Long-Term Follow-Up Results of Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Induction Therapy and Risk-Adapted Maintenance Approach in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) is a highly effective and convenient induction regimen for both transplantation-eligible and -ineligible patients with myeloma. Here, we present the largest cohort of patients consecutively treated with RVD induction therapy followed by risk-adapted maintenance therapy with the longest follow-up and important information on long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS We describe 1,000 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma treated with RVD induction therapy from January 2007 until August 2016. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes data were obtained from our institutional review board–approved myeloma database. Responses and progression were evaluated per International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria. RESULTS The overall response rate was 97.1% after induction therapy and 98.5% after transplantation, with 89.9% of patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) or better and 33.3% achieving stringent complete response after transplantation at a median follow-up time of 67 months. The estimated median progression-free survival time was 65 months (95% CI, 58.7 to 71.3 months) for the entire cohort, 40.3 months (95% CI, 33.5 to 47 months) for high-risk patients, and 76.5 months (95% CI, 66.9 to 86.2 months) for standard-risk patients. The median overall survival (OS) time for the entire cohort was 126.6 months (95% CI, 113.3 to 139.8 months). The median OS for high-risk patients was 78.2 months (95% CI, 62.2 to 94.2 months), whereas it has not been reached for standard-risk patients. Five-year OS rates for high-risk and standard-risk patients were 57% and 81%, respectively, and the 10-year OS rates were 29% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSION RVD is an induction regimen that delivers high response rates (VGPR or better) in close to 90% of patients after transplantation, and risk-adapted maintenance can deliver unprecedented long-term outcomes. This study includes the largest cohort of patients treated with RVD reported to date with long follow-up and demonstrates the ability of 3-drug induction regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to result in a substantial survival benefit.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Induction Thearapy with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVD) in 1000 Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-119895 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3294-3294 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Nisha Joseph ◽

Vikas A. Gupta ◽

Craig C Hofmeister ◽

Charise Gleason ◽

Leonard Heffner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rates ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Entire Cohort ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Background : Lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) has been shown to be a well-tolerated and efficacious induction regimen in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Two large randomized phase III trials show an overall response rate (ORR) >95% (Durie et al, Attal et al) supporting this combination regimen. We have conducted a retrospective analysis utilizing our institutional data of 1000 patients treated with RVD induction therapy at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University. Methods: 1000 newly diagnosed MM patients were treated with RVD induction therapy [R - 25 mg/day (days 1-14), V - 1.3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4 8, 11) and D - 40 mg once/twice weekly as tolerated every 21 days] from January 1st 2005 until August 31st 2016. Dose-adjustments were made based on the treating physician's discretion and patient tolerability. Demographic and outcomes data for the patients were obtained from our IRB approved myeloma database and responses were evaluated per IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Results: The median age of this cohort was 61 years (range 16-83). Other notable patient characteristics include: M/F 54.3%/45.6%; W/AA 56.4%/34%; ISS I and II/III 54%/17%; Isotype IgG/IgA/FLC 59.1%/19%/15.8%; standard risk/high risk 72%/28%. High risk disease was defined as the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), and/or complex karyotype. A total of 835 patients (83.5%) underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) upfront after attaining at least a partial response with induction therapy, and 165 patients (16.5%) were offered deferred transplant. Among the patients that opted for deferred transplant, 56 of these patients (33.9%) underwent ASCT at first relapse with a median time to transplant of 30 months (3-96). 755 (75.5%) of patients received risk-stratified maintenance therapy following transplant. Evaluation of responses to induction therapy for the entire cohort show an ORR 97.3% with ≥VGPR of 68% post-induction therapy. Response rates 100 days post-transplant show an ORR 98% with 30.7% of patients achieving a sCR. Response rates are summarized in table 1. Median PFS was 63 months for the entire cohort, and 72 months for standard risk patients (61.75-82.25) versus 37 months for the high-risk patients (30.84-43.16), p<0.001. Median OS has not been reached at median of 38 months follow up (Figure 1). Conclusions: This is the largest reported cohort of myeloma patients treated with RVD induction. These results illustrate both the activity of this induction regimen with impressive response rates and long-term outcomes in both standard and high risk patients. Disclosures Hofmeister: Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Heffner:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Boise:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy. Kaufman:BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Nooka:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Undergoing Therapy with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone: Impact of High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Status on Outcome

