Crenolanib, a Type I FLT3 TKI, Can be Safely Combined with Cytarabine and Anthracycline Induction Chemotherapy and Results in High Response Rates in Patients with Newly Diagnosed FLT3 Mutant Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1071-1071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunice S. Wang ◽  
Richard M. Stone ◽  
Martin S. Tallman ◽  
Roland B. Walter ◽  
John R. Eckardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Type I ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Monosomy 7 ◽  
Full Count ◽  
Count Recovery

Abstract Background: Crenolanib is a type I oral FLT3 TKI, which inhibits both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-TKD mutations (D835, N841, etc). Crenolanib has a half-life of 6-8 hours and does not accumulate with repeated dosing. Crenolanib does not inhibit c-kit at clinically achievable concentrations, potentially allowing for full count recovery even when combined with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We report here the first analysis of a phase II trial evaluating the tolerability and efficacy of crenolanib combined with standard induction chemotherapy in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutant AML. Methods: Pts (≥ 18yrs) (no upper age limit) with newly diagnosed AML characterized by FLT3 (ITD and/or TKD) mutations were enrolled. Pts received standard 7+3 induction with cytarabine 100 mg/m2/d for 7 days and either daunorubicin (<60yrs: 90 mg/m2; ≥60yrs: 60 mg/m2) or idarubicin 12 mg/m2 for 3 days. Crenolanib 100 mg TID was administered starting on day 9 until 72 hrs prior to next chemotherapy. Re-induction was permitted for pts with inadequate leukemia cytoreduction. Up to 4 courses of consolidation consisting of 6 doses of high dose cytarabine (HiDAC) (<60yrs: 3 g/m2; ≥60yrs: 1g/m2) was given, with crenolanib starting on day 7. Eligible pts could proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT). Crenolanib maintenance therapy was offered for 1 year after HiDAC or -SCT. Safety and tolerability were assessed as well as anti-leukemic activity. Results: Demographics: Twenty-six pts (14 females, 12 males) with a median age of 55yrs (range 22-74yrs) have received 7+3 followed by crenolanib; nine (35%) pts were ≥ 60yrs. Five pts had initial WBC >100,000/μL (two pts had WBC >200,000). Three pts had AML following antecedent MDS or MPN. Mutational Analysis: Twenty-two pts had either FLT3-ITD (n=19) or FLT3-D835 (n=3) mutations. Genomic sequencing revealed multiple concurrent FLT3 activating mutations in four pts. One pt had a dual-activating kinase domain mutation in trans (D835Y+N841T). Three other pts had FLT3-ITD together with N841 (n=2), I836del (n=2), and V592/593 (n=2). Fifteen (60%) pts had FLT3 and NPM1 mutations, and 11 (52%) had FLT3 and DNMT3A mutations. Five pts (24%) had AML with three mutations (FLT3 + NPM1+ DNMT3A). WIT (WT1, IDH1/2, TET2) mutations were present in 11 (52%) pts. Three pts had trisomy 8; one pt each having monosomy 7, trisomy 4, and t(3;18)del(6q)der(3). Treatment Outcome: Eighteen (69%) pts received induction with cytarabine+daunorubicin (10 pts at 90 mg/m2, 8 pts at 60 mg/m2) and eight pts (31%) received cytarabine+idarubicin. To date, crenolanib has been well-tolerated in combination with chemotherapy. Six pts required crenolanib dose reductions for periorbital edema (n=2), delayed count recovery (n=1), LFT elevation (n=1), nausea (n=1) and rash (n=1). Out of the twenty-five pts evaluable for response, twenty-two (88%) achieved complete remission (CR) with full count recovery after one cycle of induction. Overall CR/CRi rate was 96% (Table 1). Sixteen pts (10 pts< 60yrs; 6 pts≥ 60yrs) have received a total of 26 cycles of consolidation with HiDAC and crenolanib. Twelve pts (46%) have been bridged to allogeneic SCT. With a median follow up of 6 months, only three pts (all > 60yrs) have relapsed. Overall survival is shown in Figure 1. Conclusion: Crenolanib, a type I pan-FLT3 TKI, can be safely combined at full doses with cytarabine/daunorubicin or cytarabine/idarubicin induction and HiDAC consolidation chemotherapy for upfront AML therapy. A high CR rate of 88% with full count recovery was observed after one cycle of induction with an overall CR/CRi rate of 96%. HiDAC consolidation and allo SCT could be administered on schedule. Encouraging anti-leukemic activity has been observed with no relapses in FLT3 mutant AML pts <60yrs. Accrual to this trial continues. Disclosures Stone: Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Eckardt:Arog: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Long-Term Follow-up of Combined Hypercvad (hCVAD) Regimen with Dasatinib (Db) in the Front Line Therapy of Patients (pts) with Philadelphia Chromosome Positive (Ph+) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1512-1512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hun Ju Lee ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Deborah A. Thomas ◽  
Stefan Faderl ◽  
Charles Koller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Platelet Recovery

