User login
Combo could replace standard conditioning regimen for myeloma
Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.
In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).
However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.
To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m2 pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”
The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.
In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m2 on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m2, which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m2 per day on days –2 and –1.
The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.
The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.
Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.
There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.
At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.
Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.
Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.
The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.
Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.
The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.
There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.
Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).
Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.
One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.
Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.
Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.
“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.
Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.
In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).
However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.
To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m2 pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”
The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.
In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m2 on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m2, which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m2 per day on days –2 and –1.
The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.
The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.
Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.
There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.
At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.
Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.
Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.
The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.
Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.
The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.
There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.
Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).
Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.
One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.
Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.
Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.
“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.
Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.
In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).
However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.
To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m2 pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”
The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.
In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m2 on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m2, which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m2 per day on days –2 and –1.
The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.
The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.
Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.
There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.
At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.
Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.
Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.
The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.
Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.
The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.
There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.
Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).
Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.
One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.
Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.
Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.
“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.
FROM LANCET HAEMATOLOGY
FDA halts enrollment in trial of venetoclax for multiple myeloma
The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.
The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.
There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.
The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.
The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.
There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.
Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.
Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.
Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.
“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.
Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.
The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.
The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.
There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.
The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.
The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.
There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.
Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.
Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.
Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.
“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.
Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.
The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.
The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.
There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.
The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.
The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.
There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.
Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.
Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.
Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.
“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.
Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.
Oral triplet deemed effective in relapsed/refractory myeloma
An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.
The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.
The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.
The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).
The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).
The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).
Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.
ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.
For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.
In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).
“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”
This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.
An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.
The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.
The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.
The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).
The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).
The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).
Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.
ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.
For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.
In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).
“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”
This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.
An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.
The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.
The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.
Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.
The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.
The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).
The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).
The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).
Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.
ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.
For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.
In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).
“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”
This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Myeloma risk score has treatment-planning potential
A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.
When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.
“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.
The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.
Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.
The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.
As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.
In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.
Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.
The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.
The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.
The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.
“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.
A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.
When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.
“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.
The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.
Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.
The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.
As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.
In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.
Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.
The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.
The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.
The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.
“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.
A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.
When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.
“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.
The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.
Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.
The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.
As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.
In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.
Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.
The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.
The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.
The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.
“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.
The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.
FROM THE LANCET HAEMATOLOGY
Myeloma therapies raise cardiovascular risks
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.
In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.
In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.
The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.
The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.
The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).
In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.
“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
IMiDs and thromboembolism
In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.
“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.
There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.
Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.
“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.
He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.
REPORTING FROM ACC CARDIO-ONCOLOGY
Selinexor hits FDA stumbling block
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
Karyopharm Therapeutics must finish a randomized phase 3 trial of selinexor plus dexamethasone before the Food and Drug Administration will proceed with a safety and tolerability assessment for the first-in-class multiple myeloma drug.
By an 8-5 vote, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee said that data from STORM 2, Karyopharm’s single-arm phase 2b trial, didn’t sufficiently show that selinexor exerted any significant benefit over dexamethasone alone, used because the company claims it potentiates selinexor’s action.
Committee members also expressed concerns about the drug’s challenging adverse event profile. In STORM Part 2, 60% of patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events and 10 died from them.
“This trial design is not adequate to assess tolerability and efficacy,” and move the drug along, said Christian S. Hinrichs, MD, of the National Cancer Institute. For that to happen, “we’d be looking for several things. We’d be looking for a subset of patients who benefited profoundly, which could be somewhat compelling despite a lower overall response rate. Next we might be looking for durable response, and here we see 4-month responses. And finally, what we look for in a single-arm trial is a really favorable side effect profile, like we see in checkpoint inhibitors. That is clearly not the case with this drug. So, on the basis of both the trial design and the results, I find it hard to conclude that these data allow for an adequate assessment that safety and efficacy are proven.”
The decision came despite the pleas of 15 patients and one patient advocate who said the drug improved clinical status and quality of life, and even extended life beyond what anyone expected. However, several committee members noted that Karyopharm paid for speakers’ travel and that patients who had negative experiences would probably be too sick to attend.
Selinexor is a completely new therapeutic option for relapsed multiple myeloma patients. It is a twice-weekly, oral tablet that inhibits nuclear export protein Exportin 1 (XPO1), which regulates the localization of tumor suppressor proteins and is associated with poor prognosis. Aberrant XPO1 expression causes tumor suppressors to locate away from their targets, allowing tumors to grow. Inhibiting it with selinexor blocks signal transduction pathways, interrupting tumor cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis while sparing normal cells.
