User login
High efficacy, no safety signals for herpes zoster vaccine post-HSCT
SALT LAKE CITY – A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.
The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.
Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.
Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.
Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.
Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).
An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).
The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.
Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.
Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.
The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.
SALT LAKE CITY – A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.
The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.
Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.
Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.
Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.
Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).
An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).
The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.
Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.
Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.
The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.
SALT LAKE CITY – A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.
The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.
Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.
Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.
Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.
Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).
An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).
The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.
Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.
Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.
The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.
REPORTING FROM THE 2018 BMT TANDEM MEETINGS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Efficacy was 68.17% for preventing herpes zoster among HSCT recipients.
Study details: A randomized, observer blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of 1,846 post-HSCT recipients.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.
Source: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.
Drug approved to treat newly diagnosed MM in China
The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.
Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.
“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.
Trial results
The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.
The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.
Patients were randomized to receive:
- Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
- 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
- Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).
In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.
The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.
Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.
The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.
Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.
“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.
Trial results
The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.
The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.
Patients were randomized to receive:
- Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
- 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
- Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).
In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.
The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.
Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.
The China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has approved lenalidomide (Revlimid®) to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant.
Lenalidomide was first approved by the CFDA in 2013 for use in combination with dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who had received at least one prior therapy.
“In China, where the incidence of multiple myeloma is on the rise due to an aging population and improved diagnosis, we are hopeful that newly diagnosed patients will have a meaningful long-term benefit from this approval,” said John V. Oyler, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of BeiGene, the company marketing lenalidomide as Revlimid in China under an exclusive license from Celgene Corporation.
Trial results
The CFDA’s decision to expand the approval of lenalidomide is based on results from the phase 3 FIRST trial. Updated results from this study were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in November 2016.
The trial included 1623 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for stem cell transplant.
Patients were randomized to receive:
- Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) in 28-day cycles until disease progression (n=535), known as the “continuous Rd group”
- 18 cycles of Rd (Rd18) for 72 weeks (n=541), known as the “Rd18 group”
- Melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks (n=547).
In the intent-to-treat population, the overall response rate was 81% for the continuous Rd group, 79% for the Rd18 group, and 67% in the MPT group. The complete response rates were 21%, 20%, and 12%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was 26.0 months in the continuous Rd group, 21.0 months in the Rd18 group, and 21.9 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, progression-free survival rates were 33%, 14%, and 13%, respectively.
The median overall survival was 58.9 months in the continuous Rd group, 56.7 months in the Rd18 group, and 48.5 months in the MPT group. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 60%, 57%, and 51%, respectively.
The most frequent grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. The rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia was higher in the MPT group than the continuous Rd or Rd18 groups.
Infections were the most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events. The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the Rd groups than the MPT group.
Export protein inhibitor shows activity against refractory myeloma
Think of it as a biological nuclear export ban: A combination of the nuclear export protein inhibitor selinexor and dexamethasone was associated with relatively good objective response rates and clinical benefit rates among some patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM).
In the dose-expansion portion of a phase 1 dose-finding trial, the objective response rate (ORR) among 12 patients treated with selinexor 45 mg/m2 and 20 mg dexamethasone twice weekly was 50%, and the clinical benefit rate – a composite of complete responses, very good partial responses, partial responses and minimal responses – was 58%, reported Christine Chen, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and her colleagues.
“Selinexor is an oral agent with a completely novel mechanism of action and anti-MM activity in combination with dexamethasone that could provide a new option for patients suffering from this incurable disease,” wrote Dr. Chen and her colleagues. The report was published in Blood.
Selinexor is a selective oral inhibitor of the cellular nuclear export protein exportin 1 (XPO1). Inhibition of this protein causes tumor suppressor proteins to accumulate in the nuclei of malignant cells, leading to programmed cell death (apoptosis) of malignant cells, but with minimal effects on normal cells.
The study, performed in centers in Canada, the United States, and Denmark, was designed primarily to identify the recommended dose of oral selinexor for phase 2 trials, with or without corticosteroids.
A total of 84 patients were enrolled, including 22 with MM and 3 with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia in the dose-escalation phase, and 59 with MM in the dose expansion phase.
In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated with one of two dosing schemes: either selinexor at a dose of 45 or 60 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly in 28-day cycles, or selinexor in a 40 mg or 60 mg flat dose without corticosteroids in 21-day cycles.
