scholarly journals Outcomes of Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Requiring Dialysis: Dialysis Independence Is Associated with Rapid Myeloma Response and Predicts for Longer Survival

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4492-4492
Author(s):  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Maria Roussou ◽  
Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽  
Despina Fotiou ◽  
Dimitrios Ziogas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Failure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone

Abstract Renal failure (RF) is a common severe complication of symptomatic myeloma and may be severe enough to require extrarenal dialysis in approximately 1-5% of newly diagnosed patients. Severe RF is associated with high risk of early death and increased morbidity. Immediate effective anti-myeloma therapy and vigorous supportive care are the cornerstones of management. The use of high cutoff hemodialysis to rapidly reduce the load of nephrotoxic light chains seems to offer limited additional benefit in patients requiring dialysis when treated with bortezomib-based therapies (Cook M et al EHA 2016, Abs P270). However, outside clinical trials, there are limited data focusing on the management and outcomes of NDMM patients requiring dialysis. Thus, we analyzed the outcomes of consecutive newly diagnosed patients with RF requiring dialysis, who were managed and treated in a single center. Between 1995 and 2016, 50 patients (6.2% of 796 consecutive NDMM) who were treated in the Department of Clinical Therapeutics (Athens, Greece) presented with severe RF requiring dialysis. The analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of any therapy. All patients received similar supportive care and dialysis with regular filters. The median age of patients requiring dialysis was 69 years (37-88), 68% were >65 years of age. At presentation 92% had Hb <10 g/dl, 5 (10%) had platelet count <100x109/l, 12 (24%) had hypeprcalcemia (Ca ≥11.5 mg/dl) and 24 (48%) had elevated LDH (≥250 IU/l). All patients had elevated β2-microglobulin (median 21.7 mg/L, range 6-60 mg/l) and all were ISS stage 3. High risk cytogenetics (N=40) were present in 38% and per R-ISS, 75% were R-ISS-3 and 25% R-ISS-2. Myeloma was light chain only in 42%, IgA in 26%, IgG in 30% and IgD in 1 patient (2%); light chain was κ in 38 (64%) and λ in 18 (36%). Among patients who retained urine flow at presentation, median 24h Bence Jones proteinuria was 2.2 gr (range 0.1-8.8 gr). Among patients with available FLCs, median level of involved free light chain (iFLC) was 9080 mg/l (range 119-201000 mg/l). Treatment was bortezomib-based in 41 (82%) patients: 11 (22%) had bortezomib + dexamethasone (VD), 21 (42%) VD + cyclophosphamide (VCD), 8 (16%) VD + thalidomide (VTD), 1 (2%) VD + doxorubicin (PAD). Nine (18%) patients received non-bortezomib containing regimens: 5 (10%) thalidomide plus high dose dexamethasone and 4 (8%) VAD with high dose dexamethasone. Twenty-five (50%) patients became dialysis independent at a median time of 158 days from start of therapy (range 4-336 days). Age ≤65 years was associated with higher probability (75% vs 38%) and shorter time to dialysis independence (51 vs 336 days; p=0.027); no other baseline factors were associated with dialysis independence in univariate analysis. Among patients treated with bortezomib, three-drug combinations (n=30) vs VD alone (N=11) were associated with higher probability of dialysis independence (57% vs 27%; p=0.06). Among patients who became dialysis independent 12 received VCD, 4 VTD, one PAD, 3 VD, 2 MDT, 2 VAD and one T-VAD. Median follow up for all patients was 33 months and median survival was 29 months. Early mortality (within 2 months from start of therapy) was 16%, mostly due to infectious complications. On intent to treat, 64% achieved ≥PR (CR: 6%, VGPR: 32%, PR: 26%); among patients who survived >2 months, ≥PR was achieved by 76%. At 2-month landmark, patients who achieved ≥PR within the first 2 months had higher dialysis independence rates (68% vs 27%, p=0.004). Becoming dialysis independent was associated with a significant improvement in survival (median OS of 63 vs 22 months of patients who remained on dialysis; p=0.002), even after exclusion of early deaths. Notably, the survival of patients who discontinued dialysis was similar to that of the rest of patients (57 months). High dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation was performed in five patients while on dialysis. Four of them (80%) become dialysis independent approximately one month after HDM. In conclusion, about 6% of NDMM present with renal failure requiring dialysis but half of them can become dialysis independent after bortezomib-based therapy, without the use of special filters, especially if they achieve a rapid myeloma response. VD-based triplets increase the probability of renal response over VD alone and independence from dialysis is associated with a significant improvement in prognosis. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terpos:Celgene: Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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.

