenaldiomide and bortezomib. Method. A total of 145 patients were recruited in this multicentric study, 46,2% were in the thalidomide upfront exposed arm and 53,8% had never been exposed to thalidomide. Patients were required to be aged ≥65 years, NDMM treated with either thalidomide upfront or never been exposed to thalidomide upfront or later in the myeloma disease course. If not exposed to thalidomide, the patients were to have received bortezomib upfront and lenalidomide first relapse or vice versa. In the thalidomide group, all patients had MPT initially for a median of 8 cycles (range 3 - 12), at a median dose of thalidomide of 100mg/day (50-200), with 11% dose reduction. In the non-exposed thalidomide group, all patients had bortezomib upfront, patients received Vd, VCd or VMP upfront; lenalidomide was then given at first relapse to all patients. The median dose administered of bortezomib was 1.3mg/m², for a median of 5 cycles (2-9). Results. Overall, the median age was 73 years (range, 65 - 85), with 35% aged >75. The M/F ratio was 1.1, 38% were ISS 3, the median b2m was 5.5mg/L, 26% had an ECOG score ≥ 2, 42% had renal insufficiency, 11% had elevated LDH, 8% presence of plasmacytoma, and 14% had adverse FISH (del17p, t(4;14) and or t(14;16)). There was no difference in patients' characteristics across studied groups, according to exposure or not to thalidomide. With a median follow-up of 5 years, 60% have died overall; 69% in the thalidomide exposed group versus 52% in the thalidomide non-exposed group (p=0.027). The median OS of thalidomide exposed patients was 55.7 months (46;65) versus 44 months (35;53) in the thalidomide non exposed patients (p=0.079). In the thalidomide exposed group, the median PFS of the thalidomide, bortezomib then lenalidomide lines were 27 months (24;30), 11 months (8;13) and 13 months (10;15). In the thalidomide non-exposed group, the median PFS of bortezomib then lenalidomide lines were 17 months (13;21) and 13 months (6;20). We then studied the survival of patients from onset of first relapse in the thalidomide exposed group, e.g. upon treatment with bortezomib, followed by lenalidomide at subsequent relapse, 22.5 months (10;34) compared to patients in the thalidomide non-exposed group that received bortezomib upfront and lenalidomide at first relapse, 44 months (35;53), p=0.005. Conclusion. Overall, thalidomide exposed versus non exposed groups had similar OS, while OS was significantly lower in the thalidomide exposed patients at first relapse onset versus in the thalidomide non exposed patients from diagnosis. This data seems to recommend use of bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens as early as possible in the myeloma disease course, but not to abandon thalidomide. Study of the impact of thalidomide in the post bortezomib, lenalidomide and pomalidomide era might thus be important to study and optimize. Disclosures Karlin: Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Legros:BMS: Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Hulin:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Stoppa:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moreau:Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Takeda: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Facon:Celgene: 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; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. MACRO:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terpos:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Leleu:LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria.

scholarly journals The Impact of Degree of Anticoagulation on Thrombotic and Other Complications in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1051-1051
Author(s):  
Rena Zheng ◽  
Alexandra Solomon ◽  
Madeline DiLorenzo ◽  
Iniya Rajendran ◽  
Joseph Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
The Impact ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
Privately Held

