Depth of Response to ≥VGPR at Completion of Induction Influences Outcome Post ASCT, on Behalf of the Tunisian Myeloma Study Group

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5827-5827
Author(s):  
Raoudha Mansouri ◽  
Rim El fatmi ◽  
Héla Ghédira ◽  
Faten Kallel ◽  
Nour Ben Abdejelil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Dose ◽  
Post Transplantation ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Depth Of Response ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Induction Failure ◽  
High Dose Melphalan ◽  
200Mg Daily ◽  
Response Post

Abstract Background: High dose Melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard care for Myeloma ≤ 65 years. Studies have demonstrated that depth of response prior to ASCT does not impact outcome post ASCT, e.g. solely depth of response post ASCT matters. However, with improving induction regimens, the questions remains whether patients achieving a deeper response at completion of induction would not perform better post ASCT. ASCT can only be performed in Tunisia if newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) achieves at least PR; we therefore sought to report the national Tunisian experience. Patients and Methods: NDMM aged ≤65 years received three cycles of Thalidomide (200mg daily) and Dexamethasone, followed by HDM and ASCT.52% received maintenance therapy for 12 months with Thalidomide, from 3 months post transplantation. Non responders to TD induction were salvaged with Lenalidomide or Bortezomib-based regimen. The response was assessed based on IMWG response criteria. The study is performed in ITT. Results: 202 consecutive pts were included between April 2012 and December 2014. The median age was 56 yrs (range, 25-65), sex ratio was 1.R-ISS stage was 3 in 27.5%. 21% had high risk cytogenetic (by Conventional karyotyping and FISH). Renal failure was observed in 17%. ORR after induction was 71% with 12% CR, 17% VGPR. 22% failed to obtain PR following TD induction, and 51% of whom received salvage induction therapy (ST) with 72% that further reached ≥PR after ST. Overall, 141 pts (70%) underwent ASCT, 121 of whom had evidence of chemo-sensitive MM at completion of induction. 16% were transplanted in CR, 22% in VGPR and 62% in PR. At 3 months post-ASCT, the ORR in induction chemo-sensitive MM was 89%: 36% CR, 20% VGPR, and 33% PR. With a median follow-up post-ASCT of 27 months, the OS, PFS and EFS at 27 months were 82%, 60.5% and 56%, respectively. Maintenance treatment was significantly associated with longer PFS only in MM who did not achieve CR (29 versus 9 months, p=0.004). MM with improved response post-ASCT had a significantly longer PFS (39 versus 21 months, p=0.003) and EFS (39 versus 20 months, p=0.002). Importantly, achieving CR before (p=0.03) and after ASCT (p<0.0001) was also predictive for prolonged EFS. Early relapses/progressions (less than 18 months) was the sole predictive factor of adverse OS in our study (p=0.01). In multivariate analysis, ISS stage 3 was the sole independent predictor of induction failure (p=0.003). Importantly, predictive factors of achievement of CR post-ASCT comprised absence of delay farther to 4 months from completion of induction (p=0.006; OR = 4.54) and achievement of at least VGPR status before transplant (p=0,001; OR = 4.09). Conclusion: Achievement of at least VGPR at completion of induction improved response after ASCT and consequently influenced the post-ASCT outcome. Therefore, depth of response matters before and after ASCT, and validates in some extent the concept of induction salvage therapy prior to ASCT for patient not reaching response. Disclosures Leleu: TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria.