Abstract Abstract 1512 Background: The introduction of tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI) has significantly improved the outcome of patients (pts) with Ph+ ALL. Dasatinib (Db) is a second generation dual SRC/ABL TKI with greater potency compared to Imatinib in inhibiting BCR/ABL. Aim: To determine the outcome of pts with Ph+ ALL treated with hCVAD + Db. Method: Between 9/06 and 7/09, pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL received Db 50mg oral (PO) twice daily (BID) or 100mg PO daily for the first 14 days of each of 8 cycles of alternating hCVAD, and high dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Pts in complete remission (CR) continued to receive maintenance Db 50mg PO BID or 100mg PO daily, as well as monthly prednisone and vincristine for 2 years, followed by Db indefinitely. From 8/09 protocol was amended and pts received 100mg Db for the first 14 days of cycle #1 and then 70mg daily continuously for the next 7 cycles, as well as 2 doses of rituximab 375 mg/m2 during each of the first 4 cycles. Maintenance was with Db, vincristine and prednisone. Results: Sixty-one pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL have been treated to date. Median age was 56 years (yrs) (range (r), 22–80) and 41 (67%) pts were >50 yrs. The median follow up is 26.1 months (mo) (r, 4–58). Central nervous system (CNS) involvement was noted in 9 (14%) pts at diagnosis. Sixteen (26%) pts had Ph+ alone, 38 (62%) pts had Ph+ with additional abnormalities, and 7 (12%) pts were Ph negative, and BCR/ABL positive. Median white blood cell count (WBC) at diagnosis was 13.4 × 109/L (r: 0.4–658), and 22 (36%) pts had WBC >30 × 109/L at diagnosis. BCR/ABL transcript was identified in 60 (98.3%) pts at diagnosis, including e1a2 in 46 (76%) pts, b2a2 in 10 (17%) pts, b2a2+b3a2 in 2 (3%) pts, b3a2 and e1a3 in 1 (1.6%) pt each. One pt had a variant transcript that was not detectable with the standard primers. The median number of induction and maintenance cycles received were 6 cycles (r: 1–8) and 13.5 cycles (r: 1–24), respectively. Fifty seven (94%) pts achieved CR1 and 1 (1.5%) pts achieved CR with incomplete platelet recovery with first induction cycle of chemotherapy. Three (4.5%) pts died before response assessment could be performed due to infections. Thirty-nine (64%) pts received maintenance, 3 (5%) pts are currently receiving induction and 19 (31%) pts had no maintenance [9 pts received allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) prior to maintenance, 10 pts had progression of disease]. To date, twelve (19%) pts have relapsed and Abl kinase domain mutations were analyzed in 7 pts; mutations were noted in 4 pts. These included T315I in 2 pts, and F359V and V299L in 1 pt each. CNS relapse occurred in 5 pts. Salvage (S1) regimens included [hCVAD + another TKI in 7 pts, single agent TKI in 2 pts, single agent monoclonal antibody in 1 pt, methotrexate, vincristine, asparginase, dexamethasone (MOAD) in 1pt, intrathecal cytarabine/methotrexate plus CNS radiation and Db in 1 pt]. Eight pts achieved CR2, 3 pts were refractory (2 pts with T315I and 1 pt with F359V) and one is still undergoing salvage treatment. Median DFS and OS after S1 were 5.3 mo (r: 0.7–17.3) and 6.7 mo (r: 0.6–24.4), respectively. ASCT was performed in 15 (24%) pts, including 10 pts in CR1 and 5 pts in CR2. Donors were related in 8 (53%) and unrelated in 7 (47%) transplants. Sixteen pts have died 11 (68%) pts from infectious complications, 2 (13%) pts from multi-organ failure, 1 (6%) pt with graft versus host disease, and 2 (13%) pts from unknown causes. Three-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) (n=61) were 49% and 62%, respectively. Conclusion: Db plus hCVAD is an effective regimen with durable responses in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL. Disclosures: Kantarjian: BMS: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cortes:Novartis: 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; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chemgenex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria.