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v112.11.95.95 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 112 (11) ◽

pp. 95-95 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Prashant Kapoor ◽

Shaji Kumar ◽

Rafael Fonseca ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

Thomas E Witzig ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Risk Stratification ◽

Plasma Cell ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

The Impact ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with very divergent outcomes that are dictated in a large part by specific cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as other prognostic factors such as the proliferative rate of marrow plasma cells. Prognostic systems incorporating these factors have shown clinical utility in identifying high-risk patients, and are increasingly being utilized for treatment decision-making. However, the prognostic relevance of these factors may change with the application of novel therapies. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of risk-stratification (incorporating plasma cell metaphase cytogenetics, interphase fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) and the slide-based plasma cell labeling index (PCLI)) in a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM treated initially with lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rev-Dex). Methods: From March 2004 to November 2007, 100 consecutive patients treated with Rev (25mg/day) on days 1 through 21 of a 4-week cycle in combination with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma, were identified. High-risk MM was defined as presence of any one or more of the following: hypodiploidy, monoallelic loss of chromosome 13 or its long arm (by metaphase cytogenetics only), deletion of p53 (locus 17p13) or PCLI ≥ 3% or immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) translocations, t(4;14) (p16.3;q32) or t(14;16)(q32;q23) on FISH. PFS and OS survival estimates were created using the Kaplan Meier method, and compared by log-rank tests. Results: The median estimated follow-up of the entire cohort (N=100) was 36 months. The median PFS was 31 months; the median OS has not been reached. The 2- and 3-year OS estimates were 93% and 83%, respectively. 16% patients were deemed high-risk by at least one of the 3 tests (cytogenetics, FISH or PCLI). Response rates (PR or better) were 81% versus 89% in the high-risk and standard risk groups, respectively, P=NS; corresponding values for CR plus VGPR rates were 38% and 45% respectively. The median PFS was 18.5 months in high-risk patients compared to 37 months in the standard-risk patients (n=84), P<0.001(Figure). Corresponding values for TTP were 18.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, P=<0.001. OS was not statistically significant between the two groups; 92% 2-year OS was noted in both the groups. Overall, 95 patients had at least one of the 3 tests to determine risk, while 55 patients could be adequately stratified based on the availability of all the 3 tests, or at least one test result that led to their inclusion in the high-risk category. The significant difference in PFS persisted even when the analysis was restricted to the 55 patients classified using this stringent criterion; 18.5 months vs. 36.5 months in the high-risk and standard- risk groups respectively; P<0.001. In a separate analysis, patients who underwent SCT before the disease progression were censored on the date of SCT to negate its effect, and PFS was still inferior in the high-risk group (p=0.002). Conclusion: The TTP and PFS of high-risk MM patients are inferior to that of the standard-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex, indicating that the current genetic and proliferation-based risk-stratification model remains prognostic with novel therapy. However, the TTP, PFS, and OS obtained in high-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex in this study is comparable to overall results in all myeloma patients reported in recent phase III trials. In addition, no significant impact of high-risk features on OS is apparent so far. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the impact of risk stratification on the OS of patients treated with Rev-Dex. Figure Figure

Download Full-text

Long-Term Outcomes of TBI-Based Myeloablative SCT In 292 Consecutive Adults with Ph-Negative ALL: Similar Outcomes for Transplantation Using Related Donor, Well-Matched Unrelated Donor, or Partially Matched Unrelated Donor Sources

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.2355.2355 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 2355-2355

Author(s):

Seok Lee ◽

Seung-Ah Yahng ◽

Sung-Eun Lee ◽

Byung-Sik Cho ◽

Ki-Seong Eom ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Unrelated Donor ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Matched Unrelated Donor ◽