As a single agent, selinexor showed minimal activity, with an ORR of 4%, and clinical benefit rate of 21% in 57 patients.
Among 12 patients assigned to the 45 mg/m2 selinexor dose plus dexamethasone, the ORR was 50%, consisting of one complete response and five partial responses. In addition, one patient at this dose level had a minimal response, three had stable disease, one had disease progression, and one was withdrawn from the study before disease assessment, with no evidence of progression.
There were no objective responses in the 60-mg/m2 selinexor dose group.
Among all 84 patients enrolled, the ORR with selinexor alone or in combination was 10%, and the clinical benefit rate was 25%. Of the patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, one had a partial response and one had a minimal response.
In the safety analysis, which included all patients who received at least one dose of selinexor, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia in 45% of patients, hyponatremia in 26% of patients, and anemia and neutropenia in 23% each.
The most common nonhematologic adverse events – primarily grade 1 or 2 – included nausea, fatigue, anorexia, vomiting, and weight loss and diarrhea.
The combination of selinexor and dexamethasone is currently being investigated in the phase 2 Selinexor Treatment of Refractory Myeloma study, in combination with standard multiple myeloma therapies in the STOMP trial (Selinexor and Backbone Treatments of Multiple Myeloma Patients), and with bortezomib in the BOSTON trial (Bortezomib, Selinexor and Dexamethasone in Patients with Multiple Myeloma).
Dr. Chen reported no conflicts of interest. Her coauthors reported financial ties to Karyopharm Therapeutics, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Chen C et al. Blood. 2018;131(8):855-63.
Think of it as a biological nuclear export ban: A combination of the nuclear export protein inhibitor selinexor and dexamethasone was associated with relatively good objective response rates and clinical benefit rates among some patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM).
In the dose-expansion portion of a phase 1 dose-finding trial, the objective response rate (ORR) among 12 patients treated with selinexor 45 mg/m2 and 20 mg dexamethasone twice weekly was 50%, and the clinical benefit rate – a composite of complete responses, very good partial responses, partial responses and minimal responses – was 58%, reported Christine Chen, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and her colleagues.
“Selinexor is an oral agent with a completely novel mechanism of action and anti-MM activity in combination with dexamethasone that could provide a new option for patients suffering from this incurable disease,” wrote Dr. Chen and her colleagues. The report was published in Blood.
Selinexor is a selective oral inhibitor of the cellular nuclear export protein exportin 1 (XPO1). Inhibition of this protein causes tumor suppressor proteins to accumulate in the nuclei of malignant cells, leading to programmed cell death (apoptosis) of malignant cells, but with minimal effects on normal cells.
The study, performed in centers in Canada, the United States, and Denmark, was designed primarily to identify the recommended dose of oral selinexor for phase 2 trials, with or without corticosteroids.
A total of 84 patients were enrolled, including 22 with MM and 3 with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia in the dose-escalation phase, and 59 with MM in the dose expansion phase.
In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated with one of two dosing schemes: either selinexor at a dose of 45 or 60 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly in 28-day cycles, or selinexor in a 40 mg or 60 mg flat dose without corticosteroids in 21-day cycles.
As a single agent, selinexor showed minimal activity, with an ORR of 4%, and clinical benefit rate of 21% in 57 patients.
Among 12 patients assigned to the 45 mg/m2 selinexor dose plus dexamethasone, the ORR was 50%, consisting of one complete response and five partial responses. In addition, one patient at this dose level had a minimal response, three had stable disease, one had disease progression, and one was withdrawn from the study before disease assessment, with no evidence of progression.
There were no objective responses in the 60-mg/m2 selinexor dose group.
Among all 84 patients enrolled, the ORR with selinexor alone or in combination was 10%, and the clinical benefit rate was 25%. Of the patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, one had a partial response and one had a minimal response.
In the safety analysis, which included all patients who received at least one dose of selinexor, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia in 45% of patients, hyponatremia in 26% of patients, and anemia and neutropenia in 23% each.
The most common nonhematologic adverse events – primarily grade 1 or 2 – included nausea, fatigue, anorexia, vomiting, and weight loss and diarrhea.