Clinical Relevance of Partial Response in the Marrow (PRm) after Failure of Frontline Induction Chemotherapy for Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2512-2512
Author(s):  
Shaun Fleming ◽  
Doen Ming Ong ◽  
Kathryn Jackson ◽  
Sharon Avery ◽  
Peter Mollee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Salvage Chemotherapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Induction Failure ◽  
Count Recovery

Abstract Introduction: The management of patients with treatment resistant AML (failure to achieve complete remission, CR; or CR with incomplete blood count recovery; CRi) after intensive chemotherapy is an important clinical consideration. Anticipating the benefit of intensive salvage therapy facilitates patient management decisions and counseling. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has associated morphologic partial remission (PRm; defined as 5-15% bone marrow blasts) after course 1 of standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) based induction, with 5yr overall survival (OS) outcomes comparable to achieving CR (42 vs 51%). In contrast, failure to achieve PRm was linked to 5-year OS of 20% (Wheatley, et al 1999). In an MD Anderson study, patients failing initial high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC) based induction had a 6-month OS expectation of only 7% (Ravandi, et al 2010). Less than 1% of patients in this study achieved PR using International Working Group (IWG) criteria (treatment related decrease in marrow blasts to 5-25% with a >50% reduction from baseline and blood count recovery. We therefore sought to verify the prognostic relevance of PRm in patients with treatment resistant AML (no CR/CRi). Patients and treatment: A retrospective cohort of 104 patients failing intensive chemotherapy at 3 Australian hospitals (Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Princess Alexandra and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospitals, Brisbane) was identified. Prior therapy was standard-dose ara-C (SDAC) 100mg/m2 d1-7 in 73% or high-dose ara-C (HiDAC)(³1g/m2 cytarabine per dose for 5-8 doses) in 28% combined with idarubicin 9-12mg/m2 D1-3 as part of induction. For salvage after SDAC failure, the commonest regimens were HiDAC based, fludarabine and cytarabine (FLAG) variants or a second cycle of 7 + 3, the HiDAC group received further HiDAC based therapy, or FLAG based regimens. Outcomes were compared to a contemporaneously treated AML population (n=128) achieving CR/CRi. Results: OS was stratified according to the level of residual bone marrow blasts after induction. Patients with 5-15% residual blasts (PRm) had a median OS of 20.6 mo, compared to only 5.0 mo for patients with a residual blast count >15% (p<0.0001). Outcome was superior in patients achieving a marrow blast reduction of ³50% or greater after induction (median OS 18.7m, vs 5.5m if blast reduction was <50%; p >0.0001). The proportion of patients with treatment resistant AML (no CR/CRi) achieving PRm was 41%. CR/CRi rates from salvage chemotherapy were 64% for those failing SDAC and 52% for those failing prior HiDAC-based induction (p=0.37). The likelihood of attaining subsequent remission SDAC-based induction failure was not related to PRm status after cycle 1 of therapy (CR/CRi 73%, compared to 66% without prior mPR; p=0.85). In contrast, the response to subsequent salvage chemotherapy was more common after attainment of prior PRm in cycle 1 for those receiving HiDAC-based induction (CR/CRi 83%, compared to 14% without prior PRm; p=0.01). For patients receiving prior SDAC-based induction, median OS was not reached for patients with PRm, compared to only 8 mo for those not achieving PRm (p=0.0006) (Fig 1A). For patients receiving prior HiDAC-based induction, median OS was 45.5 mo for patients with PRm, compared to only 3.3 mo for those not achieving PRm (p<0.0001) (Fig 1). If PRm was achieved after cycle 1 of induction, outcomes were not improved by subsequent HSCT (median OS 45.5 mo with HSCT, compared to 48.8 mo without HSCT [p=0.2]) (Fig 1B). In contrast, the benefit of HSCT was greater for resistant patients failing to achieve PRm (median OS 10.5 mo with HSCT, compared to 3.2 mo without [p=0.006]) (Fig 1B). Conclusion: in patients with AML failing initial chemotherapy, good long-term outcomes are still achievable, especially if a PRm was achieved after the first course of induction chemotherapy, regardless of whether SDAC or HiDAC induction was delivered. In contrast, patients refractory (no CR or PRm) to induction chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and should be considered candidates for experimental therapies or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Assessment for PRm may be a useful prognostic factor when clinical decisions regarding adults with AML failing to achieve CR/CRi after induction therapy are being considered. Figure 1. Ð Survival by response, by induction intensity Figure 1. Ð Survival by response, by induction intensity Figure 2. Ð Survival after induction failure and by prior PRm status and subsequent allograft Figure 2. Ð Survival after induction failure and by prior PRm status and subsequent allograft Disclosures Mollee: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wei:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: 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; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