scholarly journals Phase II Trial of Combination of Elotuzumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 976-976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. Ghobrial ◽  
Ashraf Z Badros ◽  
James J. Vredenburgh ◽  
Jeffrey Matous ◽  
Aaron M. Caola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Therapeutic Intervention ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Qtc Interval ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Purpose: This study aimed to determine the benefit of early therapeutic intervention with the combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). The overarching objective of this trial is to determine progression free survival to symptomatic myeloma (MM). Furthermore, the study examined the activity and safety of the combination therapy in patients with high-risk SMM. Patients & Methods: Patients enrolled on study met eligibility for high-risk SMM based on the newly defined criteria proposed by Rajkumar et al, Blood 2014. Patients were administered weekly elotuzumab (10 mg/kg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for the first two 28-day cycles while receiving lenalidomide on days 1-21. An initial cohort of patients were randomized to a low dose dexamethasone treatment arm (Arm B) based on the following stratification factors: age >65 years and high-risk cytogenetics based on t(4:14), t(14:16), 17p deletion or p53 mutation, and +1q amplification. For cycles 3-8, patients on both treatment arms were administered elotuzumab infusions on days 1, 8, and 15. Patients on treatment Arm A received dexamethasone (40mg) on days 1, 8 and 15. After 8 cycles or best response, patients were given the option to mobilize with either cyclophosphamide or plerixafor and collect stem cells for future transplant. Patients on both treatment arms were then allowed to continue on maintenance therapy where they were administered elotuzumab (20 mg/kg) on day 1, in combination with lenalidomide days 1-21 of a 28 day cycle. After 11 patients were enrolled on each arm, arm B closed due to similar activity and toxicity to the high-dose dexamethasone arm based on published data demonstrating that high-dose dexamethasone, given once a week, does not have a detrimental effect on the immune system in patients with smoldering myeloma. Results: In total, 39 patients were enrolled on this study from January 2015 to date, with the participation of eight sites. The median age of patients enrolled was 62 years (range 26 to 75) with 15 males (38%) and 24 females (62%). The median number of cycles completed is 6 (range 1 to 19). Therapy related grade 3 toxicities included hypophosphatemia (23%), neutropenia (8%), infection (8%), anemia (3%), pulmonary embolism (3%), rash (3%), and diarrhea (3%). No related grade 4 or 5 toxicities have occurred thus far. Stem cell collection was successful in all patients collected to date. Unrelated toxicities include one instance of grade 4 prolonged QTc Interval. Of the 34 evaluable patients enrolled to both arms of the study, the clinical benefit rate is 97%. The overall response rate is 71%, including 9 very good partial responses (26%) and 15 partial responses (44%). The VGPR cases are currently under evaluation of possible complete responses due to the potential interference of elotuzumab with immunoelectrophoresis. Thus far, no patients have progressed to active multiple myeloma during, or after, protocol therapy. Conclusion:The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is very well tolerated among patients with high-risk SMM. The high response rates among this patient population, who would otherwise remain untreated, is a promising starting point for the paradigm shift towards early therapeutic intervention in patients with high-risk SMM. Disclosures Ghobrial: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Noxxon: Honoraria. Matous:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau. Rosenblatt:Astex: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; DCPrime: Research Funding. Usmani:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Munshi:OncoPep Inc.: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Rituximab Combined with 3 Cycles of High Dose Dexamethasone Improves Response in Patients with Newly-Diagnosed, Persistent, and Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3345-3345
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Elstrom ◽  
Caroline Seery ◽  
Christina Moll ◽  
Allison Miller ◽  
Julia Gabor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Tubulin Gene ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Optimal Response ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone

Abstract Abstract 3345 Introduction: Adults with newly-diagnosed ITP usually respond to initial prednisone treatment but typically relapse upon its tapering or discontinuation. Patients with persistent/chronic ITP treated with prednisone have an even lower likelihood of a lasting response. Dexamethasone (Dex) has been reported to have curative effects in newly diagnosed patients. Rituximab (Ritux) is thought to be effective in newly diagnosed patients but only yields a long term response in 20–25% of chronic ITP patients. Recently, newly-diagnosed previously-untreated patients received a single cycle of 4 days of Dex 40 mg/day or 4 infusions of 375mg/m2 Ritux combined with Dex. R+Dex in that study yielded a 63% response at 6 months and 34% at 3 years without additional treatment, which was more effective than Dex alone. Methods: Given the additive activity of these two drugs, 59 patients at Weill-Cornell Medical College with ITP of any duration were treated with 4 infusions of 375mg/m2 rituximab and three 4-day cycles of high-dose dexamethasone at 2-week intervals (R+Dex). Optimal response was assessed after 8 weeks as complete remission (CR, platelet count≥100×109/L) or partial remission (PR, 50–100×109/L). Long term outcome was also assessed and both were related to clinical variables. Data was compared to that of rituximab alone using the previous study from our center (Cooper BJH 2004). AIPF values were gathered prior to treatment until 12 weeks after treatment initiation. Results: All but 5 patients had been previously treated with a median of 2 therapies (range 0–7). Assessing optimal response achieved, 44/59 (74.5%) patients responded, with a CR in 64% and a PR in 10%. Only 1/28 patients with ITP < 1yr relapsed (at 12 months). Duration of ITP less than 24 months (p=0.0426) and being an adult predicted better optimal responses (p=0.0154). Of the original 44 responders, 33/59 patients [74% of responding adults and 77% of responding children] had ongoing responses at last f/u at a median of 14 months without the need for further ITP treatment (Figure). Eleven of the 44 relapsed (25%) including the one at 12 months mentioned above. Two additional patients relapsed who had ITP for 1–2 years prior to R+Dex and the other 8 patients who relapsed had ITP for greater than 3 years, 5 of whom had had ITP for 6+ years. Additionally, 53 of the 59 patients were genotyped for β1-tubulin gene. Of the ten patients with heterozygote genotypes, 9 (90%) responded to combination R+Dex treatment and 32 of the 43 wild type patients responded to treatment (p=0.46). There were no overt differences in the AIPF levels over the first 12 weeks between responders and non-responders. No AIPF differences were seen between the heterozygote and wild type patients for the β1-tubulin gene. In our previous study of rituximab alone, 54% of the 57 adult patients responded to rituximab treatment, compared to 86% of the 36 adult patients who responded to R+Dex treatment. R+Dex responders were found to have a longer duration of lower B cell numbers when compared with responders to rituximab alone, preliminarily demonstrating the additive effect of the 2 medications. Adverse events related to R+Dex generally were mild but one patient was hospitalized with colitis, two others experienced serum sickness reactions and dexamethasone was sometimes difficult to tolerate. Conclusion: R+Dex is active and appears clearly superior to rituximab alone in this single-center, pilot study. Adults and patients who have a shorter duration of ITP (< 1–2 years) fare better but children and those with a longer duration of ITP still have a 1/3 chance of a lasting response. The absence of homozygote β1-tubulin SNP's in this population made interpretation of its effect difficult. High dose Dex is not always easy to tolerate but helps maintain the count during the treatment course of 32 days. A prospective, randomized trial is planned. Disclosures: Basciano: Alexion: Consultancy. Ghanima:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Bussel:Amgen: Family owns Amgen stock Other, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Family owns GSK stock, Family owns GSK stock Other, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; IgG of America: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sysmex: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy. Off Label Use: The use of romiplostim in pediatric patients was examined in this study.

