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

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

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

A Phase III Study Of ASCT Vs Cyclophosphamide-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone and Lenalidomide-Prednisone Maintenance Vs Lenalidomide Alone In Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 763-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Francesca Gay ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Adam Zdenek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents challenged the role of ASCT at diagnosis. We conducted a multicenter 2X2 randomized trial comparing conventional chemotherapy plus lenalidomide with ASCT followed by maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) or lenalidomide (R) alone in newly diagnosed young MM (NDMM) patients. Methods Eligible patients with NDMM ≤ 65 years were enrolled. All patients received Rd induction (four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg day 1,8,15,22) followed by stem cell mobilization. Patients were randomized to receive consolidation with CRD [six 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 day 1,8,15), dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) and lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21)] or MEL200-ASCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Patients were randomly assigned to receive subsequent maintenance with RP (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 plus prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone (28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21). Primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety, responses and overall survival (OS). Data cut off was May 30th, 2013. Results Three-hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the trial. Patient characteristics were well balanced between CRD (n=194) and MEL200-ASCT (n=195), and between R (n=195) and RP (n=194) arms. Median follow-up was 31 months. In the intent to treat (ITT) analysis, the median PFS was not reached with MEL200-ASCT and 28 months with CRD (the respective 3-year PFS was 60% vs. 38%, HR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.49-0.85, P=0.003). Median time from enrolment to maintenance was 14 months. In the population of patients eligible for maintenance, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 73% for RP and 56% for R patients (HR= 0.57, 95%CI: 0.34-0.93; P=0.03). In the subgroup of patients who received MEL200-ASCT, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 83% for patients who received RP and 64% for those who received R alone (HR=0.36 95%CI: 0.15-0.87, P=0.02). In the subgroup of patients who received CRD, 2-year PFS from the start of maintenance was 64% for patients who received RP and 47% for those who received R alone (HR=0.75, 95%CI: 0.40-1.39, P=0.36). At present, no differences in OS were noticed between patients randomised to received CRD or MEL200-ASCT, and between patients who received RP or R maintenance. As expected, the rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (85% vs. 26%, P<0.001) and non-hematologic (35% vs. 19%, P=0.003) adverse events (AEs) were higher in the MEL200-ASCT arm compared with the CRD arm. The main non-hematologic AEs were infections (18% vs. 5%, P=0.001) and gastrointestinal AEs (18% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Rates of grade 3-4 hematologic (8% vs. 7%, P=0.85) and non-hematologic (12% vs. 13%, P=0.88). AEs were similar in the RP and R arms. The main non-hematologic AEs in both RP and R groups were infections (3% vs. 3%). At present, 6 second primary malignancies and 3 cases of cutaneous basalioma have been reported. Conclusions MEL200-ASCT significantly prolonged PFS in comparison with CRD. At present no difference in OS was reported, this may be due to the low number of events and to the length of follow-up. The increase in toxicity with MEL200-ASCT did not adversely impact on efficacy. The addition of prednisone to lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression in comparison with lenalidomide alone, without increasing the toxicity. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larocca:Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