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

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

scholarly journals VTE Rates and Safety Analysis of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Receiving Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (KRD) with or without Rivaroxaban Prophylaxis

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1835-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina M Piedra ◽  
Hani Hassoun ◽  
Larry W. Buie ◽  
Sean M. Devlin ◽  
Jessica Flynn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cancer Trial ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction Immunomodulatory agents (IMiD's) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly when combined with high dose steroids. Studies evaluating the use of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) and carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRD) in the frontline setting for multiple myeloma (MM) have reported a 6% and 24% incidence of thrombosis, respectively, despite primary thrombotic prophylaxis with aspirin (ASA) (Richardson, et al. Blood. 2010; Korde, et al. JAMA Oncol 2015). Recent data, including the Hokusai VTE Cancer Trial, have suggested that safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preserved in the setting of treatment of solid malignancy-associated thrombosis (Raskob, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018; Mantha, et al. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017). Despite this data, there is limited experience and use of DOACs in prevention of thromboses in the setting of hematologic malignancies, specifically MM. After careful review of literature, since early 2018, we changed our clinical practice and routinely placed newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients receiving KRD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) on concomitant rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily, regardless of VTE risk stratification. In the following abstract, we present VTE rates and safety data for newly diagnosed MM patients receiving RVD with ASA vs. KRD with ASA vs. KRD with rivaroxaban prophylaxis. Methods This was an IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective chart review study. All untreated patients with newly diagnosed MM, receiving at least one cycle of RVD or KRD between January 2015 and October 2018 were included. The period of observation included the time between the first day of therapy until 90 days after completion of induction therapy. Patients were identified by querying the pharmacy database for carfilzomib or bortezomib administration and outpatient medication review of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban or ASA. VTE diagnoses were confirmed by ICD-10 codes and appropriate imaging studies (computed tomography and ultrasound). Descriptive statistics were performed. Results During the observation period, 241 patients were identified to have received RVD or KRD in the frontline (99 RVD with ASA; 97 KRD with ASA; 45 KRD with rivaroxaban). Baseline characteristics were well distributed among the three arms, with a median age of 60 (30-94) in the RVD ASA arm, 62 (33-77) in the KRD ASA arm, and 60 (24-79) in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Patients had International Staging System (ISS) stage 3 disease in 13% (N=13), 9.3% (N=9), and 11% (N=5) of the RVD ASA, KRD ASA, and KRD rivaroxaban arms, respectively. Median weekly doses of dexamethasone were higher in both KRD arms, 40 mg (20-40) vs. 20 mg (10-40) in the RVD ASA arm. The average initial doses of lenalidomide were 22 mg in the RVD ASA arm compared to 25 mg in both the KRD ASA and KRD rivaroxaban arms. After querying the pharmacy database, no patients were identified to have a history or concomitant use of erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) use. Treatment-related VTE's occurred in 4 patients (4.0%) in the RVD ASA arm, 16 patients (16.5%) in the KRD ASA arm, and in 1 patient (2.2%) in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Average time to VTE was 6.15 months (Range 5.42, 9.73) after treatment initiation in the RVD ASA group, while it was 2.61 months (Range 0.43, 5.06) in the KRD ASA group and 1.35 months in the KRD rivaroxaban group. Minor, grade 1 bleeding events per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) were identified in 1 (1.1%) patient in the RVD ASA arm, 5 (5.2%) patients in the KRD ASA arm, and 1 (2.2%) patient in the KRD rivaroxaban arm. Conclusion More efficacious MM combination therapies have been found to increase the risk of VTE when using ASA prophylaxis, indicating better thromboprophylaxis is needed. We found patients receiving ASA prophylaxis with KRD were more likely to experience a VTE and these events occurred earlier compared to patients receiving ASA prophylaxis with RVD. Importantly, the rate of VTE was reduced to the same level as ASA prophylaxis with RVD when low-dose rivaroxaban 10 mg daily was used with KRD, and without necessarily increasing bleeding risk. Our retrospective data support the development of prospective clinical trials further investigating DOAC use in thromboprophylaxis for NDMM patients receiving carfilzomib-based treatments. Figure Disclosures Hassoun: Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Lesokhin:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; GenMab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Serametrix Inc.: Patents & Royalties; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mailankody:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; CME activity by Physician Education Resource: Honoraria. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics and Precision Biosciences: Consultancy. Landgren:Theradex: Other: IDMC; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: IDMC; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off-label use of rivaroxaban for outpatient prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) will be explicitly disclosed to the audience.