scholarly journals Overall and Progression Free Survival from the Mcrn-003/Myx.1 Trial: A Single Arm Phase II Study of High-Dose Weekly Carfilzomib Plus Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1871-1871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P Venner ◽  
Richard Leblanc ◽  
Irwindeep Sandhu ◽  
Darrell J White ◽  
Andrew Belch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Light Chain ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Free Light Chain ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees

Background: Carfilzomib is effective in the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Questions remain regarding optimal dosing strategies and combinations. The MCRN-003/MYX.1 single arm phase II clinical trial of high-dose once weekly carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide (wCCD) in RRMM met its primary endpoint with an overall response rate (ORR) ≥ 80% after 4 treatment cycles [Venner, Blood 2018 132:1984]. This abstract focuses on previously unreported protocol specified secondary and exploratory endpoints including progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: This multi-centre clinical trial is run through the Myeloma Canada Research Network (MCRN) with support from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Patients who had 1-3 prior lines of therapy and without proteasome inhibitor (PI) refractory disease were eligible. Treatment consists of carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 day 1 of first cycle then escalated to 70 mg/m2 for all subsequent doses) given on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, plus weekly oral dexamethasone 40 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 capped at 500 mg. Treatment continues until progression or intolerance, except for cyclophosphamide which is discontinued after 12 cycles. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, depth of response, PFS and OS as defined by International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria (2016). Exploratory endpoints included the impact of cytogenetics (CG) and prior PI or lenalidomide exposure on efficacy, and the novel endpoint of serum free light chain (sFLC) escape, defined as a > 25% change in the difference of involved to uninvolved light chain with the absolute rise > 100mg/L, in individuals with disease previously measurable by serum or urine protein electrophoresis. This analysis is based on the locked database of 19 June, 2019. Results: Of 76 patients accrued, 75 were included in the analysis. One was ineligible due to prior bortezomib refractoriness. Thirty-nine percent received 1 prior line, 44% two prior lines and 17% three prior lines of therapy. High-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or del P53, considered positive at any level above local accepted threshold) were identified in 32%. Twenty percent had ISS stage III disease. The majority of participants were previously exposed to PI (87%) and lenalidomide (83%). The median duration of follow-up was 25 months. The ORR at any time was 85% (1 patient achieved a response after 4 cycles) with ≥ VGPR achieved in 68% and ≥ CR in 29%. The presence of high-risk CG conferred a worse ORR (75% vs 97% respectively, p = 0.013). Thirty-one patients have died with a median OS and median PFS of 27 months and 17 months respectively (figure 1). High risk CG conferred a worse median OS (18 months vs NR, p = 0.002) and a trend toward a worse median PFS with high risk CG (14 months vs 22 months, p = 0.06; figure 1). For patients with prior PI exposure the median OS and PFS were 27 and 17 months respectively. For patients with prior lenalidomide exposure median OS and PFS were 26 and 16 months respectively. Free light chain escape events were noted in 11 patients (15%) but was the only progression event in 3 (4%). For the remaining 8 patients the sFLC rise was a harbinger of traditional relapse by electrophoresis. The median PFS when sFLC escape was included as a progression event was 17 months. With updated toxicity data the most common ≥ grade 3 non-hematologic events were infection (40%), cardiac (15%, including 5 dyspnea and 1 pulmonary edema) and vascular (17%, including 7 with hypertension and 3 with thrombotic microangiopathy). To date 57 (76%) patients have discontinued carfilzomib, including 34 due to disease progression and 14 due to toxicity. Conclusion: This phase II trial demonstrates that wCCD remains a safe and effective regimen for RRMM. The survival data presented here is comparable to current phase II and III studies examining the weekly dosing strategy. No new toxicity signals are observed but cardiovascular risks remain an important factor in the use of carfilzomib-based therapies. Using sFLC escape does not negatively affect PFS outcomes but likely better characterizes progression as a harbinger of more traditional events detected by electrophoresis. This regimen will be a useful triplet-based option for RRMM especially in patients refractory to lenalidomide and otherwise ineligible for the carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone combination. Disclosures Venner: J&J: Research Funding. Leblanc:Amgen: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sandhu:Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; gilead: Honoraria. White:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reece:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Louzada:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. McCurdy:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Hay:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: While Carfilzomib is approved for use in relapsed and refractory myeloma the combination with cyclophosphamide is not approved.