Bortezomib With High-Dose Melphalan, Arsenic Trioxide, and Ascorbic Acid In a Preparative Regimen For Multiple Myeloma: 5-Year Follow Up

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 5547-5547
Author(s):  
A. Megan Cornelison ◽  
Yvonne Dinh ◽  
Manish Sharma ◽  
Nina Shah ◽  
Qaiser Bashir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Preparative Regimen ◽  
First Remission ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan was associated with a higher complete remission (CR) rate in a phase II trial by the IFM group. Four doses of bortezomib 1 mg/m2 IV were given on days -6, -3, +1 and +4. (Roussel M et al. Blood 2010. 115:32-37).In a randomized phase II trial we reported that the addition of bortezomib to a preparative regimen of arsenic trioxide (ATO), ascorbic acid (AA), and melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) failed to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in CR rate or survival in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed or relapsed multiple myeloma (Sharma M et al. Cancer. 118:2507-15).This study was limited by a short follow up (median 36 months) and inclusion of pts with relapsed and refractory disease. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the long-term (5-years) impact of the addition of bortezomib to this preparative regimen in pts who underwent auto-HCT in first remission or with primary refractory disease. Methods Forty-three pts underwent auto-HCT in first remission or with primary refractory disease. All patients received ATO 0.25 mg/kg intravenously on days -9 to -3, AA 1000 mg intravenously on days -9 to -3, and melphalan 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days -4 and -3. Pts received either no bortezomib (n=13), or bortezomib at a dose of either 1 mg/m2 of 1.5 mg/m2 on days -9, -6, and -3. The primary endpoint was CR rate and secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Pt characteristics are shown in the attached Table. The median follow-up for all surviving pts was 61.4 months (range, 15-80 months). Pts in the bortezomib and non-bortezomib arms were matched for age, gender, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, time to auto-HSCT, use of bortezomib in induction, and disease burden at auto-HSCT (Table). Only 5 (17%) pts in the bortezomib and 4 (30%) in the non-bortezomib group received maintenance therapy. There was no significant difference in the time to neutrophil engraftment or treatment-related mortality TRM between the bortezomib and non-bortezomib groups. The CR rate in the bortezomib group and the non-bortezomib group was 20% and 53%, respectively (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in rates of CR + very good partial remission (VGPR), or CR + VGPR + partial remission (PR) between the bortezomib and non-bortezomib groups (p=0.72 and 1.00, respectively). The median PFS in the bortezomib group and the non-bortezomib group was 25.4, and 40.0 months, respectively (p=0.13, Figure 1). The median OS was 61.6 months in the bortezomib group and not reached in the non-bortezomib group (p=0.22, Figure 2). There was no significant impact of high-risk cytogenetics, lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) or b2 microglobulin levels, or maintenance therapy on PFS or OS. Conclusions After long-term follow up of 5 years, the addition of bortezomib to a preparative regimen of ATO, AA, and high-dose melphalan did not result in a significant improvement in CR rate, PFS, or OS. The lack of benefit with bortezomib may be due to the inclusion of ATO and AA in the regimen, or the schedule of bortezomib, which was only given before melphalan. 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 Other; Millenium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees Other.

scholarly journals Extending Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation As First Line Treatment in Multiple Myeloma Patients with Severe Renal Impairment: A Retrospective Study of the Francophone Society of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (SFGM-TC)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4637-4637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karine Augeul-Meunier ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
Anne-Marie Stoppa ◽  
Lionel Karlin ◽  
Lofti Benboubker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Introduction Renal impairment occurs in 20-30% of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, requiring dialysis for up to 10% of patients.Recent results ofan IFM (Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome) study confirm the effectiveness of high dose melphalan followed by Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) as first line therapy in multiple myeloma patients. Most centers exclude renal failure patients due to concerns of toxity, because data are limited for safety and toxicity to consider. This current retrospective study observes toxicity and outcome in 55 multiple myeloma patients with severe renal impairment, undergoing high dose melphalan and ASCT, in the age of bortezomib. Methods Using the PROMISE database, 55 multiple myeloma patients French SFGM-TC centers were included from January 2002 to November 2012. Characteristics of the patients presenting with creatinine