scholarly journals Routine Use of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in 7+3-Based Inductions for All "Non-Adverse" Risk AML

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 36-37
Author(s):  
Gavin Hui ◽  
Abdullah Ladha ◽  
Edna Cheung ◽  
Caroline Berube ◽  
Steven Coutre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Myeloablative Conditioning ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Monosomy 7

Introduction: The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to 7+3 chemotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been shown to significantly improve event-free survival (EFS) for cytogenetically favorable-risk AML, with marginal benefit for intermediate-risk AML, and no benefit for cytogenetically adverse-risk AML. Of note, with the exception of mutated FLT3-ITD, little is known about the impact of GO in ELN 2017-defined genotypically adverse-risk AML, and a recent randomized trial found no EFS benefit for 7+3+GO in patients (pts) with genotypically favorable-risk, NPM1-mutated AML. Since 2017, our institution incorporated GO into 7+3-based inductions for all "non-adverse" risk AML pts, as defined by wild-type FLT3 and no abnormalities on rapid FISH analysis for del(5q)/monosomy 5, del(7q)/monosomy 7, and del(20q). We report our experience treating all pts with "non-adverse" risk AML-as defined by this algorithm-with 7+3+GO. Methods: An institutional database was queried in order to identify all pts ≥18 years old who received 7+3-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML between 2017 and 2020; pts who received the FDA-approved fractionated dose of GO were included in the analysis. Data collection included demographic variables, karyotype/FISH, targeted PCR analyses, and multigene NGS panels for AML-related mutations including, but not limited to, mutations in FLT3, NPM1, CEBPA, TP53, RUNX1, and ASXL1. Outcome data included response to induction, relapse, and death, as well as hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) rates, conditioning regimens, and post-transplant complications. Results: Between January 2017 and July 2020, 96 pts received 7+3-based induction at our institution. Of these, 29 (30%) received 7+3 in combination with GO. Median age at diagnosis was 46 years (range 23-66), with 17 (59%) males. Sixteen (55%) pts had ELN favorable-risk AML (5 [31%] by cytogenetics and 11 [69%] by genotype), 6 (21%) pts had ELN intermediate-risk AML, and 7 (24%) pts had ELN adverse-risk AML (4 [57%] by cytogenetics and 3 [43%] by genotype). Median time from diagnosis to start of induction was 4 days (range 0-43). For cytogenetically adverse-risk pts, median time from diagnostic bone marrow biopsy to receipt of adverse karyotype results was 8 days (7-14). Median time from start of induction to receipt of multigene NGS results for all pts was 15 days (3-32). Overall, 22 (76%) pts achieved remission. All genotypically adverse-risk pts (1 with mutated TP53 and 2 with mutated RUNX1) were refractory to induction, while 3 of 4 (75%) cytogenetically adverse-risk pts (1 with t(6;9), 1 with monosomy 7, and 2 with 11q23 abnormalities) achieved remission. Eight of the 29 (28%) pts proceeded to HCT, including 4 adverse-risk pts. Of the adverse-risk pts, all received myeloablative conditioning prior to HCT and 3 (75%) developed veno-occlusive disease (VOD), with 2 (50%) requiring defibrotide therapy. In favorable/intermediate-risk pts, 4 (18%) proceeded to