Abstract Introduction: In hospitalized patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased. Retrospective studies suggested that an elevated D-dimer level is associated with increased mortality and predictive of thrombosis in these patients. In the spring of 2020, our institution developed a risk protocol for stratification of hospitalized COVID-19 patients into high, intermediate, or low risk groups, based upon history of thrombosis and D-dimer level. These patients were treated with full-dose anticoagulation, high- or standard-dose prophylaxis, respectively. The goal of this project was to determine the impact of this protocol on VTE frequency, need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, organ failure and in-hospital mortality while assessing the frequency of hemorrhagic complications when compared to standard prophylactic anticoagulation. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of adults hospitalized between March 1 - June 1, 2020 who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patients were excluded if they were initially admitted to the ICU. VTE was defined as either a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on Duplex ultrasound and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) on computed tomography (CT) angiogram. We collected demographic data, medical histories, laboratory and radiologic data on all subjects. Data were analyzed using the Chi Square test and Fisher's Exact Test to establish significant association with clinical outcomes between 3 anticoagulation regimens. Statistical significance was assessed at the p&lt;0.05 level. Results: Data were analyzed from 910 patients; 496 (54.6%) were male and the mean age was 57.8 ± 16.9 years. 419 (46%) subjects were Black, 151 (16.6%) Caucasian, 133 (14.6%) Latinx. Diabetes mellitus (35.3%) and hypertension (59.8%) were common in our cohort as were tobacco (12.6%) and alcohol (20.4%) use. Only 69 (7.6%) were treated with chronic anticoagulation and 216 (23.7%) were on antiplatelet agents. 123 (13.5%) required an ICU transfer and the overall mortality was 5.3%. Most patients, 809 (88.9%), received standard prophylactic anti-coagulation initially (Group A); 32 (3.5%) received high dose prophylaxis (Group B) and 69 (7.6%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulation (Group C). In the entire cohort, 46 (5.1%) developed VTE; 29 (3.6%) in Group A, 2 (6.3%) in Group B, and 15 (22%) in Group C (p&lt;0.0001). ICU admission was required for 102 (12.6%) in Group A, 7 (21.9%) in Group B, and 14 (20.3%) in Group C (p=0.075). 73 ICU patients (8%) required vasopressors, including 57 (7%) in Group A, 6 (18.8%) in Group B and 10 (14.5%) in Group C (p=0.175). 81 ICU patients (8.9%) required mechanical ventilation, including 66 (8.2%) in Group A, 6 (18.8%) in Group B, and 9 (13%) in Group C (p=0.513). One patient in Group B developed an intracerebral hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 11 (1.2%) of the cohort; similar rates were observed across treatment arms. The overall in-hospital mortality was 5.3% in this cohort (4.7% in Group A, 12.5% in Group B, and 8.6% in Group C, p=0.064). Conclusion: The rate of VTE in COVID-19 patients receiving any form of anti-coagulation was low. There was an increased rate of VTE, but not rates of ICU admission, mortality, mechanical ventilation nor vasopressor use in those receiving either high dose prophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation, suggesting an increased propensity for thrombosis either related to prior thrombotic events or reflected by increased D-dimer levels. These findings need to be confirmed in prospective studies. Disclosures DiLorenzo: Abbott: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Merck & Co: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Glaxo Smith Kline: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Sloan: Pharmacosmos: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; Stemline: Honoraria. Weinberg: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Other: Serve on data safety monitoring boards; Merck & Co: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Klings: CSL Behring: Other: Consultant; Omeros: Other: Consultant; Bluebird Bio: Other: Consultant; Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; FORM therapeutics: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Real-World Patterns of Utilization and Outcome of Market Approved Lenalidomide-Based Triplet Combinations in First Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4109-4109
Author(s):  
Silvia Mangiacavalli ◽  
Monica Galli ◽  
Sara Pezzatti ◽  
Angelo Belotti ◽  
Francesca Fazio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Relapse