clearance less than 30ml/min at time of ASCT were included. Results Median age was 61 (40-75) years old. Thirty-nine (71%) presented free light chain myeloma. Twenty-three (42%) patients were on dialysis at the time of ASCT and during hospitalization. Thirty-one (56%) patients received bortezomib as induction therapy. Melphalan dose ranged from 75mg/m² to 200mg/m². Thirty (55%) patients were treated with a dose of 140mg/m². Median delay between diagnosis and ASCT was 5.3 months. Among 50 patients evaluated for toxicity, respectively febrile neutropenia and mucositis occurred in 92% and 90% of patients. Half of the mucositiscases were grade 3-4. The median number of days before neutrophil and platelet recovery was respectively 12 days (10 - 34) and 16 days (7 - 331). Two patients experienced cardiac toxicity (grade 1-2), and 4 patients neurologic toxicity (grade 3 for one patient). Among 51 patients evaluated for response, 12 patients (24%) were at least in Very Good Partial Response (VGPR) before ASCT, including 5 in Complete Response (CR). All of them were treated with bortezomib as induction therapy. After ASCT, 30 patients (58.8%) reached at least VGPR (22 CR and 8 VGPR). Among 30 patients in VGPR or more post ASCT, 22 (73%) were treated with bortezomib before ASCT. Table 1 shows the responses. Fourteen (26%) received two ASCT. One patient died from toxicity (cerebral bleeding during second ASCT). There is no argument for dramatic response improvement with this procedure in comparison to single ASCT. After a median follow-up of 55 months, median progression free survival (PFS) was 55 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 95 months. In multivariate analysis, dose of melphalan at 140mg/m² was significantly correlated with a better PFS (p=0.006), compared to 100mg/m² (or less) and to 200mg/m². During follow-up 29 patients (54%) relapsed and 25 died. The main causes of death were relapse and disease progression (72%). There were only 3 cases of treatment related mortality (TRM). At day 100, the cumulative incidence of TRM was 6%. Among 23 dialysis patients, 6 patients (26%) became dialysis independent, but not during ASCT. Thirteen (56%) were still alive at last follow-up, and 8 (34%) experienced relapse. Median PFS for this subgroup of patients was 73 months. Conclusion With an acceptable TRM, without major toxicities, high dose melphalan (140mg/m²) following by ASCT appears to be a real benefit for multiple myeloma patients with severe renal failure. This includes patients on dialysis. Response is dramatically improved by this procedure, with median PFS similar to that of patients with normal renal function. Finally, adjunction of bortezomib as induction therapy also improves the efficacy of ASCT. Disclosures Augeul-Meunier: gilead: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy. Karlin:amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen-cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:sanofi: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Consolidation Followed By Maintenance Therapy Versus Maintenance Alone in Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Randomized Phase 3 Study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 242-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
Meral Beksac ◽  
Bronno van der Holt ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Angelo Michele Carella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Background The role of up-front consolidation for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible MM (NDMM) patients (pts) has not yet been prospectively addressed in the novel agents era. Methods The EMN02/HO95 trial was designed to randomly (R) compare (R1) 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), either single or double, as intensification therapy after induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) (M Cavo et al, ASCO 2016, abstract #8000). A second randomization to consolidation therapy with 2 cycles of VRD vs no consolidation (R2) was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance (lenalidomide 10 mg continuously) until progression or toxicity in both arms. (VRD: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1 - 21; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 28 days cycle). Primary study end points were progression-free survival (PFS) from R1 and PFS from R2. A first planned interim analysis for R2 was performed in July 2016 when at least 33% (= 172) of the required events for PFS had been observed. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 pts aged ≤ 65 years with symptomatic MM were enrolled, of whom 1499 were eligible. Of these, 1211 were randomized (stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (505 pts) or HDM (1 or 2 ASCT) (706 pts). For R2 903 eligible patients were randomized to consolidation (459 pts) or no consolidation (444 pts). Median follow up from R2 was 25 months (maximum 53). Response status at time of R2 was ≥ CR (23%), ≥ VGPR (67%), ≥ PR (93%), and will be updated for status at start of maintenance. At the time of analysis, 258 events for PFS after R2 had been reported. 