HCT (2 intermediate-risk pts in first remission and 2 favorable-risk pts in second remission). Of these, 2 (50%) received myeloablative conditioning and 1 (25%) developed VOD. At last follow-up, 23 of 29 pts (79%) remained alive, with a median overall survival not reached (range 1-29 months) and a median EFS of 20 months (9-31). The percentage of ELN favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk pts who remained event-free at last follow-up was 75%, 33%, and 43%, respectively. Discussion: This single-center, retrospective cohort describes the outcomes of pts with "non-adverse" risk AML who received induction chemotherapy with 7+3+GO according to a pre-defined algorithm. Using this algorithm, 30% of all pts receiving 7+3-based inductions received GO. Of these, nearly 25% were ultimately found to have adverse-risk AML as defined by ELN 2017 criteria, largely driven by long turn-around times for karyotyping and NGS multigene panel results. No patient with genotypically adverse-risk AML by ELN criteria responded to induction chemotherapy, and 75% of cytogenetically adverse-risk pts who proceeded to HCT developed VOD. Routine use of 7+3+GO induction outside of the context of cytogenetically favorable-risk AML remains controversial, and further study is needed to define the role of GO, particularly for pts with ELN genotypically adverse-risk AML. Table Disclosures Gotlib: Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair of the Response Adjudication Committee and Research Funding, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: co-chair of the Study Steering Committee and Research Funding. Liedtke:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Muffly:Adaptive: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Servier: Research Funding. Mannis:AbbVie, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech: Consultancy; Glycomimetics, Forty Seven, Inc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Superiority of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Initial Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3884-3884
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Suzanne Hayman ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Francis Buadi ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Toxicity Profile ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide Plus Melphalan and Prednisone: A Case-Control Study in Newly Diagnosed Elderly Myeloma Patients.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2877-2877
Author(s):  
Francesca Gay ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Patrizia Falco ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Case Control ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Control Study

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

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

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

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

Interim Results of An Ongoing Clinical Study Suggests Efficacy and Improved Toxicity Profile with Once a Week Bortezomib with Dexamethasone In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Older Age and Co-Morbidities

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3061-3061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikhil C. Munshi ◽  
Saem Lee ◽  
Suman Kambhampati ◽  
Abid Mohiuddin ◽  
Michal Rose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Current Time ◽  
Overall Response