A Phase III Study of Enoxaparin Vs Aspirin as Thromboprophylaxis for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Treated with Lenalidomide-Based Regimen.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1092-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Izhar Harda ◽  
Barbara Lupo ◽  
Alessandra Romano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 1092 Background: Newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide-based regimens have a high risk of thromboembolic events. Preliminary studies on MM patients receiving a combination of lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone have shown an increased incidence of thrombosis as well, with a calculated odds ratio of about 3.5 of developing thrombosis. Aims: In a prospective, multicenter phase III trial (RV-MM-PI-209) newly diagnosed patients were treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) induction and subsequently randomized to receive consolidation with lenalidomide + melphalan + prednisone (MPR) or high dose melphalan (MEL200). In this sub-study we evaluated the safety and the efficacy of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin (ASA) as anticoagulant prophylaxis during Rd induction and MPR consolidation. End-points were incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute cardiovascular events, sudden death, major and minor bleeding. Methods: 402 newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled in the randomized trial RV-MM-PI-209. Treatment schedule included four 28 day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to receive six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg days 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg days 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg days 1–21) (MPR, N=202) or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support (MEL200, N=200). All eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive LMWH (Enoxaparin 40 mg/d, N=166) or ASA (Aspirin 100 mg/d, N=176) for the duration of the induction therapy and for consolidation therapy in the MPR group; 60 patients were excluded from this sub-study because of indication for anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy or high-risk of bleeding. Results: Patient characteristics and distribution of major risk factors were similar in the two groups. At the time of the present analysis 381 and 130 patients are evaluable during Rd induction and consolidation respectively. During the induction phase, the overall incidence of any grade 3–4 thrombotic events was 1% in the LMWH group, 2,4% in the ASA group (p=.45). VTE, mostly of the lower limbs were equally distributed in the two groups (1%; p not significant), while pulmonary embolism was observed only in the ASA group (2%; p not significant). Median time to onset of thrombotic events for patients who received LMWH or ASA were 2.1 and 1 months, respectively. No acute cardiovascular events were observed and only minor bleeding was detected in the LMWH group (1%). During consolidation no thrombotic events were observed in the MPR group, only one central venous catheter thrombosis was observed in the MEL200 group. Conclusion: The overall incidence of thrombotic events was less than 5% in all groups and confirmed the safety of low dose dexamethasone in association with Lenalidomide. No significant benefit was seen with LMWH over ASA in this patient population. LMWH and ASA are likely to be effective thromboprophylactic regimens in lenalidomide treated patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The analysis will be updated for the meeting. Disclosures: Cavallo: CELGENE: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria. 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. 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.

Efficacy and Safety of Three Bortezomib-Based Combinations in Elderly, Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Results From All Randomized Patients in the Community-Based, Phase 3b UPFRONT Study

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 478-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Niesvizky ◽  
Ian W. Flinn ◽  
Robert Rifkin ◽  
Nashat Gabrail ◽  
Veena Charu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 478 Background: The US community-based, phase 3b randomized, open-label, multicenter UPFRONT trial compares the efficacy and safety of three bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc)-based regimens, VcD (Vc-dexamethasone), VcTD (Vc-thalidomide-dexamethasone), and VcMP (Vc-melphalan-prednisone), followed by weekly Vc maintenance, in elderly, newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This is the first phase 3 study of VcD and VcTD in this patient population. Methods: Patients with symptomatic, measurable MM were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 49 weeks of therapy: 24 weeks (eight 21-day cycles) of induction with VcD, VcTD, or VcMP (VcD: Vc 1.3 mg/m2, days 1, 4, 8, 11; D 20 mg, days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 [cycles 1–4]), days 1, 2, 4, 5 [cycles 5–8]); VcTD: Vc as before; T 100 mg/day, days 1–21; D as before); VcMP: Vc as before; M 9 mg/m2 and P 60 mg/m2, days 1–4, every other cycle), followed by 25 weeks (five 35-day cycles) of maintenance with weekly Vc 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, 22. Patients in the VcTD arm received concomitant prophylaxis with aspirin, full-dose warfarin, or low-molecular weight heparin unless medically contraindicated. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR)/near CR (nCR) and very good partial response (VGPR) rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Best confirmed responses were assessed by investigators per modified International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v3.0. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan–Meier methodology. For the first time, we report results from the entire cohort of 502 randomized patients (VcD, n=168; VcTD, n=167; VcMP, n=167), who completed up to a maximum of 13 cycles of treatment. Results: Patients in the VcD, VcTD, and VcMP arms had a median age of 74.5, 73.0, and 72.0 years, respectively, and 71%, 62%, and 72% had ISS stage II/III disease. Patients received a median of 8 (VcD), 6 (VcTD), and 7 (VcMP) treatment cycles; 50%, 38%, and 42% of patients, respectively, received Vc maintenance. Response and safety data are summarized in the table. All three Vc-based induction regimens exhibited substantial activity, with ORR of 73% (VcD), 80% (VcTD), and 69% (VcMP) during the treatment period. After a median follow-up of 21.8 months, no significant difference in PFS was observed between the treatment arms; median PFS was 13.8 months (VcD), 14.7 months (VcTD), and 17.3 months (VcMP), respectively (Figure). 1-year OS estimates were 87.4% (VcD), 86.1% (VcTD), and 88.9% (VcMP). Rates of grade ≥3 AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs during the treatment period were highest for the VcTD arm. The most common grade ≥3 AEs across all three arms during the treatment period were neuropathy peripheral (23%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (9%). Grade ≥3 pneumonia was reported in 10% (VcD), 6% (VcTD), and 6% (VcMP) of patients. AEs of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were reported in 8% (VcD), 7% (VcTD), and 2% (VcMP) of patients. Compared with rates during induction, Vc maintenance produced little additional toxicity; across all three treatment arms, only 5% of patients experienced grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy during cycles 9–13. One second primary malignancy (lung neoplasm) was reported in the VcMP arm. Conclusions: VcD, VcTD, and VcMP induction followed by weekly Vc maintenance produced similar activity in elderly, newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM patients. Patients in the VcD doublet arm appear to have similar long-term outcomes to patients in the VcTD and VcMP triplet arms. Disclosures: Niesvizky: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rifkin:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Charu:GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership. Neuwirth:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Corzo:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment.