No Donor ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Related Donor ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Abstract 2355 Background: The graft-versus-leukemia effect in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has now been definitely confirmed from the ‘matched related donor (RD) versus no donor' comparisons. However, no definite conclusions can be extracted from these data as to whether or not there is a survival advantage to RD-stem cell transplantation (SCT) over other therapeutic modalities for both high-risk and standard-risk patients with Philadelphia (Ph)-negative ALL. In addition, ‘RD versus no donor' approach is becoming outmoded, as in many studies those previously in a ‘no donor' category are now undergoing unrelated donor (URD)-SCT. Aims: We report long-term outcomes of total body irradiation-based myeloablative SCT in 292 consecutive adults with Ph-negative ALL who received transplants at our center between 1995 and 2008 (median follow-up of survivors, 85 months). This study focused on following questions: (1) How different are the outcomes of SCT according to the donor sources? (2) Which factors are important to determination of transplantation outcome? (3) Which URD should be chosen? (4) Is there a role of autologous (AUTO)-SCT plus maintenance chemotherapy? Methods: Median age was 25 years (range, 15–63 years). Overall, 237 (81.2%) of 292 patients had one or more high-risk features, including adverse cytogenetics [t(4;11), t(8;14), complex (>=5 abnormalities), Ho-Tr], older age (>=35 years), high leukocyte counts (>=30×109/L for B-ALL, >=100×109/L for T-ALL), or delayed first complete remission (CR1; >28 days). Two hundred and forty-one patients (82.5%) were transplanted in CR1; 22 (7.6%) in CR2; and 29 (9.9%) in advanced status. URD sources were classified as well-matched (WM), partially matched (PM), and mismatched (MM) based on a new proposed guideline from the NMDP-CIBMTR. Donor sources were RD (n=132), WM-URD (n=30), PM-URD (n=19), MM-URD (n=19), and AUTO (n=92). All patients and donors provided written informed consent, and the treatment protocol was approved by the institutional review board of The Catholic University of Korea. Results: Cumulative incidence of relapse at 5 years was 48.5% for AUTO versus 32.6% for RD, 19.4% for WM-URD, 32.3% for PM-URD, and 51.0% for MM-URD (RR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.65 to 4.42; p<0.001). In multivariate analyses, other factors associated with higher relapse risk included transplantation in CR2 or later (p<0.001), T-lineage ALL (p=0.020), and adverse cytogenetics (p=0.038). Cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 5 years was 40.5% for MM-URD versus 19.6% for SD, 20.3% for WM-URD, 15.8% for PM-URD, and 9.8% for AUTO (RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.32 to 7.25; p=0.010). Patients older than 35 years had higher NRM (p=0.007). As a result, disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years was inferior using AUTO (46.1%; RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.51; p=0.010) or MM-URD (26.3%; RR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.05 to 3.95; p=0.036), compared to RD sources, while DFS from all other donor sources was approximately equivalent (53.5% for RD, 63.3% for WM-URD, and 57.0% for PM-URD). Transplantation in CR2 or later (p<0.001), older age (p=0.020), and adverse cytogenetics (p=0.041) were associated with poorer DFS. In a pairwise comparison of outcomes between RD-SCT and AUTO-SCT for patients in CR1, the inferiority of AUTO-SCT was observed, particularly in high-risk patients. Conversely, in standard-risk patients, AUTO-SCT yielded comparable outcomes to RD-SCT. Summary/Conclusions: Our long-term data suggest that outcomes are similar for transplantation using SD, WM-URD, or PM-URD sources, and these may be considered the best donor sources for adults with Ph-negative ALL, especially for those with high-risk features. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Surgical treatment of valve endocarditis in high-risk patients and predictors of long-term outcomes

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-03602-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Giuseppe Nasso ◽

Giuseppe Santarpino ◽

Marco Moscarelli ◽

Ignazio Condello ◽

Angelo Maria Dell’Aquila ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Infective Endocarditis ◽