Abstract Abstract 3061 The current bortezomib schedule involves administration of the drug twice a week at 1.3 mg/m2 for 2 weeks every 21 days. This regimen although effective is inconvenient and associated with side effects including neuropathy and gastrointestinal toxicities that limits its use in a proportion of patients. Therefore, to improve convenience and compliance, we have investigated efficacy and safety of a weekly regimen of bortezomib. In this one-stage phase II multi-center, open-label single-arm study bortezomib is administered once a week at 1.6 mg/m2 in combination with dexamethasone in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not considered for autologous stem cell transplant in participating Veterans Hospitals nationwide. The objective is to evaluate overall response rate and toxicity of this regimen. Patients received bortezomib at 1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly for 4 weeks followed by 1 week off and dexamethasone 40mg PO on the day of and day after each dose of bortezomib. Patients may receive 6 such 5-week cycles. At the current time 32 patients (median age - 73; range 50–88) have been enrolled at 11 Veterans Administration Hospital across the U.S. Patients had significant co-morbidities including 61% with cardiovascular problems, 58% with diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia, 58% with elevation of serum creatinine, 26% with respiratory problems and 23% with previous history of cancer. All patients were at least on 5 daily medications. Of the 32 patients enrolled, 25 patients have received at least one cycle of therapy and were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy, while 6 patients have received less than one cycle of therapy and one patient has inadequate data. With a median of 4 cycles administered, this regimen was well tolerated. None of the patients have developed grade 3 neuropathy, while grade 1 neuropathy was observed only in 2 patients and one patient with grade 1 neuropathy at diagnosis had increase to grade 2. Dexamethasone dose was reduced in 29% patients while 6% required reduction in bortezomib dose to 1.3 mg/m2. Additionally, Grade ≥1 asthenia was observed in 42%, diarrhea in 35%, and thrombocytopenia in 26%. Four patients have died of co-morbidities which were considered unrelated or probably unrelated to the treatment with bortezomib. The partial response or better was achieved in 68% patients receiving at least 1 cycle of therapy; 20% patients achieved CR/nCR and additional 12% achieved VGPR. Including MR in the analysis, overall response was observed in all evaluable patients. On intent to treat analysis including all 32 patients, overall response rate (≥ MR) was observed in 78% patients and PR or better in 53% patients. These preliminary results suggest that the once a week bortezomib regimen is effective and tolerable with reduced toxicity even in this older patient population with significant co-morbidities. Disclosures: Munshi: Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roodman:Millennium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Characteristics Of Multiple Myeloma Patients With 6-Year Or Longer Progression-Free Survival After a Single Autologous Transplant

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3366-3366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kehinde U.A. Adekola ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
Nina Shah ◽  
Sai Ravi Pingali ◽  
Simrit Parmar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Autologous Transplant ◽  
Preparative Regimen

Background High dose chemotherapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-HCT) is considered standard of care in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). In a recent randomized trial, median progression free survival (PFS) after auto-HCT, with or without maintenance therapy was 46 and 27 months, respectively (McCarthy P et al. NEJM 2012). However, about 15% of patients are reported to have much longer PFS (Pineda-Roman M et al. Cancer 2008). Here we tried to identify the factors that may predict a long PFS after auto-HCT. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received an auto-HCT for MM between January 2000 and March 2007. A total of 1135 patients underwent an auto-HCT during this period, and 194 patients (17%) had a minimum PFS of 72 months or longer after a single auto-HCT. The primary objective was to determine the variables associated with a long PFS and overall survival (OS). Results Patient characteristics and outcomes are shown in the attached Table. The median age at auto-HCT was 56 years, and the median time from diagnosis to auto-HCT was 7.5 months. Twenty-three (13%) patients had ≥ 10% plasma cells in the bone marrow at auto-HCT and only 9 patients (4.8%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. One-hundred and fifty (77%) patients received induction therapy containing either an immunomodulatory (IMiD) agent or a proteasome inhibitor (PI). At the time of the auto-HSCT, only 13 (6.7%) patients were in CR and 38 (19.6%) were CR or VGPR after induction therapy (Table). One-hundred and sixty three (84%) patients received mephalan alone as conditioning regimen. Eighty-one (42%) patients received post auto-HCT maintenance. Eighty (41%) patients achieved a CR, while 104 (54%) achieved CR + VGPR after auto-HCT. Six patients (3.1%) developed a second primary malignancy post- autologous transplant. After a median follow-up of 95.4 months, median PFS was 97.3 months and median OS has not been reached. The 10-year PFS and OS were 41% and 73% respectively. Use of melphalan alone as preparative regimen was associated with a longer PFS and OS (p=0.004 and 0.004, respectively). Achievement of CR after auto-HCT was associated with a longer PFS only (p=0.001), and the use of IMiD or a PI as induction was associated with a longer OS (p=0.01). Conclusion Approximately 17% patients achieved a median PFS of 6 years or longer after a single auto-HCT. The long PFS in this cohort may be associated with younger age, low incidence of HR cytogenetics, use of an IMiD or PI as induction therapy, relatively low disease burden at auto-HCT, transplant from the year 2000 onwards, achievement of CR in >40% and the use of melphalan alone as preparative regimen. Disclosures: Shah: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Qazilbash:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document