A Randomized Phase 3 Trial Of Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Or Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) Vs Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethsone (Rd) In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 536-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Giuseppe Pietrantuono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Rd and MPR are effective treatments in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). In this study we compared a non-alkylating containing regimen (Rd) vs alkylating-based regimens (MPR/CPR) in elderly transplant ineligible NDMM pts. Methods Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nine 28-day cycles of MPR/CPR or Rd. MPR: lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days; CPR: cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day (eod) in >75 years pts; lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; prednisone 25 mg every other day. Rd: lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years. After induction, patients were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (25 mg eod on days 1-28), until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between October 2009 and October 2012, 659 pts were enrolled ( MPR/CPR:439 and Rd:220), and 641 pts were evaluable (MPR/CPR:430 and Rd:211). Patient characteristics were well balanced in the 2 groups: median age was 73 years in both groups, 38% of pts were older than 75 years, 27% had ISS stage III in both groups, 21% of patients both in the MPR/CPR and in the Rd groups had unfavorable FISH profile [t(4;14) or t (14;16) or del17p]. After induction, the response rates were similar in the 2 groups: at least PR rate was 75% versus 79% (p=0.52) and CR rate was 9% versus 7% (p=0.35), in the MPR/CPR and Rd group, respectively. No significant difference in response rate were reported between two alkylating containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 2-year PFS was 55% in MPR/CPR and 49% in Rd (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.66-1.12, p=0.26), and 2-year OS was 84% in MPR/CPR and 80% in Rd (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.41, p=0.71) At least one grade ≥3 hematological adverse event was reported in 51% with MPR/CPR and 29% with Rd (p<0.001), with a significant difference between the two alkylating agents (67% MPR and 31% CPR, p<0.001). At least one grade ≥3 extra-hematologic toxicities were similar in the two groups (31% with MPR/CPR and 28% with Rd, p=0.77). with no difference between two alkylating agents (31% both in MPR and CPR group). Second primary malignancies (SPM) were reported in 5 MPR patients (1 hematologic and 4 solid) in 1 CPR patient (hematologic) and in 2 Rd patients (both solid). Conclusion In a community-based population, triplet alkylating combinations did not lead to different PFS or OS clinical benefits over doublet therapy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria. Giuliani:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Zella 201: A Biomarker-Guided Phase II Study of Alvocidib Followed By Cytarabine and Mitoxantrone in MCL-1 Dependent Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 30-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua F Zeidner ◽  
Tara L Lin ◽  
Carlos E Vigil ◽  
Andrew Dalovisio ◽  
Eunice S. Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Frontline Therapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stage 1