High Risk ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

AbstractInfective endocarditis represents a surgical challenge associated with perioperative mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the predictors of operative mortality and long-term outcomes in high-risk patients. We retrospectively analyzed 123 patients operated on for infective endocarditis from January 2011 to December 2020. Logistic regression model was used to identify prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality. Long term follow-up was made to asses late prognosis. Preoperative renal failure, an elevation EuroSCORE II and prior aortic valve re-replacement were found to be preoperative risk factors significantly associated with mortality. In-hospital mortality was 27% in patients who had previously undergone aortic valve replacement (n = 4 out of 15 operated, p = 0.01). Patients who were operated on during the active phase of infective endocarditis showed a higher mortality rate than those operated on after the acute phase (16% vs. 0%; p = 0.02). The type of prosthesis used (biological or mechanical) was not associated with mortality, whereas cross-clamp time significantly correlated with mortality (mean cross-clamp time 135 ± 65 min in dead patients vs. 76 ± 32 min in surviving patients; p = 0.0005). Mean follow up was 57.94 ± 30.9 months. Twelve patients died (11.65%). Among the twelve mortalities, five were adjudicated to cardiac causes and seven were non-cardiac (two cancers, one traumatic accident, one cerebral hemorrhage, two bronchopneumonia, one peritonitis). Overall survival probability (freedom from death, all causes) at 3, 5, 7 and 8 years was 98.9% (95% CI 97–100%), 96% (95% CI 92–100%), 85.9% (95% CI 76–97%), and 74% (95% CI 60–91%) respectively. Our study demonstrates that an early surgical approach may represent a valuable treatment option for high-risk patients with infective endocarditis, also in case of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Although several risk factors are associated with higher mortality, no patient subset is inoperable. These findings can be helpful to inform decision-making in heart team discussion.

Download Full-text

Arsenic Trioxide (ATO) In the Consolidation Treatment of Newly Diagnosed APL - First Interim Analysis of a Randomized Trial (APL 2006) by the French Belgian Swiss APL Group

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.505.505 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 505-505 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Lionel Ades ◽

Emmanuel Raffoux ◽

Sylvie Chevret ◽

Arnaud Pigneux ◽

Xavier Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Standard Group ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Consolidation Treatment ◽