Melphalan/Prednisone/Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients <65 Years: Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3069-3069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Izhar Hardan ◽  
Barbara Lupo ◽  
Valter Redoglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 3069FN2 Background: High-dose chemotherapy with haemopoietic stem-cell improves outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in MM patients. Aims: In this prospective randomized study, we compared conventional melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) in newly diagnosed MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods: All patients (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1, 8, 15, 22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) consisting of six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 MEL200 (N=200) with stem-cell support. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (stages 1 and 2 vs. stage 3) and age (<60 vs. ≥60 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results: Response rates were similar: at least very good partial response (≥VGPR) rate was 60% with MPR vs. 58% with MEL200 (p=.24); the complete response (CR) rate was 20% with MPR vs. 25% with MEL200 (p=.49). After a median follow-up of 26 months, the 2-year PFS was 54% in MPR and 73% in MEL200 (HR=0.51, p<.001). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups: 87% with MPR and 90% with MEL200 (HR 0.68, p=.19). In a subgroup analysis, MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS in both standard-risk patients without t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 46% in the MPR group vs. 78% in the MEL200 group, HR=0.57, p=.007) and high-risk patients with t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 27% for MPR vs. 71% for MEL200, HR=0.32, p=.004). In patients who achieved CR, the 2-year PFS was 66% for MPR vs. 87% for MEL200 (HR 0.26; p<.001); in those who achieved a partial response (PR), the 2-year PFS was 56% for MPR vs. 77% for MEL200 (HR 0.45; p<.001). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs. 89% (p<.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs. 17% (p<.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); the incidence of second tumors was 0.5% in MPR patients and 1.5% in MEL200 patients (p=.12). Deep vein thrombosis rate was 2.44% with MPR vs. 1.13% with MEL200 (p=.43). Conclusions: PFS was significantly prolonged in the MEL200 group compared to MPR. This benefit was maintained in the subgroup of patients with standard- or high-risk cytogenetic features. Toxicities were significantly higher in the MEL200 group. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with conventional therapies including novel agents. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:celgene: Honoraria. Ria:celgene: Consultancy. Caravita Di Toritto:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Conventional Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOEP) Vs High-Dose Immunochemotherapy (R-MegaCHOEP) in Younger Patients with High-Risk Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: 10-Year Long-Term Follow-up of a German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: 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; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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.

PreVent-ACaLL Short-term combined acalabrutinib and venetoclax treatment of newly diagnosed patients with CLL at high risk of infection and/or early treatment, who do not fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria for treatment. A randomized study with extensive immune phenotyping

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4304-4304
Author(s):  
Caspar Da Cunha-Bang ◽  
Rudy Agius ◽  
Arnon P. Kater ◽  
Mark-David Levin ◽  
Anders Österborg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Educational Grant ◽  
Travel Grant ◽  
Grade 3