Abstract Background Multiple studies have shown the clinical activity of alvocidib followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. Alvocidib's anti-leukemic pharmacologic activity appears to be predominantly due to the inhibition of transcriptional regulator, CDK9, resulting in suppression of CDK9-regulated genes, such as the BCL-2 family member, MCL-1. Pre-treatment bone marrow samples from newly diagnosed AML patients revealed an increased sensitivity to alvocidib in those with MCL-1 dependence of ≥40% as measured by a BH3 profiling biomarker assay (J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 suppl; 7062). Thus, we hypothesized that alvocidib, followed by cytarabine and mitoxantrone, may be preferentially active in those with MCL-1 dependence (≥ 40%). Here, the findings from stage 1 of the Zella 201 trial in which this biomarker assay is used to select for patients with MCL-1 dependence, are reported. Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alvocidib, in combination with cytarabine and mitoxantrone, in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML patients. Methods The key eligibility criteria were: ages 18-65 years; refractory to 1-2 cycles of induction therapy, or in first relapse AML with complete remission (CR) duration ≤ 2 years; ≥ 40% myeloblast MCL-1 dependency determined by BH3 profiling; ECOG PS 0-2; and no major organ dysfunction. Patients who received prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) were eligible, if it was greater than two months after SCT and there was no active GVHD. Treatment consisted of alvocidib 30 mg/m2 as a 30-minute IV bolus followed by 60 mg/m2 over 4 hours on Days 1-3, cytarabine 667 mg/m2/day by continuous IV infusion days 6-8, and mitoxantrone 40 mg/m2 IV on day 9 starting 12 hours after completing cytarabine. Up to 3 additional cycles of the same regimen (with or without mitoxantrone) were permittedin responders. The primary endpoint was the rate of CR+CR with incomplete recovery (CRi). Stage I was determined to be positive if ≥13 CRs were seenin the first 23 evaluable patients. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, event-freesurvival, the combinedresponse rate and safety assessed by adverse events and laboratory results. Results A total of 163 patients were screened, of which 47 (29%) were determined to be MCL-1 dependent. Of these, 25 patients were enrolledin Stage 1 (Table 1), with 21 evaluable for response. Median MCL-1 dependence score was 55% (range: 41-98%). Of the 21 evaluable patients, 11 (52%) were refractory to frontline therapy (resistant disease or CR < 90d). The overall CR/CRi rate in evaluable patients was 62% (13/21) meeting the primary endpoint of stage 1. Seven out of 11 (64%) patients with primary refractory disease achieved a CR and five of these patients proceeded to an alloSCT. Overall, 10 patients received a post-study alloSCT. The most common NCI CTCAE ≥Grade 3treatment-emergent nonhematologic AEs noted in >1 patient in the safety population (n=25) were tumor lysis syndrome (20% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4); diarrhea (24% Grade 3); increased AST (12% Grade 3, 8% Grade 4), sepsis (16% Grade 5, 4% Grade 4); and peripheral edema, (8% Grade 3). To date, overall 30- and 60-day mortality rates were 16% and 20%, respectively, due to sepsis (n=4), and mitral valve rupture (n=1). Conclusion Our findings indicate that alvocidib given beforecytarabine and mitoxantrone in MCL-1-dependent AML has clinical activity, particularly in those refractory to frontline therapy. Given these findings, stage 2 of the Zella 201 trial has been initiated,randomizing patients to alvocidib, cytarabine, and mitoxantrone versus cytarabine and mitoxantrone alone in MCL-1 dependent R/R AML. Furthermore, a Phase Ib study of alvocidib followed by 7+3 induction in newly diagnosed AML (Zella 101) is being conducted. Disclosures Zeidner: Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Fees; Takeda: Other: Travel fees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Asystbio Laboratories: Consultancy; Tolero: Honoraria, Other: Travel Fees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Lin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Montesinos:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Anthony:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment. Bearss:Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment.

Once a Week Bortezomib with Dexamethasone Is Effective with Limited Toxicity in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Older Age and Co-Morbidities,

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3964-3964
Author(s):  
Nikhil C. Munshi ◽  
Saem Lee ◽  
Suman Kambhampati ◽  
Michal Rose ◽  
Abid Mohiuddin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Autologous Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Respiratory Problems ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3964 Background: Bortezomib in combination with dexamethsone is administered twice a week for 2 weeks with excellent therapeutic outcome. However, in a proportion of patients it is associated with toxicities such as neuropathy and twice a week regimen is inconvenient especially in older patients. To improve convenience and compliance, we have investigated the efficacy and safety of a weekly bortezomib regimen. Methods: We conducted a phase II multi-center single-arm study in participating Veterans Hospitals (VA) nationwide evaluating bortezomib administered at 1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly for 4 weeks with 1 week off with dexamethasone 40mg PO on the day of and day after bortezomib for upto 6 cycles in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not considered for autologous stem cell transplant. The objective is to evaluate overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity of this regimen. Results: We have enrolled all planned 50 patients (median age-71; range 50–89) at 12 VA Hospitals. Patients had significant co-morbidities including 86% with cardiovascular problems, 67% with diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia, 54% with renal dysfunction, 37% with respiratory problems, and 18% with history of cancer. All patients were on at least 5 daily medications. Of the 50 patients enrolled, 42 patients have received at least 1 cycle of therapy and were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. With a median of 4 cycles administered, this regimen was very well tolerated. Ten patients experienced neuropathy: 6 patients experienced grade 1, two patients developed grade 2 neuropathy, while two patients who had grade 1 neuropathy at diagnosis increased to grade 2 neuropathy with pain, and the other patient increased to grade 3 neuropathy with pain, with an overall Grade 3 neuropathy rate of 2.4%.Dexamethasone dose was reduced in 30% while bortezomib dose was reduced in 10% of the patients. Additionally, grade ≥1 asthenia was observed in 52%, constipation in 38%, diarrhea in 34%, anemia in 64%, vomiting/nausea in 26%, and thrombocytopenia in 54%. Four patients have died of co-morbidities which were considered unrelated or probably unrelated to the treatment with bortezomib. Of the patients who received at least 1 cycle of therapy, 62% patients achieved ≥PR; 12% CR/nCR and an additional 14% achieved VGPR. Including MR in the analysis, ORR was observed in 90% of the evaluable patients. On intent to treat analysis including all 50 patients, ORR was observed in 76% patients and ≥ PR in 52% patients. Conclusions: Once a week bortezomib with dexamethasone regimen is effective and well tolerated even in older patients with significant co-morbidities and should be considered as an important option in multiple myeloma. Disclosures: Munshi: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yellapragada:Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy.