Duration Of Hospitalization ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Group A ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Abstract 505 Background: ATRA combined to anthracycline based chemotherapy (CT) is the reference treatment of newly diagnosed APL, but this treatment is myelosuppressive and may be associated with long term cardiac toxicity. The use of ATO may allow reduction of the amount of CT (and in particular avoid ara C), and further diminish the relapse risk, especially when used in consolidation treatment (US intergroup study, Powell, ASCO 2008). In a randomized trial, we used ATO for consolidation treatment instead of ara C in standard risk APL (baseline WBC < 10G/L), and in addition to AraC in high risk patients (baseline WBC > 10G/L). ATRA, suggested to reduce the relapse risk when used during consolidation (Sanz, Blood 2008, 112: 3130-4) was also tested in standard risk pts. Methods: In APL 2006 trial (started in Nov, 2006) newly diagnosed APL patients (pts) < 70 years with WBC < 10 G/L were randomized between: group A1( standard group) (induction: ATRA 45mg/m2/d until CR with Ida 12 mg/m2/dx3 and AraC 200mg/m2/dx7 started on day 3; first consolidation with the same CT course, second consolidation with Ida 12 mg/m2/dx3 and AraC 1g/m2/12h x4d; maintenance during two years: intermittent ATRA 15d/3 months and continuous 6 MP + MTX,); Group A2: same treatment as group A1, but AraC replaced by ATO 0.15 mg/Kg/D D1 to 25 days of both consolidation courses; Group A3: same treatment as group A1, but AraC replaced by ATRA 45 mg/m2 d1 to 15 of both consolidation courses. Pts aged < 70 with WBC > 10G/L (Group C) were randomized between: group C1 (standard group): same treatment as Group A1; group C2: same as C1, but with addition of ATO 0.15 mg/Kg/d d1 to 25 of both consolidation courses, at d1. Pts with WBC > 10 G/L all received intrathecal CT for CNS prophylaxis. This first interim analysis was made at the reference date of 1 Jan 2010, in 186 pts aged < 70 years included in 78 centers before 2009 (141 pts in group A (45/45/51 pts in A1/A2/A3 arms), 45 pts in group C (24/21 pts in C1/21 arms)). Results: In standard risk patients (group A) 140 (99.3 %) patients achieved CR, and 1 (2%) had early death. After a median follow up of 22.1 months, 1, 0, and 1 pts had relapsed in the A1, A2 and A3 consolidation groups, resp. (18 months cumulative incidence of relapse- CIR-of 0%, 0% and 2%). 2, 2, and 0 pts had died in CR in the A1, A2 and A3 consolidation groups, resp. The median duration of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia during consolidation courses was 43.5 and 44 days, 40 and 35 days, 20 and 25 days after consolidation cycles in groups A1 (AraC), A2 (ATO) and A3 (ATRA), resp (p<0.01). The median overall duration of hospitalization was 51, 59 and 26 days in A1,A2 and A3 groups, respectively. In high risk pts (group C) 45 (100 %) patients achieved CR. After a median follow up of 23.7 months, 1 and 1 pt had relapsed in the C1 and C2 consolidation groups, resp (18 months CIR of 2% and 2%). One and 3 had died in CR in the C1 and C2 consolidation groups, resp. Median duration of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 45.5 and 43.5 days, 51.5 and 48 days, after consolidation cycles in groups C1(AraC) and C2 (AraC+ATO), resp. The median overall duration of hospitalization was 53.5, and 65 days in C1 and C2 groups, respectively. Conclusion: Results of this first interim analysis show that very high CR rates (>95%) can be observed in very multicenter trials in APL, by combining ATRA and anthracycline based CT, while the relapse rate with consolidation and maintenance was very low in all treatments arms, including in pts with WBC > 10G/L. Nevertheless ATO, when combined to high dose CT during consolidation cycles, increased myelosuppression. An amendment further reducing CT in pts receiving ATO is thus being implemented in the trial. Disclosures: Off Label Use: ATO as 1st line treatment in APL. Fenaux:CELGENE, JANSSEN CILAG, AMGEN, ROCHE, GSK, NOVARTIS, MERCK, CEPHALON: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Persistent Benefit of VTD (Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Dexamethasone) As Pretransplant Induction Therapy for Multiple Myeloma: Long-Term Follow-up of a Randomized Phase 3 Pethema/GEM Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3457.3457 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3457-3457 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Laura Rosiñol ◽