3-year. PFS from R2 was 62% in all patients, i.e., 60% without consolidation and 65% in patients with consolidation, and median PFS had not yet been reached. PFS from R2 with adjustment for R1 was prolonged in pts randomized to VRD (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.61-1.00; P=0.045), a benefit retained across predefined subgroups with revised ISS stage III (HR=0.67; P=0.26) and in patients randomized in R1 to VMP (HR=0.76; P=0.19) and to HDM (HR=0.79; P=0.13). The benefit of consolidation was observed in patients with low-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.68; P=0.03), but not in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); HR=1.03; P=0.91). At 3 years OS from R2 was 86% and 87%, respectively. Toxicity from VRD was limited with 5% CTCAE grade 4, mainly hematological. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by Lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity shows promising results as compared to maintenance alone for younger NDMM pts, but further study follow-up is needed. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR 2528, EudraCT 2009-017903-28 This trial was supported by unrestricted grants from Celgene and Janssen. Disclosures Sonneveld: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos: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; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Carella:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Driessen:janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma-EDO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, 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. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schjesvold:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment, Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

scholarly journals High-Dose Melphalan Significantly Increases Mutational Burden in Multiple Myeloma Cells at Relapse: Results from a Randomized Study in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Mehmet K. Samur ◽  
Marco Roncador ◽  
Anil Aktas-Samur ◽  
Mariateresa Fulciniti ◽  
Abdul Hamid Bazarbachi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
High Dose Melphalan ◽  
New Mutations

We recently shown that high-dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) as first line therapy in young (&lt;66 yrs) multiple myeloma (MM) patients significantly improves progression-free survival (IFM/DFCI 2009 study). However, the impact of alkylating agent melphalan inducing N-alkylpurine-monoadducts forming interstrand crosslinks (ICLs) in surviving myeloma cells remains an important biological question. We here profiled samples from the IFM/DFCI 2009 study, where patients were randomized to RVD+HDM vs RVD alone, to identify genomic changes induced by HDM and observed at relapse. We analyzed paired purified MM cells collected at diagnosis and at relapse from 68 patients using deep (75X) whole genome sequencing. Forty-five patients were treated with RVD only, while 23 patients received RVD followed by HDM. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in regard to disease characteristics including sex, age, cytogenetic risk, and best response. Median follow-up was similar (29 vs 31 months, respectively), removing longer follow up as a confounding variable. The number of mutations at diagnosis was similar on both arms (7137 [IQR=3742] vs. 7230 [IQR=3702], p value = 0.67). Although mutational load increased in both arms; there was a significantly higher increase in number of mutations and indels in the HDM arm compared to RVD alone (mutations 5686 vs 1745, p=1.4e-5; and indels 467 vs 360, p= 0.02, respectively). Using a model incorporating number of new mutations, depth, and purity, we found that HDM causes a 4.1 fold higher mutation accumulation rate per month than RVD only (158.3 vs 38.3 mutations/ month; p=0.003). Importantly, newly acquired mutations were localized to regions which overlap with transcribed regions, and accumulated at significantly higher rate in the HDM group (p=0.009). In contrast, we did not observe any significant changes in copy number alterations (CNAs) and structural variants, including translocations, between both arms. A significant change in frequency of driver mutations including RAS/RAF, FAM46C, TP53, and DIS3 was not observed at the time of relapse. Clonality level was increased only for KRAS (p=0.054), while all other specific driver genes had similar clonality level at diagnosis and relapse. Interestingly, a significant increase in mutations involving MYO16 and SLC7A8 genes was observed at relapse in both arms, implicating components of the induction regimen (RVD). Investigating the mutational signature utilization in only newly acquired mutations identified 4 signatures: APOBEC, HR Double Strand Repair, clock-like signature, and unknown. k-means clustering analysis of samples based on signature utilization showed four distinct clusters. All patients clustering with high DNA repair signature utilization were in the HDM arm (65% HDM patients), the majority of whom achieved CR or sCR (74%); these patients acquired 8308 (range 3302-19107) new mutations between diagnosis and relapse. None of the RVD only treated patients were in this cluster. The remaining 35% HDM group patients were clustered with RVD samples and showed unknown signature utilization. Furthermore, motif enrichment analysis identified CYWR and ATGAGATV (p &lt; 