Karyopharm is seeking approval of selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies and whose disease is refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, at least one immunomodulatory imide drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.
This disease is referred to as “triple-class refractory” multiple myeloma. At this stage, patients have exhausted every effective treatment option and are faced with the choice of supportive care or recycling previously successful drugs. Their median overall survival time is 3-5 months.
Karyopharm submitted its the New Drug Application using the Accelerated Approval pathway, arguing that the drug meets an unmet medical need and can be approved on surrogate endpoints – in this case, overall response rate.
The modified intent-to-treat analysis comprised 122 patients. The overall response rate was 25.4% with a median response duration of 4.4 months. Two patients had a complete response; six had a very good partial response; and 23 had a partial response.
Some committee members, however, said it would be impossible to tease out how much of the response could be due to the co-administration of 20 mg dexamethasone with each dose. In a phase 1 dose-ranging study of selinexor as monotherapy, it produced only one partial response in 56 patients. And, FDA pointed out, historical studies have shown response rates of 10%-27% for high-dose dexamethasone.
However, those in favor of the drug pointed out that the STORM patients were steroid-refractory, and that a 25% response rate would be unlikely on low-dose dexamethasone alone. This is proof of the company’s claim that the steroid works synergistically with selinexor, they said.
These members also pointed out that even a few years ago, there simply were no patients like the STORM cohort. Only recently have these patients lived long enough to develop resistance against all therapeutic lines, so it’s unrealistic to use historical data to judge what a reasonable response rate looks like in this situation.
Committee members also choked on STORM’s adverse event (AE) profile. All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE, and 60% had at least one serious AE. Most (88.6%) required a dose modification due to an AE, and 28.5% discontinued due to one. The most common AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. The company said these were “typically reversible and manageable with dose reductions.”
Additionally, there were 23 deaths in the trial. About half (13) were due to disease progression, but the remainder were due to a fatal treatment-emergent AE. Two of these (one pneumonia and one sepsis) were directly due to selinexor, the company said.
Despite the committee’s concerns, 16 of the 17 speakers described positive experiences with selinexor. They universally acknowledged that “it’s a hard drug to take,” and that side effects need to be managed proactively. But they also said, universally, that the drug has brought them additional months of good-quality life, decreased lengthy hospital stays, enabled them to participate in important family events, and even travel. Some also expressed the hope that selinexor would be a bridge drug, decreasing their disease burden enough that they could qualify for other clinical trials of new investigational drugs.
Only Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, PhD, of the National Center for Health Research, urged a delay. “Even if these adverse events are manageable, they harm patients’ quality of life,” she said. “This may be acceptable to some, but if the drug can’t provide a meaningful benefit then they are not worth it and in this clinical trial there was no improvement noted in quality of life. This drug has serious risks and we don’t know if it works.”
Dr. Fox said she was “very glad” that Karyopharm has completed recruitment for its phase 3 randomized study, dubbed BOSTON. BOSTON will assign active patients to once-weekly 100 mg selinexor plus weight-dosed bortezomib, plus twice-weekly 20 mg dexamethasone. The comparator group will receive weight-based bortezomib twice a week and 20 mg dexamethasone four times a week. Patients who progress can cross over to the active arm. The company hopes for even better results, saying that the proteasome inhibitor has also shown a synergistic effect with selinexor. Results are expected in 2020.
“The BOSTON study doesn’t solve anything,” retorted committee member David Harrington, PhD, emeritus professor of biostatistics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “It’s a different clinical profile, different dosing, a different combination of agents, and it doesn’t isolate the single-arm activity of selinexor.”
MRD negativity linked to survival in MM after auto-HCT
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
HOUSTON – Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by multiparameter flow cytometry was linked to survival benefit in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplantation, according to results of the first U.S.-based study evaluating this endpoint as part of a national randomized clinical trial.
MRD-negative status was prognostic for improved progression-free survival at all time points measured over the course of 1 year post transplant, in this ancillary study of patients in the randomized, 3-arm STAMiNA trial.
Moreover, there was an overall survival benefit for MRD-negative status at 1 year post transplant, investigator Theresa A. Hahn, PhD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., reported at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
There was no significant difference in rate of conversion to MRD negativity in the arms of the trial, which evaluated several different upfront approaches to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).