Albert Oriol ◽

Ana Isabel Teruel ◽

Dolores Hernandez ◽

M Jesús Blanchard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

High Risk ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Combination Chemotherapy ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Background: The randomized PETHEMA/GEM phase III trial GEM05menos65 (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00461747) demonstrated that pretransplant induction therapy with VTD resulted in a significantly higher CR rate both, pretransplant and postransplant and in a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with thalidomide/dexamethasone (TD) and combination chemotherapy plus bortezomib (VBMCP/VBAD/B) (Rosiñol et al, Blood 2012). We report here the long-term results of the trial, five years after the last patient was included. Methods: From April 6, 2006 to August 5, 2009, 386 patients younger than 65 years with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) were randomized to receive three different induction regimens: six 4-week cycles of TD (thalidomide 200 mg daily; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12) vs. six 4-week cycles of VTD (TD at identical doses plus i.v. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11) vs. combination chemotherapy plus bortezomib (4 cycles of alternating VBMCP and VBAD chemotherapy followed by two cycles of i.v. bortezomib at the usual dose of 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1,4,8,11 every 3 weeks). The duration of the induction therapy was 24 weeks in all arms. All patients were planned to undergo ASCT with high-dose melphalan at 200 mg/m2 followed by maintenance therapy with thalidomide/bortezomib (TV) vs. thalidomide (T) vs. alfa-2b-interferon (alfa2-IFN) for 3 years. One-hundred and thirty patients were allocated to VTD, 127 to TD and 129 to VBMCP/VBAD/B. Seventy out of the 330 patients (21%) with cytogenetic studies had high-risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or 17p deletion]. Patient characteristics at diagnosis and prognostic factors such as ISS, cytogenetics and maintenance arm were similarly distributed in the 3 arms. Results: After a median follow-up of 70.6 months, VTD resulted in a significantly longer PFS when compared with TD and VBMCP/VBAD/B (56.1 vs 29.2 vs 39.9 months, p=0.005) (Figure 1). The estimated overall survival (OS) at 8 years was 60% with no significant differences among the 3 arms. In the overall series, the PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high-risk cytogenetics compared with patients with standard-risk (15.7 vs. 44.3 months, p=0.003). In the TD and in the VBMCP/VBAD/B arm patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a significantly shorter PFS than patients with standard-risk (8.9 vs 32.8 months, p=0.04 in TD group; 14.1 vs. 43.3 months, p=0.05 in VBMCP/VBAD/B group). However, there was no significant difference in the VTD arm (23.6 vs 56.1 months, p=0.2). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a significantly shorter OS in the overall series (median 42.1 months vs not reached, p=0.00001) and this was observed in the three treatment arms: VTD median 37.1 months vs not reached (p=0.001), TD median 54.2 months vs not reached (p=0.06), VBMCP/VBAD/B median 30.2 months vs not reached (p=0.007). The achievement of a deeper response at the end of induction was associated with a longer PFS and OS. Thus, patients achieving CR at the end of induction had a significantly longer PFS than patients achieving a lower degree of response (median 62 vs. 28 months, p=0.00001), irrespective of the treatment arm. Furthermore, on an intention to treat basis, patients who were in postrasplant CR had a significantly longer PFS (p<0.00001) and OS (p<0.00001) than those who did not reach CR after ASCT (p<0.001). In the overall series the OS after progression was 30.5 months and was not significantly different among the 3 arms (VTD 25.4 months, TD 50 months, VBMCP/VBAD/B 30.2 months, p=0.4). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a significantly shorter OS after relapse in the overall series (13.3 months vs. 37.5 months, p=0.001), in the VTD arm (13.3 vs 33.9, p=0.01) and in the VBMCP/VBAD/B arm (8.5 vs 38 months, p=0.01). Conclusions: Our long-term results confirm that induction with VTD results in a significantly longer PFS when compared with TD and VBMCP/VBAD/B. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a worse outcome even with the use of novel drugs. Finally, the PFS of 56 months achieved with VTD is the longest ever reported in the first line treatment of younger patients with MM elegible for ASCT and support the use of VTD as the standard of care for pretransplant induction therapy. Figure 1: PFS according to the induction arm Figure 1:. PFS according to the induction arm Disclosures Rosiñol: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. De La Rubia:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gutierrez:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Martinez-Lopez:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Alegre:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcome According to Both Cytogenetic Abnormalities (CA) Detected by Fluorescence In Situ Hibridization (FISH) and Hyperdiploidy Assessed by Flow Cytometry (FCM) In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Treated with A Bortezomib-Based Combination

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.309.309 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 309-309 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

María-Victoria Mateos ◽

Norma C. Gutierrez ◽

Bruno Paiva ◽

Albert Oriol ◽

Joaquín Martínez-López ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Poor Prognosis ◽

Dna Ploidy ◽

Fish Analysis ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Standard Risk ◽