The combination of selinexor and dexamethasone is currently being investigated in the phase 2 Selinexor Treatment of Refractory Myeloma study, in combination with standard multiple myeloma therapies in the STOMP trial (Selinexor and Backbone Treatments of Multiple Myeloma Patients), and with bortezomib in the BOSTON trial (Bortezomib, Selinexor and Dexamethasone in Patients with Multiple Myeloma).
Dr. Chen reported no conflicts of interest. Her coauthors reported financial ties to Karyopharm Therapeutics, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Chen C et al. Blood. 2018;131(8):855-63.
Think of it as a biological nuclear export ban: A combination of the nuclear export protein inhibitor selinexor and dexamethasone was associated with relatively good objective response rates and clinical benefit rates among some patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM).
In the dose-expansion portion of a phase 1 dose-finding trial, the objective response rate (ORR) among 12 patients treated with selinexor 45 mg/m2 and 20 mg dexamethasone twice weekly was 50%, and the clinical benefit rate – a composite of complete responses, very good partial responses, partial responses and minimal responses – was 58%, reported Christine Chen, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and her colleagues.
“Selinexor is an oral agent with a completely novel mechanism of action and anti-MM activity in combination with dexamethasone that could provide a new option for patients suffering from this incurable disease,” wrote Dr. Chen and her colleagues. The report was published in Blood.
Selinexor is a selective oral inhibitor of the cellular nuclear export protein exportin 1 (XPO1). Inhibition of this protein causes tumor suppressor proteins to accumulate in the nuclei of malignant cells, leading to programmed cell death (apoptosis) of malignant cells, but with minimal effects on normal cells.
The study, performed in centers in Canada, the United States, and Denmark, was designed primarily to identify the recommended dose of oral selinexor for phase 2 trials, with or without corticosteroids.
A total of 84 patients were enrolled, including 22 with MM and 3 with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia in the dose-escalation phase, and 59 with MM in the dose expansion phase.
In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated with one of two dosing schemes: either selinexor at a dose of 45 or 60 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly in 28-day cycles, or selinexor in a 40 mg or 60 mg flat dose without corticosteroids in 21-day cycles.
As a single agent, selinexor showed minimal activity, with an ORR of 4%, and clinical benefit rate of 21% in 57 patients.
Among 12 patients assigned to the 45 mg/m2 selinexor dose plus dexamethasone, the ORR was 50%, consisting of one complete response and five partial responses. In addition, one patient at this dose level had a minimal response, three had stable disease, one had disease progression, and one was withdrawn from the study before disease assessment, with no evidence of progression.
There were no objective responses in the 60-mg/m2 selinexor dose group.
Among all 84 patients enrolled, the ORR with selinexor alone or in combination was 10%, and the clinical benefit rate was 25%. Of the patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, one had a partial response and one had a minimal response.
In the safety analysis, which included all patients who received at least one dose of selinexor, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia in 45% of patients, hyponatremia in 26% of patients, and anemia and neutropenia in 23% each.
The most common nonhematologic adverse events – primarily grade 1 or 2 – included nausea, fatigue, anorexia, vomiting, and weight loss and diarrhea.
The combination of selinexor and dexamethasone is currently being investigated in the phase 2 Selinexor Treatment of Refractory Myeloma study, in combination with standard multiple myeloma therapies in the STOMP trial (Selinexor and Backbone Treatments of Multiple Myeloma Patients), and with bortezomib in the BOSTON trial (Bortezomib, Selinexor and Dexamethasone in Patients with Multiple Myeloma).
Dr. Chen reported no conflicts of interest. Her coauthors reported financial ties to Karyopharm Therapeutics, which funded the study.
SOURCE: Chen C et al. Blood. 2018;131(8):855-63.
FROM BLOOD
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The objective response rate among 12 patients with multiple myeloma treated at a dose of 45 mg/m2 selinexor and 20 mg dexamethasone was 50%.
Data source: Phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of 81 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and three patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia.
Disclosures: Dr. Chen reported no conflicts of interest. Her coauthors reported financial ties to Karyopharm Therapeutics, which funded the study.
Source: Chen C et al. Blood. 2018;131(8):855-63.
CHMP supports approval of denosumab in MM
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).
The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).
Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.
The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.
The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.
In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.
But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).
The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).
Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.
The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.
The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.
In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.
But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the current indication for denosumab (XGEVA®).