Assessments of MRD beyond 1 year post transplant may be valuable in future trials, Dr. Hahn said.
“Trials are needed incorporating MRD as an endpoint for treatment decisions to augment, change, or discontinue therapy,” she added.
Results of the ancillary study known as PRIMeR (Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response) included 445 patients from STAMiNA who underwent MRD assessment at baseline, prior to maintenance, and at 1 year post transplantation.
As part of the overall STAMiNA trial, they were randomized to single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT); autologous HCT followed by a second autologous HCT (tandem autologous HCT); or single autologous HCT followed by four cycles of consolidation with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). All three arms continued on lenalidomide maintenance after those interventions.
Overall results of the STAMiNA trial, previously reported, showed no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three transplant strategies (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685).
In this PRIMeR substudy, by contrast, progression-free survival was significantly increased for patients who were MRD negative at all three time points measured, Dr. Hahn reported, while overall survival was significantly improved based on MRD status measured at the 1-year time point.
The rate of MRD negativity did not differ significantly between arms at baseline or premaintenance time points, Dr. Hahn said. Those rates were 42%, 47%, and 40%, respectively, for the single transplant, tandem transplant, and single transplant plus consolidation arms, while the premaintenance MRD negativity rates were 77%, 83%, and 76%.
At 1 year, MRD negativity rates were significantly different between arms, but only in the intent-to-treat analysis.
Most of the difference was due to an increased rate of MRD negativity in the tandem-transplant arm, compared to a single auto-transplant. However, about 30% of patients in the tandem transplant arm did not receive the therapy, so in the analysis by actual treatment received, the rates of MRD negativity were 81% for single transplant, 90% for tandem transplant, and 85% for single transplant plus consolidation (P = 0.2).
Dr. Hahn said she and her colleagues will be updating their analysis of the PRIMeR study to assess the predictive value of MRD status in patients who were negative at all time points evaluated, versus those who converted to MRD negativity at the 1-year analysis.
The MRD assessments used in this trial have been incorporated into the recently completed BMT CTN 1401 trial and the ongoing BMT CTN 1302 study of allogeneic HCT plus ixazomib in high-risk myeloma, she added.
Dr. Hahn reported research funding from Celgene and the National Institutes of Health.
The meeting was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. At its meeting, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation announced a new name for the society: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT).
SOURCE: Hahn TE et al. TCT 2019, Abstract 6.
REPORTING FROM TCT 2019
Similar results for once- or twice-weekly carfilzomib in MM
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma have similar outcomes whether they receive carfilzomib once or twice a week, according to a pooled analysis of trial data.
Researchers found no significant difference in safety, progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) whether patients received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once a week or 36 mg/m2 twice a week.
Sara Bringhen, MD, PhD, of University of Turin, Italy, and her colleagues conducted this analysis and detailed the results in Haematologica.
The researchers pooled data from a phase 1/2 trial (NCT01857115) and a phase 2 trial (NCT01346787), both enrolling transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
In both studies, induction consisted of nine 4-week cycles of carfilzomib (given once or twice weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22). After induction, patients received carfilzomib maintenance (at either dose) until progression or intolerable toxicity.
The pooled analysis included 121 patients: 63 who received carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 once weekly and 58 who received carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 twice weekly.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the dosing groups. For the entire cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 72 years (range, 55-86), and the median follow-up was 39 months.
A total of 119 patients started induction (63 in the once-weekly group and 56 in the twice-weekly group), and 90 patients received maintenance (47 and 43, respectively). Patients received maintenance for a median of 17 months in the once-weekly group and 20 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .17).
There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to PFS or OS, either from enrollment or the start of maintenance.
From enrollment, the median PFS was 35.7 months in the once-weekly group and 35.5 months in the twice-weekly group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39; P = .26). The 3-year OS was 70% and 72%, respectively (HR = 1.27; P = .5).
From the start of maintenance, the 3-year PFS was 47% in the once-weekly group and 51% in the twice-weekly group (HR = 1.04; P = .92). The 3-year OS was 72% and 73%, respectively (HR = 0.82; P = .71).
There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) or the need for carfilzomib dose reduction or discontinuation.
Grade 3-5 hematologic AEs occurred in 24% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 38% and 41%, respectively.
Twenty-nine percent of patients in the once-weekly group required a reduction in carfilzomib dose, as did 30% of patients in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to dose reduction were acute kidney injury, infections, and hypertension.