Background Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk of infections both prior to and upon treatment. Infections are the major cause of death for these patients, the 5-year incidence of severe infection prior to treatment is approximately 32 % with a 30-day mortality of 10 % (Andersen et al., Haematologica, 2018). Chemoimmunotherapy is still 1st line standard of treatment for patients without del17p or TP53 mutation despite association with neutropenia, immunesuppression and infections. The combination of BTK inhibitors and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated synergy in vitro and in vivo, while translational data indicate that the CLL-related immune dysfunction can be improved on treatment with reduced risk of infections. Employing the Machine-Learning based CLL treatment infection model (CLL-TIM) that we have developed, patients with a high (>65%) risk of infection and/or need of CLL treatment within 2 years of diagnosis can be identified (CLL-TIM.org). The significant morbidity and mortality due to infections in treatment-naïve CLL warrants trials that challenge the dogma of only treating symptomatic CLL. Thus, we initiated the randomized phase 2 PreVent-ACall trial of 12 weeks acalabrutinib + venetoclax to reduce risk of infections. Methods Design and statistics A phase 2, randomized, open label, multi-center clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with CLL. Based on the CLL-TIM algorithm, patients with high risk of severe infection and/or treatment within 2 years from diagnosis can be identified. Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed CLL patients will fall into this high-risk group. First patient in trial planned for September 2019, primary outcome expected in 2021. Only patients identified as at high risk, who do not currently fulfil IWCLL treatment criteria are eligible. Patients will be randomized between observation in terms of watch&wait according to IWCLL guidelines or treatment. Primary endpoint Grade ≥3-Infection-free survival in the treatment arm compared to the observation arm after 24 weeks (12 weeks after end of treatment). Study treatment Acalabrutinib 100 mg BID from cycle 1 day 1 for 12 weeks. Venetoclax, ramp up during the first five weeks starting cycle 1 day 1, thereafter 400 mg once daily for a total of 12 weeks counted from cycle 1 day 1. Patients A sample size of 25 patients in each arm, 50 patients in total. Major inclusion criteria CLL according to IWCLL criteria ≤1 year prior to randomizationHigh risk of infection and/or progressive treatment within 2 years according to CLL-TIM algorithmIWCLL treatment indication not fulfilledAdequate bone marrow functionCreatinine clearance above 30 mL/min.ECOG performance status 0-2. Major exclusion criteria Prior CLL treatmentRichter's transformationPrevious autoimmune disease treated with immune suppressionMalignancies other than CLL requiring systemic therapies or considered to impact survivalRequirement of therapy with strong CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibitors/inducers or anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonistsHistory of bleeding disorders, current platelet inhibitors / anticoagulant therapyHistory of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months Trial registry number EUDRACT NUMBER: 2019-000270-29 Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT03868722 Perspectives: As infections is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with CLL prior to any treatment, we aim at changing the natural history of immune dysfunction in CLL. The PreVent-ACaLL trial includes an optional extension into a phase 3 part with the primary outcome of grade ≥3 infection-free, CLL treatment-free survival two years after enrollment to address the unmet need of improved immune function in CLL for the first time. Figure Disclosures Da Cunha-Bang: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Grant; Roche: Other: Travel Grant. Levin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational Grant; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant ; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant . Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kancera AB: Research Funding. Niemann:Novo Nordisk Foundation: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grant; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: acalabrutinib and venetoclax in combination for CLL.

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.

A Phase 1/2 Study of G-CSF, Cladribine, Cytarabine, and Dose-Escalated Mitoxantrone (G-CLAM) in Adults with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1068-1068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna B. Halpern ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Emily M Huebner ◽  
Kaysey F. Orlowski ◽  
Bart L. Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Levels