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (R) plus dexamethasone (d) triplet combinations have been indicated by ESMO guidelines as standard of care in first relapse for lenalidomide sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) (Dimopoulos et al, 2021). Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) shows better outcome with the combination of Daratumumab + Rd (DaraRd) over other Rd-based combinations (carfilzomib+Rd (KRd), elotuzumab+Rd (EloRd), Ixazomib+Rd (IxaRd). There are few real-life studies focusing on the pattern of utilization and outcome of different Rd triplets in first relapse MM. Aims: To explore performances of market-approved Rd-based triplets in unselected MM pts in first relapse. Patients and methods: After ethics committee approval, we review data of 366 MM pts in first relapse consecutively addressed to Rd-based triplets according to market-approved schedule after 2017. Rd-based therapies was distributed as follows: DaraRd 51.6% (189 pts), KRd 36.1% (132 pts), EloRd 8.7% (32 pts), IxaRd 3.6% (13 pts). Given the limited number of pts treated with IRd and EloRd, the analysis is focused only on DaraRd and KRd group after further excluding 51 pts (13%) addressed to salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) after daraRd (n=9)/KRd(n=42) fixed induction. Few pts in both groups were previously exposed to R/K/Dara (respectively 12 pts (3%), 8 (2%), 0). Treatment choice was influenced by market approval, with KRD regimen used more commonly in the IQR 2017- 2019, while DaraRd more commonly in the IQR 2018-2020. To limit the bias of a retrospective observation, we calculated a propensity score and we used it (after trimming of 5% of observations) to re-weight the data, according to the Inverse Probability of Treatment method (IPTW analysis). For the estimation of the propensity score, we used: age at Rd-triplet starting, ISS stage, presence of high-risk FISH, previous exposure to Bortezomib, previous ASCT, good response at first-line therapy (≥VGPR), time between diagnosis and relapse, myeloma defining events at diagnosis, type of relapse (symptomatic/biochemical), center. Details of these characteristics are reported in table1. Of note, pts addressed to DaraRd were slightly older (68,7 vs 63,4 years in KRd, p&lt;0.001), time from diagnosis was quite longer (3,5 vs 2,9 year in KRd, p=0.094), they received a lower rate of prior ASCT (56% vs 72% in KRd, p=0.008). After a median follow-up of 21.6 months (IQR: 9.6-32.4), response rate ≥PR were similar in both groups (92% in DaraRd vs 87,6% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=0.8, 95%CI: 0.4-1.5, p=0.422). No significant difference was found in terms of ≥VGPR (60% in DaraRd vs 62,9% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=0.7, 95%CI: 0,4-1,1 p=0.098) as well as of ≥CR (16,6% in DaraRd and 23,6% in KRd, IPTW analysis: OR=1,3, 95%CI: 0.8-2,2, p=0.340). The median number of administered cycles was higher for DaraRd (12 vs 10, IPTW analysis: β: 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.4, p=0.025). Discontinuation rate was lower with DaraRd (28% vs 62% with KRd, IPTW analysis: OR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.4, p&lt;0.001). Most patients in both groups discontinued treatment for progression (55,3% with DaraRd and 59.3% with KRd), discontinuation for TEAE was reported respectively in 38,3% in DaraRd and 31,5% in KR; 6,4% of pts in DaraRd and 9,2% in KRd discontinued treatment for pts decision. Weighted analysis shows a similar outcome. In particular, the median PFS is 28 months for DaraRd vs 23 months for KRd, (HR=0.9, 95%CI: 0.6-1.2, p=0,420) (Figure 1). At left-truncation analysis, patients with ≥VGPR, had similar PFS when comparing DaraRd vs KRd (HR=1.0, 95%CI: 0.6-1.6, p=0.896) while in patients with ≤PR, DaraRd showed a longer PFS (HR=0.5, 95%CI: 0.3-0.9, p=0.012) (Figure 2). The median TTNT was 31 and 29 months in DaraRd and KRd, respectively (HR=0.8, 95%CI: 0.5-1,1 p=0,111). No difference was found in terms of OS (HR=1.2, 95%CI: 0.8-1.8, p=0.408)(Figure 3). Conclusions: Our real-life study shows that DaraRd represents the most commonly received regimen at first relapse followed by KRd triplet. After propensity score matching, DaraRd and KRd combinations proved to be both effective with similar outcomes when used early in the treatment history, after one line of therapy. This study, in addition, points out the possible gap of outcome between RCT and clinical practice. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mangiacavalli: BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Galli: BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Honoraria. Belotti: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazio: Janseen: Honoraria. Petrucci: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board.