Ploidy Status

Abstract Abstract 309 Background: Novel insights into the biology of myeloma cells have led to the identification of relevant prognosis factors. CA has become one of the most important prognostic factors, and the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p) are associated with poor prognosis. DNA ploidy is another important prognostic factor with non-hyperdiploid cases being associated with a poor outcome. There are some controversies about whether or not bortezomib-based combinations are able to overcome the poor prognosis of CA. In the VISTA trial, bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) appeared to overcome the poor prognosis of CA in terms of response rate (RR) and survival; however, the number of patients with CA was rather small. Here we report a subanalysis, in a series of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the Spanish GEM05MAS65 trial, in order to evaluate the influence of CA by FISH as well as DNA ploidy status on RR and survival. Patients and methods: Patients included in this study were randomized to receive 6 cycles of VMP vs bortezomib, thalidomide and prednisone (VTP) as induction therapy consisting on one 6-week cycle of bortezomib using a bi-weekly schedule (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29 and 32) plus either melphalan 9 mg/ m2 on days 1 to 4 or oral daily thalidomide 100 mg, and prednisone 60 mg/ m2 on days 1 to 4; this first cycle was followed by five 5-week cycles of once-weekly bortezomib (1·3 mg/ m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) plus the same doses of MP and TP. After induction therapy, patients were subsequently randomised to maintenance therapy with VP or VT, consisting of one convencional 3-week cycle of bortezomib (1·3 mg/ m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone 50 mg every other day or thalidomide 50 mg/day, for up to 3 years. FISH analysis for del(13q), t(11;14), t(4;14), t(14;16) and del(17p) was performed at diagnosis according to standard procedures using purified plasma cells, and DNA ploidy status was analysed following induction therapy by multiparametric FCM using propidium Iodide and specific markers for discrimination between myelomatous and normal cells. Result: In 231 out of the 260 patients included in the trial, FISH analysis at diagnosis were available and two groups were identified: high-risk group (n= 44 patients with t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) and/or del(17p)) and standard-risk group (n=187 patients without CA, and/or del(13q) and/or t(11;14)). There weren't differences in the rates of CA according to the treatment arm. RR was the same in the high-risk vs standard-risk groups, both after induction (21% vs 27% CR) and maintenance (39% vs 45% CR). However, high-risk patients showed shorter PFS as compared to standard risk both from first (24 versus 33 months, p=0·04, HR 0·6, 95% IC 0·4-0·9) and second randomization (17 versus 27 months, p=0·01, HR 0·5, 95% IC 0·2-0·8). This also translated into shorter OS for high risk patients (3-year OS rate: 55% versus 77% from first randomization, p=0·001, HR 0·4, 95% IC 0·2-0·7) and 60% versus 85% from second randomization, p<0·001, HR 0·2, 95% IC 0·1-0·5). This adverse prognosis applied to either t(4;14) or del(17p), without differences in terms of PFS from the first (24 months for del(17p) patients and 20 months for t(4;14)) and second randomization (16 months for both CA); in addition, the outcome was not modified by the treatment scheme used. When we analyzed the influence on survival of the DNA ploidy status (224 patients) by comparing patients with hyperdiploid (132 patients) versus non-hyperdiploid DNA content (92 patients) assessed by FCM, it was found that the former group showed longer OS (77% versus 63% at 3 years, p=0·04), and this difference was more evident in patients treated with VTP (77% versus 53% at 3 years, p=0·02), while no significant differences were observed in the VMP arm. Conclusion: The present schema, particularly after month sixth (using maintenance with bortezomib every 3 months) doesn't overcome the negative prognosis of high-risk cytogenetics in terms of PFS and OS in elderly myeloma patients, and this applied to either patients with t(4;14) or del(17p), and it was independent of the induction treatment arm. Our data also show that non-hyperdiploid cases displayed worse outcome than hyperdiploid patients, particularly under VTP induction treatment. These results suggest that continuous efforts are still required in order to overcome the dismal prognosis of high-risk patients. Disclosures: Mateos: Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: VTP is not approved for the treatment of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients. VT and VP are not approved for maintenance therapy. Gutierrez:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Martínez-López:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia-Laraña:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palomera:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Hernández:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. García-Sanz:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cibeira:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lahuerta:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. San Miguel:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Who Is the Better Donor for Young Hematopoietic Transplant Recipients without Siblings: An Older-Aged Haploidentical Parental Donor or a Young Unrelated Donor?