The CHMP said the drug should be approved for use in preventing skeletal related events (SREs) in adults with advanced malignancies involving bone, which includes multiple myeloma (MM).
Denosumab is currently approved in Europe to prevent SREs—defined as radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression—in adults with bone metastases from solid tumors.
The drug is also approved for the treatment of adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.
The CHMP’s opinion on expanding the indication for denosumab will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The CHMP’s recommendation for denosumab is based on data from the ’482 study, which were recently published in The Lancet Oncology.
In this phase 3 trial, denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid for delaying SREs in patients with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.
Researchers randomized 1718 patients to receive subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function at baseline) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859). All patients also received investigators’ choice of first-line MM therapy.
The median time to first on-study SRE was 22.8 months for patients in the denosumab arm and 24 months for those in the zoledronic acid arm (hazard ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.14; P non-inferiority=0.010).
There were fewer renal treatment-emergent adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—10% and 17%, respectively.
But there were more hypocalcemia adverse events in the denosumab arm than the zoledronic acid arm—17% and 12%, respectively.
Regimen deemed ‘safe and feasible’ in MM
SALT LAKE CITY—A novel transplant regimen is “safe and feasible” for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to a presentation at the 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings.
Researchers conducted a phase 1 trial investigating the addition of elotuzumab and autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) reconstitution to standard autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and lenalidomide maintenance in MM patients.
The regimen was considered well tolerated, as most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2.
The complete response (CR) rate was 40% at both 90 days and 1 year after ASCT.
Keren Osman, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York, reported these results as abstract 26.* This is an investigator-sponsored study, conducted in collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb, the company marketing elotuzumab.
Dr Osman noted that elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7. The drug directly activates natural killer (NK) cells through the SLAMF7 pathway and Fc receptors. Elotuzumab also targets SLAMF7 on MM cells and facilitates interaction with NK cells to mediate the killing of MM cells through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.
“The hypothesis behind this phase 1 study was that . . ., in the peri-transplant period, if we add elotuzumab, we will succeed in promoting NK-mediated elimination of residual multiple myeloma cells as well as promote transition from innate to adaptive immune responses against multiple myeloma-associated antigens,” Dr Osman said.
She and her colleagues tested this hypothesis in 15 MM patients. They had a median age of 59 (range, 49-70), and 60% of them were male.
Forty percent of patients had stage I disease, 27% had stage II, and 20% had stage III. All patients had an ECOG status of 0 (47%) or 1 (53%).
The patients had a median of 174 days since diagnosis (range, 98-393).
All patients had received 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy. They all had bortezomib as part of their induction therapy, and 67% of them had received lenalidomide.
Seventy-three percent of patients had any cytogenetic abnormality, and 47% had high-risk cytogenetics.
Treatment
Patients underwent leukopheresis for PBMC collection, followed by standard peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvest.
They received standard melphalan conditioning on day -1 and autologous stem cell rescue on day 0. Autologous PBMCs were reinfused on day 3 after stem cell infusion.
Elotuzumab was given at 20 mg/kg intravenously on day 4. The drug was given every 28 days up to cycle 12.
Lenalidomide maintenance was given at 10 mg orally on days 1 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, starting with cycle 4 of elotuzumab (90 days post-ASCT). Maintenance could continue beyond cycle 12 at the investigators’ discretion.
Thirteen patients completed a year of treatment. One patient withdrew from the study due to early progression. The other patient withdrew due to personal choice and had a very good partial response (VGPR) at withdrawal.
Safety
“The majority of the adverse events, including infusion reactions attributable to elotuzumab, were grade 2 or lower,” Dr Osman noted. “And there were no AEs related to PBMC administration.”
One patient had a delay in hematopoietic reconstitution, which resulted in hospitalization exceeding 21 days.
One patient had grade 3 hypertension, which was attributed to elotuzumab and resolved with supportive care.
Eight patients had grade 3 lymphopenia, which was associated with elotuzumab, during the maintenance phase. Patients received prophylactic antibiotics, and there were no opportunistic infections.
Efficacy
At screening (after induction but before ASCT), 13 patients (87%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a partial response (PR).
At 90 days post-ASCT, 2 patients (13%) had a stringent CR, and 4 (27%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a PR. One patient (7%) had progressed.