scholarly journals Predictors for Response to Ruxolitinib in Real-Life: An Observational Independent Study on 408 Patients with Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1128-1128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Palandri ◽  
Giuseppe A. Palumbo ◽  
Massimiliano Bonifacio ◽  
Mario Tiribelli ◽  
Giulia Benevolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Costal Margin ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Transfusion Dependency ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Response to ruxolitinib (RUX), the only JAK1/2 inhibitor commercially available for the treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF) may vary among patients (pts) and is largely unpredictable at therapy start. Therefore, pts' selection is based only on clinical needs. Aims: To evaluate the impact of pre-treatment clinical/laboratory factors, as well as RUX dose, on response to RUX in a cohort of "real-life" MF pts. Methods: A multicenter observational study on WHO-defined MF was conducted in 18 Italian Hematology Centers. Data were extracted from a database that included retrospective data on pts treated before January 2015. Subsequently, data were prospectively collected and updated at a 6-month interval.Response to RUX was evaluated according to IWG-MRT criteria. Results: Between June 2011 and Apr 2016, 408 pts with PMF (54.4%), or postET (27.7%) / post-PV (17.9%) were treated with RUX. At RUX start, baseline characteristics were (median): age, 68.5 y (range, 26.5-89); ≥65 y, 63.5%; male, 56.4%; hemoglobin (Hb), 10.7 g/dL (7-16.7); transfusion-dependence 27.9%; PLT, 256×109/L (50-1887); PLT <100×109/L, 9.6%; spleen enlargement, 96.6% (spleen length ≥10cm: 64.2%); total symptoms score (TSS), 20 (12-70).International Prognostic Score System (IPSS) was intermediate (intm)-1 (15.7%), intm-2 (47.3%), high (37%). Molecular data were available for 332 pts (81.4%) and was positive in 81% (JAK2V617F), 6.3% (CALR), 1% (MPLW515K/L); 2.7% (triple negative). 30 pts (9%) were JAK2V617Fnegative but did not receive further molecular evaluation. Karyotype was abnormal in 55 (26%) out of 210 evaluable pts (unfavorable: 8.1%). Median follow-up from MF diagnosis was 3.8 yr (0.3-29.6) and median RUX exposure was 20 mos (3-56.2). Overall, 152 out of 365 (42%) pts with spleen ≥5cm achieved a spleen response at any time during RUX therapy. At 3 and 6 mos, the response was achieved by 26.6% and 34.4% of evaluable pts, respectively. In univariate analysis, pre-treatment factors negatively correlating with spleen response were: transfusion dependence, platelet count ≤200x109/l, spleen palpable ≥10 cm below costal margin, grade 3 marrow fibrosis, intm-2/high IPSS risk and interval between MF diagnosis and RUX start ≥2y. Three variables remained significant in multivariate regression logistic analysis: large splenomegaly (HR: 2.05, 95%CI: 1.1-3.7; p=0.02), time-interval ≥2y (HR: 1.78, 95%CI:1.0-3.1; p=0.04) and transfusion dependency (HR: 1.95, 95%CI:1.0-3.7; p=0.04). Spleen response significantly correlated with the average RUX dose in the first 12 wks, with pts treated with doses ≥10 mg BID having better response rates (47.3% vs 26.6% if dose <10 mg BID, HR:2.36, 95%CI:1.3-4.3, p=0.005). 360 pts had a TSS >10 at RUX start and 319 (88.6%) achieved a symptom response. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with worse responses were: transfusion dependency (HR: 3.15, 95%CI 1.5-6.4, p=0.001) and a baseline TSS >20 (HR: 6.7, 95%CI 3.2-13.8, p<0.001). RUX titrated dose <10 mg BID during the first 12-wks of therapy negatively correlated with symptoms response (HR: 2.6, 95%CI 1.05-6.7, p=0.037). Drug-related anemia (acquisition of transfusion dependency or Hb <10g/dl in pts with a previous Hb≥10) was observed in 127/291 (43.6%) evaluable pts. The probability to develop anemia was significantly higher in females (HR: 1.63, 95%CI 1.03-2.57, p=0.036). Notably, anemia was not influenced by RUX 12-wks titrated dose (41.8% in pts with RUX titrated dose <10 mg BID vs41.5% with higher doses). 80 (19.6%) pts discontinued RUX because of: lack/loss of response (28.8%); drug-related toxicity (27.5%, specifically: thrombocytopenia, 16.2%; infection, 6.3%; anemia, 5%); disease progression with/without acute evolution (8.8%); death (13.8%); allogeneic transplant (8.8%); 2ndneoplasia (3.8%); other unrelated causes (8.5%). Summary/Conclusion: In a real-life setting, IWG-MRT-defined spleen and symptoms response rates were observed in 42% and 88.6% of evaluable pts, respectively. Disease severity (in terms of transfusion dependency and large splenomegaly) and a delay in RUX start ≥2yr from diagnosis identified pts with lower spleen response rates. Titrated doses <10mg BID significantly correlated with poorer spleen and symptoms responses. Overall, these data point out the importance of an early treatment and of an effective (≥ 10 mg BID) titrated dose in order to achieve better therapeutic results. Disclosures Palumbo: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bonifacio:Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Tiribelli:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Latagliata:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria. Vitolo:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures. Fanin:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Breccia:Ariad: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document