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2290.2290 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2290-2290

Author(s):

Mingming Zhang ◽

Yi Luo ◽

Yamin Tan ◽

Jimin Shi ◽

Weiyan Zheng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Median Time ◽

Unrelated Donor ◽

Donor Age ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Platelet Recovery ◽

Risk Patients ◽

To Receive ◽

Standard Risk

Abstract Introduction: Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) outcomes from unrelated donor (URD) and haploidentical donor were very close in recent years, and both could be alternative donors for recipients without siblings. But when considering donor age, especially for young recipients (≤30 years) without siblings, whether outcomes can be improved with a young URD rather than older-aged haploidentical parental donors (HPD) is still unknown. Methods: Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 156 young adult patients with hematological malignancies without sibling donors were assigned to receive URD or HPD HSCT in our center. The strategy of donor selection between URD and HPD was as follows: If an HLA suitably matched URD (≥8 of 10 matching HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 allele loci and ≥5 of 6 matching HLA-A, -B, and -DRB1 antigen loci) was available, patients were assigned to undergo URD-HSCT. If an HLA suitably matched URD was unavailable, patients were assigned to receive HPD-HSCT. Among them, 10 recipients received HSCT from URDs older than 40 years were further excluded. The transplant procedure had been reported previously (Yi Luo et. al. Blood 2014). Briefly, all patients received myeloablative conditioning involving BuCy without total body irradiation. The GVHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporin A, methotrexate, and low-dose mycophenolate mofetil. Grafts were granulocyte-colony stimulating factor mobilized peripheral blood stem cells without ex vivo T-cell depletion. Results: The median age of the finally included 146 young recipients was 21 years (range, 15-30 years). Of whom, 67 received HSCT from HPDs and 79 received HSCT from URDs.The median donor age of the HPDs was 46 years (range, 40-53 years), in contrast to 28 years (range, 20-39 years) of the URDs. Engraftment All patients achieved myeloid recovery. The median time and the cumulative 15-day incidences of myeloid engraftment were 12 days (range, 8-16 days) and 97.4% in the URD cohort, and 13 days (range, 8-21 days) and 77.6% in the HPD cohort, respectively. Myeloid recovery in the HPD cohort was significantly delayed compared with URD cohort (P<0.001). Two patients in the HPD cohort experienced primary platelet engraftment failure. The median time and the cumulative 30-day incidences of platelet engraftment were 13 days (range, 6-24 days) and 100% in URDs, and 15 days (range, 6-30 days) and 97.0% in HPDs, respectively. Patients receiving HSCT from HPDs experienced significantly delayed platelet recovery compared with those receiving HSCT from URDs (P<0.001). aGVHD The incidences of grades II-IV aGVHD were 45.5% in the URD cohort and 47.8% in the HPD cohort (P=0.78), respectively. The incidences of grades III-IV aGVHD were 14.3% in the URD cohort and 17.9% in the HPD cohort (P=0.55), respectively. Long-term Outcomes There was a trend of higher 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse free survival (RFS) rates for patients transplanted from young URDs in comparison with HPDs (OS: 64.4% vs 59.6% (P=0.23) and RFS: 63.2% vs 49.6%; (P=0.20)),respectively. The relapse rate and non-relapse mortality (NRM) rate were comparable between two cohorts. For standard risk patients, a significantly higher 5-year OS and RFS rate were observed for patients transplanted from young URDs compared with HPDs (OS: 76.3% vs 52.7% (P=0.03) and RFS: 73.2% vs 53.8%; (P=0.04)), respectively. The significantly lower survival rate in the HPD cohort to some extent could be explained by the higher NRM rate in the HPD cohort (HPD 30.8% vs URD 13.9%, P=0.07). While for high risk patients, long-term outcomes were comparable between two cohorts. Conclusion: These data favor a young URD over an older-aged HPD for young recipients without siblings in standard risk; while for those in high risk, transplant outcomes were comparable between a young URD and an old-aged HPD. Moreover, myeloid and platelet recovery were significantly delayed in HPD-HSCT compared with URD-HSCT. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text