1e-130) as enriched motifs around the new mutations in HDM compared to RVD cohort. Importantly and as expected, DNA damage repair pathway genes were frequently targeted in the HDM group: 72% HDM samples accumulated DDR gene mutations vs. only 17% in the RVD alone arm (p &lt; 0.001). At the time of relapse, 100% HDM arm patients had at least one DDR gene mutation and 80% had two or more, while only 37% RVD only group had one or more such mutation. Finally, we have reconstructed phylogenetic and evolutionary trajectories based on mutation and copy-number data from samples at diagnosis and relapse. The clonal composition in both arms was similar at diagnosis; however, HDM caused a significant shift to more subclonal mutations at relapse. chromothripsis and chromoplexy events were detected in 30% patients at diagnosis, which remained constant at relapse regardless of treatment. In summary, we describe significant accumulation of mutations following high dose melphalan. This fundamental molecular change in the disease at relapse, suggests the need for reappraisal of the optimal use and sequencing of high dose melphalan in the era of novel agents. Disclosures Fulciniti: NIH: Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Thakurta:Oxford University: Other: visiting professor; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Perrot:Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anderson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Parmigiani:Phaeno Biotehnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; CRA Health: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Foundation Medicine Institute: Consultancy; Delphi Diagnostics: Consultancy; BayesMendel Laboratory: Other: Co-lead. Munshi:Amgen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; C4: Current equity holder in private company; OncoPep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; BMS: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Comparison of Patient Outcomes with Two Different Formulations of Melphalan As Conditioning Chemotherapy for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Filiz Yucebay ◽  
Ashleigh Keiter ◽  
Qiuhong Zhao ◽  
Alison Neal ◽  
Nita Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Propylene Glycol ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Transfusion Requirement ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Introduction: High-dose melphalan is the standard conditioning chemotherapy for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, patients experience several side effects and toxicities from high-dose melphalan. In 2016, United States Food and Drug Administration approved Evomela, a propylene glycol-free formulation of melphalan, as conditioning chemotherapy for ASCT in MM. This was based on its bioequivalence to the standard propylene-glycol solubilized melphalan formulation (Alkeran) in a phase 2 study. Evomela has the advantages of improved solubility, stability, bioavailability and being free of propylene glycol that is associated with organ dysfunction. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who received ASCT with high dose chemotherapy using alkeran (n=255) or evomela (n=259) at our institution to compare their outcomes such as side effects, duration of cytopenias, transfusion requirements, length of hospital stay, readmission within 30 days and progression-free survival (PFS) post-SCT. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between two treatment regimens using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for the continuous variables. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of transplant to death, censoring the alive patients at their last follow up date. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of transplant to date of relapse or death, whichever occurred first, censoring at the last follow-up if no relapse or death. OS and PFS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: The baseline patient characteristics such as age, ISS stage, comorbidity index and number of prior lines of therapy prior to ASCT were similar between the two groups. (See table 1). Mucositis was seen in 77.2% of the patients who received Alkeran compared to 69.5% who received Evomela (p=&lt;0.001). Incidence of febrile neutropenia was 65.9% in the Alkeran group and 49.4% in the Evomela group (p=0.0002). Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were reported in 98.8% and 93.4% of the patients in the Alkeran and Evomela groups respectively (p=0.001). Rates of diarrhea and clostridium difficile infection were similar with the two drugs. Time to neutrophil engraftment was the same in both the groups while duration of thrombocytopenia (platelets &lt;20k) was slightly longer in the Evomela group (6 days in alkeran and 8 days in evomela group, p=&lt;0.001). Red cell transfusion requirement was higher with the use of Alkeran compared to Evomela (42.3% vs 21.8%, p=0.001) while platelet transfusion was the same. There was no difference in the duration of hospital stay between the two groups. However, rate of readmission within 30 days of discharge was higher in patients who got Evomela compared to Alkeran (9.4% versus 17.4%, p=0.008). Day +100 serological response (very good partial response or better), PFS post-SCT and