AEs leading to carfilzomib discontinuation occurred in 27% of patients in the once-weekly group and 30% of those in the twice-weekly group. Common AEs leading to discontinuation were cardiac injury, infections, and thromboembolism.
Both trials were sponsored by Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland in collaboration with Fondazione Neoplasie Sangue ONLUS and supported by funding from Amgen (Onyx Pharmaceuticals). Dr. Bringhen reported relationships with Amgen and other companies. Coauthor Antonio Palumbo, MD, is an employee of Takeda, and other authors reported relationships with a range of companies.
SOURCE: Bringhen S et al. Haematologica. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272.
FROM HAEMATOLOGICA
FDA approves daratumumab split-dosing regimen in MM
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a split-dosing regimen for daratumumab (Darzalex) in patients with multiple myeloma, allowing the first infusion to be split over 2 days.
FDA approval is based on results from the global, multi-arm, phase 1b EQUULEUS (MMY1001) trial, which evaluated daratumumab in combination with a variety of treatment regimens. Splitting the first infusion over 2 consecutive days reduced the duration of the infusion and resulted in a similar rate of infusion site reactions; concentrations were similar at the end of weekly dosing in patients who received the first infusion at once or over a 2-day period.
The adverse events reported in EQUULEUS (MMY1001) were largely similar to those seen in previous trials; the most common adverse events include infusion reactions, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, muscle spasms, arthralgia, back pain, pyrexia, chills, dizziness, insomnia, cough, dyspnea, peripheral edema, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and upper respiratory tract infection.
The approval providers “added flexibility for how patients may receive initial treatment,” Craig Tendler, MD, vice president of clinical development and global medical affairs at Janssen Research & Development, said in a statement.
Trial supports less aggressive myeloma treatment
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
For patients with multiple myeloma that remains symptomatic within a year of starting therapy, neither a second autologous stem cell transplant nor more intensive consolidation therapy offered survival benefits superior to those seen with a single first autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance, reported investigators in a multicenter U.S. trial.
Among 758 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent standard induction therapy, followed by melphalan conditioning and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT), there were no differences in either progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the three treatment arms, reported Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his colleagues.
Patients were randomized to either lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance alone; consolidation therapy with four cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVD), followed by lenalidomide maintenance; or second transplant followed by lenalidomide maintenance.
“Single AHCT followed by len[alidomide] remains the standard of care. Greater than 80% of patients were alive at 38 months, which highlights excellent contemporary outcomes of patients with MM when treated with a standard approach of a multidrug induction followed by AHCT consolidation and maintenance,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The investigators hypothesized that the use of thalidomide analogues and proteasome inhibitors used in first-line therapy, consolidation, and long-term maintenance after high-dose melphalan and AHCT would improve survival, compared with a second AHCT.
To test this idea, they enrolled 758 patients from 54 U.S. centers and randomized them to one of three post-transplant strategies prior to transplant conditioning with high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and AHCT.
Roughly 25% of patients in each treatment arm had high-risk disease, defined as beta-2 microglobulin levels greater than 5.5 mg/L, high-risk cytogenetics, and deletion 13 detected by standard cytogenetics only. The remaining patients in each arm had standard-risk disease.
The patients, who were a median age of 56 years old, had symptomatic multiple myeloma 12 months from the start of therapy without disease progression. They were randomly assigned to either AHCT followed by a second transplant and lenalidomide maintenance (247 patients), single transplant followed by RVD and lenalidomide maintenance (254), or single AHCT plus lenalidomide maintenance (257).
There were no significant differences between the groups in the primary endpoint of PFS at 38 months, with rates of 58.5% for the dual AHCT plus lenalidomide group, 57.8% for AHCT/RVD/lenalidomide, and 53.9% for AHCT/lenalidomide. Respective OS rates also did not differ significantly, at 81.8%, 85.4%, and 83.7%.
Complete response rates at 1 year were 50.5%, 58.4%, and 47.1%, respectively.
The three regimens also were similar in their toxicity profiles and in the risk of second malignancies.
The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: There were no differences in progression-free survival or overall survival among the three trial arms.
Study details: Randomized clinical trial with 758 patients with multiple myeloma.
Disclosures: The trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, research groups, Celgene, and Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stadtmauer reported ties to Celgene, Takeda, and other companies. Multiple coauthors reported relationships with industry.
Source: Stadtmauer E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00685.