Abstract Introduction:"7+3" with standard doses of cytarabine and an anthracycline has remained the mainstay of induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Since some studies have shown improved outcomes with high-dose cytarabine, cladribine, or escalated doses of anthracyclines, we conducted a phase 1/2 study (NCT02044796) of G-CLAM using escalated doses of mitoxantrone for newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS (>10% blasts). Methods: Patients≥18 years were eligible if they had treatment-related mortality (TRM) scores of ≤6.9 (corresponding to a predicted risk of early death with standard induction chemotherapy of ≤6.9%) and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥45%, creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL, bilirubin ≤2.5 times upper limit of normal). Excluded were patients with uncontrolled infection or concomitant illness with expected survival <1 year. In phase 1, cohorts of 6-12 patients were assigned to 1 of 4 total dose levels of mitoxantrone (12, 14, 16, or 18 mg/m2/day, days 1-3, compared to 10 mg/m2/day used in standard dose G-CLAM previously established in relapsed/refractory AML). Other drug doses were G-CSF 300 or 480 μg/day (for weight </≥76 kg; days 0-5), cladribine 5 mg/m2/day (days 1-5), and cytarabine 2 g/m2/day (days 1-5). In phase 2, patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of mitoxantrone. A second identical course of G-CLAM was given if complete remission (CR) was not achieved with cycle 1. Up to 4 cycles of consolidation with G-CLA (mitoxantrone omitted) were allowed if CR or CR with incomplete platelet or blood count recovery (CRp/i) was achieved with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were: 1) grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity lasting >48 hours that resulted in >7-day delay of the subsequent treatment cycle; 2) grade ≥4 non-hematologic toxicity if recovery to grade ≤2 within 14 days, both excluding febrile neutropenia, infection or constitutional symptoms. Results: Among 33 patients (median age of 57.3 [range: 26-77], median TRM score 2.31 [0.16-5.90]) treated in phase 1, one DLT occurred at dose levels 3 and 4 (respiratory failure in both cases), establishing G-CLAM with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2/day as the MTD. Sixty-two patients, including 6 treated in phase 1, received G-CLAM at MTD. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age 58 (21-81) years, median TRM score 2.85 (0.06-6.73), with AML (n=52) or high-risk MDS (n=10). Cytogenetics were favorable in 6, intermediate in 44, and adverse in 12 (MRC criteria); 11 patients had NPM1 and 6 had FLT3 mutations. Fifty-two patients (83.9%, 95% confidence interval: 72.3-92.0%) achieved a CR (n=48 [77.4%: 65.0-87.1%]), or CRp/i (n=4 [6.5%: 1.8-15.7%]) with 1-2 cycles of therapy. Only 3 patients required 2 cycles to best response. Among the 48 CR patients, 43 (89.6%) were negative for measurable residual disease (MRDneg) by flow cytometry. Four patients had morphologic leukemia free state, 1 patient with myeloid sarcoma had a partial remission, 4 had resistant disease, and 1 died from indeterminate cause. One patient died within 28 days of treatment initiation (septic shock). Median times to an absolute neutrophil count ≥500/μL and a platelet count of ≥50,000/μL were 26 and 23 days. Besides infections and neutropenic fever, maculopapular rash, and hypoxia (fluid overload/infection-related) were the most common grade ≥3 adverse events. In addition to the phase 1/2 MTD cohort, there were 15 patients treated in an expansion cohort and 3 eligible patients treated off protocol with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m2. For these 80 patients combined treated at MTD, the CR and CR/CRp/i rates were 76.3% and 81.2%. After multivariable adjustment, compared to 300 patients treated with 7+3 on the SWOG S0106 trial, G-CLAM with mitoxantrone 18mg/ m2 was associated with an increased probability of CR (odds ratio [OR]= 3.08, p=.02), CR/CRp/i (OR=2.96, p=.03), a trend towards improved MRDnegCR (OR= 3.70, p=.06), and a trend towards improved overall survival ([OS]; hazard ratio=0.34, p=.07). For the entire study cohort, the 6 and 12-month relapse-free survival were 73% (64-83%) and 62% (42-74%) and the 6 and 12-month OS were 89% (82- 96%) and 77% (67-88%). Conclusions: G-CLAM with mitoxantrone up to 18 mg/m2/day is well tolerated and has potent anti-leukemia activity. This regimen may warrant further randomized comparison with 7+3. We also plan to examine the addition of sorafenib to G-CLAM in newly diagnosed AML patients regardless of FLT3 status. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Becker:GlycoMimetics: Research Funding. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document