OS were similar in both groups. (Figure 1). Conclusion: We conclude that use of Evomela is associated with a better side-effect profile and transfusion requirement while having similar outcomes as Alkeran. Disclosures Yucebay: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioXCell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chaudhry:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Efebera:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Current Employment. Bumma:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Khan:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Devarakonda:Janssen: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Long-Term Follow up of a Comparison of Non-Myeloablative Allografting with Autografting for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 525-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedetto Bruno ◽  
Barry Storer ◽  
Francesca Patriarca ◽  
Marcello Rotta ◽  
Roberto Sorasio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
High Dose Melphalan

Abstract Abstract 525 Background: Role and timing of allografting in myeloma are hotly debated. Before the introduction of new drugs, we carried out a trial where the treatment assignment was based only on the presence/absence of an HLA-identical sibling (Bruno et al, N Engl J Med 2007). Methods: Overall, 162/199 (81%) of patients with at least one sibling were HLA-typed. First-line treatments included induction with VAD-based regimens and a cytoreductive autograft, followed by a nonmyeloablative allograft (Tandem auto-allo) or a second melphalan-based autograft (Double-auto). We now report an update at a median follow up of 7.1 years. Results: Response rates [complete (CR) and partial remissions (PR)] at the time and after the non-myeloablative allograft and at the time and after the second autograft did not differ between the two cohorts: 76% and 86%, and 76% and 91% respectively (p=1 and p=0,54). However, CR rate was significantly higher after the non-myeloablative allograft than after the second autograft: 55% versus 26% (p=0,0026). At a median follow up of 7.1 years (range 2.5 – 10.7+), by intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) were significantly longer in patients with HLA-identical siblings (No.80) as compared with those without (No.82): not reached vs. 4.25 years (HR 0.51, CI 95% 0.34–0.76, p=0.001) and 2.8 vs. 2.4 years (HR 0.62, CI 95% 0.44–0.87, p=0.005). By multivariate analysis, independent of age, gender, myeloma protein isotype, Durie&Salmon stage, and disease status at the first autograft; the presence of an HLA-identical sibling was significantly associated with longer OS (HR 0.5, CI 95% 0.3–0.8, p=0.001) and EFS (HR 0.63, CI 95% 0.4–0.9, p=0.01). At a median follow up of 7.3 (range 5.4 – 10.7+ years), median OS was not reached in the 58 patients who received a non-myeloablative allograft and 5.3 years in the 46 who received a second high-dose melphalan autograft (HR 0.55, CI 95% 0.32–0.94, p=0.02), whereas EFS was 39 months and 33 months (HR 0.62, CI 95% 0.40–0.96, p=0.02) respectively. Cumulative incidence of transplant related mortality was 11% and 2% at 2 years respectively. At median follow-ups of 7.3 years from diagnosis (range 5.4 – 10.4+) and 6.5 years from the allograft (range 4.2 – 9.4+), and 7.4 years from diagnosis (range 5.6 – 10.7+) and 6.2 years from the second autograft (range 4.7 – 9.1+), 30/58 (52%) and 37/46 (80%) patients, respectively, were treated for disease relapse/progression. Salvage therapies included bortezomib- or thalidomide-containing regimens in most patients of both cohorts. After 1–3 lines of therapy, 22/30 (73%) had a response, including 5 CR and 17 PR, in the tandem auto-allo group, whereas 21/37 (54%) had a response, including 4 CR and 16 PR after the second autograft. Of note, at a median follow up of 3.9 years from the start of the first salvage therapy, OS was not reached and was 1.7 years in patients who had relapsed/progressed after the allograft and the second high-dose melphalan (HR 0.44, CI 95% 0.24–0.82, p=0.01) respectively. Conclusions: In this study, allografting conferred a long term survival advantage over standard autografting. Salvage therapy was associated with longer OS perhaps due to a synergistic effect between new drugs and residual graft-vs.-myeloma effects. In prospective clinical trials, the combination of graft-vs.-myeloma effects with “new drugs” should be explored and may increase the cure rate of myeloma patients. Disclosures: Bringhen: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. 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. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: 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 Daratumumab (DARA) Maintenance Therapy Improves Depth of Response and Results in Durable Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Following Dara Plus Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (CyBorD) Induction Therapy in Multiple Myeloma (MM): Update of the Lyra Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 863-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Rifkin ◽  
Jason M. Melear ◽  
Edward Faber ◽  
William I. Bensinger ◽  