scholarly journals A Phase I Trial of Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibition with INCB039110 in Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease (aGVHD)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 390-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Schroeder ◽  
H. Jean Khoury ◽  
Madan Jagasia ◽  
Haris Ali ◽  
Gary J. Schiller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Steroid Refractory

Abstract Background: Corticosteroids are considered standard first-line systemic therapy for patients with aGVHD, but this approach is effective in only approximately half of all cases. For patients who progress or do not respond to corticosteroids, no specific agent has been identified as standard, and regimens are typically selected based on investigator experience and patient co-morbidities. In preclinical models, JAK inhibition has been shown to impair production of cytokines as well as the differentiation and trafficking of T cells implicated in the pathogenesis of aGVHD. Retrospective studies have suggested that JAK1/JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib treatment provides clinical benefit in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD (Zeiser et al, Leukemia 2015;29:2062-2068). Herein, we report preliminary safety results from a prospective randomized, parallel-cohort, open-label phase 1 trial evaluating the potent and selective JAK 1 inhibitor INCB039110 in patients with aGVHD. Methods: Male or female patients 18 years or older who underwent their first allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from any donor source and developed grades IIB-IVD aGVHD were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a 200 or 300 mg oral daily dose of INCB039110 in combination with corticosteroids, and were stratified based on prior treatment status (treatment-naive [TN] versus steroid-refractory [SR]). The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints included overall response rate at Days 14, 28, 56, and 100, non-relapse mortality, and pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluations. Patients were assessed through Day 28 for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and response. A Bayesian approach was used for continuous monitoring of DLTs from Days 1-28. Treatment continued until GVHD progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Acute GVHD was graded according to MN-CIBMTR criteria; adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCICTCAE v 4.03. Results: Between January and June 2016, 31 patients (TN, n=14; SR, n= 17) were randomized. As of July 25, 2016, data were available from 30 patients who received an oral daily dose of 200 mg (n=14) or 300 mg (n=16) INCB039110 in combination with 2 mg/kg methylprednisolone (or equivalent dose of prednisone). The median durations of treatment were 60.8 days and 56.5 days for patients receiving a daily dose of 200 mg and 300 mg INCB039110, respectively. One DLT of Grade 3 thrombocytopenia was reported. The most frequently reported AEs included thrombocytopenia/platelet count decrease (26.7%), diarrhea (23.3%), peripheral edema (20%), fatigue (16.7%), and hyperglycemia (16.7%). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 77% of patients and with similar frequency across dose groups and included cytomegalovirus infections (n=3), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n=3), and sepsis (n=3). Five patients had AEs leading to a fatal outcome, including multi-organ failure (n=2), sepsis (n=1), disease progression (n=1), and bibasilar atelectasis, cardiopulmonary arrest, and respiratory distress (n=1); none of the fatal events was attributed to INCB039110. Efficacy and PK evaluations are ongoing and will be updated at the time of presentation. Conclusion: The oral, selective JAK1 inhibitor INCB039110 can be given safely to steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD patients. The safety profile was generally consistent in both dose groups. Biomarker evaluation, PK, and cellular phenotyping studies are ongoing. The recommended phase 2 dose will be selected and reported based on PK studies and final safety data. Disclosures Schroeder: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Khoury:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Arbushites:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Delaite:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yan:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rhein:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Perales:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. DiPersio:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

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.