John M Burke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Depth Of Response ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Background: DARA, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) and bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed MM (RMM), respectively. CyBorD is a commonly used immunomodulatory drug-sparing regimen for MM. In the LYRA (NCT02951819) study, DARA plus CyBorD (DARA-CyBorD) demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile at the end of induction. Here, we present updated findings examining the effect of monthly DARA maintenance on the efficacy and safety of DARA-CyBorD in NDMM and RMM. Methods: LYRA is an ongoing, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study conducted at US community oncology centers. Patients (pts) were aged ≥18 years with documented MM per IMWG criteria, an ECOG performance score (PS) of 0-2, and ≤1 prior line of therapy. Pts received 4-8 induction cycles of DARA-CyBorD (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 PO on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22; bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 40 mg PO or IV weekly [qw]) every 28 days. DARA was given at 8 mg/kg IV on Days 1 and 2 of C1, 16 mg/kg qw from C1D8 through C2, 16 mg/kg q2w for C3-6, and 16 mg/kg q4w for C7-8. After induction, eligible pts could undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). All pts received up to 12 maintenance cycles with DARA 16 mg/kg IV q4w. Results: A total of 101 (87 NDMM, 14 RMM) pts were enrolled; 100 (86 NDMM, 14 RMM) pts received ≥1 treatment dose. Median age was 63 years; most pts were white (81%), male (64%), had ECOG PS 0-1 (94%) and had IgG (57%) MM; 36% of pts had high cytogenetic risk, defined as a del(17p), t(4:14) or t(14;16) abnormality. NDMM and RMM pts received a median of 6 and 8 cycles, respectively, of induction therapy. Thirty-nine NDMM pts and 1 RMM pt underwent ASCT. Fifty percent of pts received plerixafor; median stem cell yield for NDMM pts was 6.2 x 106 (range 2-15 x 106) CD34+ cells/kg. A total of 85 (75 NDMM, 10 RMM) pts received ≥1 dose of maintenance treatment; 63 (56 NDMM, 7 RMM) pts have received all 12 maintenance cycles. In NDMM pts, ORR was 87%, with 64% ≥VGPR and 12% ≥CR, by the end of induction. By the end of maintenance, ORR, ≥VGPR and ≥CR rates were 97%, 82% and 51% in NDMM pts who underwent ASCT and 83%, 70% and 30% in NDMM pts who did not receive ASCT. In RMM pts, ORR, ≥VGPR and ≥CR rates were 79%, 71% and 29% by the end of induction and 86%, 71% and 64% by the end of maintenance. At a median follow up of 24.8 mo in NDMM pts and 26.6 mo in RMM pts, median duration of response was not reached (NR). Median PFS (Figure) was NR in NDMM pts, regardless of transplant status, and was 21.7 mo in RMM pts; median OS was NR in NDMM pts and was 30.1 mo in RMM pts. In NDMM pts the 24-mo PFS rate was 89% in pts who underwent ASCT and 72% in pts who did not receive ASCT. The 24-mo OS rate was 90% for NDMM pts. In RMM pts, the 24-mo PFS and OS rates were 48% and 64%, respectively. All treated pts had ≥1 TEAE. Common TEAEs (≥25%) included fatigue, nausea, cough, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, vomiting, insomnia, dyspnea, constipation, and headache. Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 62% of pts; the most common (≥10%) was neutropenia (14%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 33% of pts; the most common (&gt;2%) were pneumonia, atrial fibrillation and pulmonary embolism. TEAEs led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 7% of pts, with 2% related to treatment. TEAEs resulted in death in 2 pts (nephrotic syndrome, sudden death); both unrelated to treatment. Infusion reactions (IRs) occurred in 56% of pts including grades 1-2 in 52% of pts, grade 3 in 3% of pts and grade 4 in 1% of pts. Most common (&gt;5%) IRs were chills, cough, dyspnea, nausea, pruritus, flushing and nasal congestion. Conclusion: Maintenance with DARA monotherapy for 12 mo increased the &gt;CR rate in NDMM and RMM pts, consistent with observations in prior studies that longer DARA treatment improves depth of response. Importantly, the increase in ≥CR rate was associated with durable PFS and OS. The 24-mo PFS rates in NDMM and RMM pts compare favorably with results for DARA-VMP and DARA-Vd in NDMM and RRMM, respectively. Safety profile was consistent with previous reports of DARA, with no new safety concerns observed with longer follow-up. These data indicate that DARA-CyBorD is a safe, effective MM treatment and that DARA maintenance increases depth of response and achieves durable remissions. Disclosures Rifkin: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Melear:Texas Oncology: Employment; DARA: Speakers Bureau. Faber:Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bensinger:Amgen, Celgene: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Karyopharm: Other: Grant. Burke:Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Stevens:Astellas: Consultancy. Gunawardena:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lutska:Janssen: Employment. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Ukropec:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Lin:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yimer:Amgen: Consultancy; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document