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.

New US Myeloma Registry (Connect MM® – The Multiple Myeloma Disease Registry): Features of Newly Diagnosed Patients In 2010

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 5032-5032
Author(s):  
Brian G. M. Durie ◽  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Cristina Gasperetto ◽  
Jayesh Mehta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Bone Lesions ◽  
Case Report Form ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Prior Therapy

Abstract Abstract 5032 Background: In the past decade, with the availability of novel therapies, the paradigm for myeloma management has changed. In 2010 it is especially important to understand baseline features and initial treatment decisions. The goal of the Connect MM® registry is to characterize patients with newly diagnosed active myeloma from 200 US sites. Approximately 80% of the patient population will be enrolled from community-based practices and 20% from academic centers. An electronic case report form was developed to collect clinical data, physician choices, patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and response, as well as data on survival end points. This is a prospective, observational, longitudinal study with a target accrual of 1,500 patients in 3 years, with a 5 year follow-up from the time of informed consent. There are no mandated treatments or clinical assessments. However, there are data collection requirements for diagnosis and disease monitoring. Results: Since late 2009, 340 patients from 135 sites have been accrued and were included in this interim analysis. Current study demographics include: 60% male, 83% white, and 14% black, with a median age of 67 years. Thus far, 97% have been enrolled from community-based practices. All patients met study enrollment criteria and had active myeloma at entry; prior monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) was reported in 13% and smoldering MM in 8%. International Staging System (ISS) staging for evaluable patients were 26.3%, 36.4%, 37.3% for stages I, II, and III, respectively. Durie-Salmon Stage (A or B) were 13%, 35%, 52% for stages I, II, and III, respectively. Staging procedures included 82% skeletal survey; 44% computed tomography (CT); 40% magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); 7% positron emission tomography (PET); 2% PET/CT; and 4% had no imaging. International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) CRAB criteria were assessed in all enrolled patients; 9% had hypercalcemia, 18% renal insufficiency, 36% anemia, and 66% had bone lesions. Median values were: calcium 9.5 mg/dL; serum creatinine 1.1 mg/dL; hemoglobin 10.9 gm/dL. Only 9% of patients had 3 or 4 CRAB features, while 49% had only 1 feature and 26% were asymptomatic (ECOG=0). The incidence of baseline peripheral neuropathy was 6%. Initial pain led to radiation therapy for 10% of patients, with 16% having vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Cytogenetic studies were performed at baseline in 64% of patients and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies in 54%. Cytogenetics and FISH were normal in 27% of patients, while in 20% both were abnormal in patients who had both performed. FISH was abnormal with normal cytogenetics in 41% and only 2% had normal FISH but abnormal cytogenetics. The most common FISH abnormalities were: 13 q- (31%), 17 p- (28%), t(4; 14) (16%). Freelite® testing was performed in 56% of patients with an abnormal ratio in 94% [rFLC]. Of evaluable patients receiving frontline therapy 98% of patients received a novel agent and only 3 patients (1.4% of treated patients) received melphalan/prednisone. Two drug combinations were used in 53%, 3 drugs in 26%, 4 drugs in 1.3%, and single agents were used in 21% of the patients. The most common regimens were: bortezomib+dexamethasone (28%), lenalidomide+dexamethasone (20%), and bortezomib+lenalidomide+ dexamethasone (15%). Conclusion: These baseline features and treatment choices characterize myeloma patients primarily in community-based practices in the US in 2010. As academic centers enroll more patients, we will be able to further characterize that population. Of particular note, 26% of patients were asymptomatic at baseline but had biochemical evidence of myeloma and met enrollment criteria; conversely 95% had an abnormal rFLC and 73% had abnormal chromosome results. The Connect MM® registry will provide data regarding patient features as they pertain to patterns in testing and treatment in the clinical practice setting, as well as response and survival outcomes. Disclosures: Durie: Celgene & Millennium: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Revlimid (lenalidomide) in combination with dexamethasone is indicated for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients who have received at least one prior therapy. Shah:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene & Millennium: Honoraria. Gasperetto:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Pashos:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene: Employment. Street:Celgene: Employment. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau; Dendreon: Speakers Bureau.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document