“In this very high-risk PR/VGPR population, stem cell transplant with elotuzumab and PBMC infusion resulted in a CR rate of 40%—with 13% of patients achieving stringent CR—by day 90,” Dr Osman noted. “And maintenance elotuzumab plus lenalidomide promoted further conversion to 33% stringent CR by 1 year.”
At 1 year, 5 patients (33%) had a stringent CR, and 1 (7%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 1 (7%) had a PR. Two patients (13%) had progressed.
So the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 86% (13/15).
“In conclusion, we see that elotuzumab and PBMC administration with standard autologous stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance for consolidation therapy in multiple myeloma is certainly both safe and feasible,” Dr Osman said. “We’re planning a phase 2 study.”
*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.
SALT LAKE CITY—A novel transplant regimen is “safe and feasible” for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to a presentation at the 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings.
Researchers conducted a phase 1 trial investigating the addition of elotuzumab and autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) reconstitution to standard autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and lenalidomide maintenance in MM patients.
The regimen was considered well tolerated, as most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2.
The complete response (CR) rate was 40% at both 90 days and 1 year after ASCT.
Keren Osman, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York, reported these results as abstract 26.* This is an investigator-sponsored study, conducted in collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb, the company marketing elotuzumab.
Dr Osman noted that elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7. The drug directly activates natural killer (NK) cells through the SLAMF7 pathway and Fc receptors. Elotuzumab also targets SLAMF7 on MM cells and facilitates interaction with NK cells to mediate the killing of MM cells through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.
“The hypothesis behind this phase 1 study was that . . ., in the peri-transplant period, if we add elotuzumab, we will succeed in promoting NK-mediated elimination of residual multiple myeloma cells as well as promote transition from innate to adaptive immune responses against multiple myeloma-associated antigens,” Dr Osman said.
She and her colleagues tested this hypothesis in 15 MM patients. They had a median age of 59 (range, 49-70), and 60% of them were male.
Forty percent of patients had stage I disease, 27% had stage II, and 20% had stage III. All patients had an ECOG status of 0 (47%) or 1 (53%).
The patients had a median of 174 days since diagnosis (range, 98-393).
All patients had received 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy. They all had bortezomib as part of their induction therapy, and 67% of them had received lenalidomide.
Seventy-three percent of patients had any cytogenetic abnormality, and 47% had high-risk cytogenetics.
Treatment
Patients underwent leukopheresis for PBMC collection, followed by standard peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvest.
They received standard melphalan conditioning on day -1 and autologous stem cell rescue on day 0. Autologous PBMCs were reinfused on day 3 after stem cell infusion.
Elotuzumab was given at 20 mg/kg intravenously on day 4. The drug was given every 28 days up to cycle 12.
Lenalidomide maintenance was given at 10 mg orally on days 1 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, starting with cycle 4 of elotuzumab (90 days post-ASCT). Maintenance could continue beyond cycle 12 at the investigators’ discretion.
Thirteen patients completed a year of treatment. One patient withdrew from the study due to early progression. The other patient withdrew due to personal choice and had a very good partial response (VGPR) at withdrawal.
Safety
“The majority of the adverse events, including infusion reactions attributable to elotuzumab, were grade 2 or lower,” Dr Osman noted. “And there were no AEs related to PBMC administration.”
One patient had a delay in hematopoietic reconstitution, which resulted in hospitalization exceeding 21 days.
One patient had grade 3 hypertension, which was attributed to elotuzumab and resolved with supportive care.
Eight patients had grade 3 lymphopenia, which was associated with elotuzumab, during the maintenance phase. Patients received prophylactic antibiotics, and there were no opportunistic infections.
Efficacy
At screening (after induction but before ASCT), 13 patients (87%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a partial response (PR).
At 90 days post-ASCT, 2 patients (13%) had a stringent CR, and 4 (27%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a PR. One patient (7%) had progressed.
“In this very high-risk PR/VGPR population, stem cell transplant with elotuzumab and PBMC infusion resulted in a CR rate of 40%—with 13% of patients achieving stringent CR—by day 90,” Dr Osman noted. “And maintenance elotuzumab plus lenalidomide promoted further conversion to 33% stringent CR by 1 year.”
At 1 year, 5 patients (33%) had a stringent CR, and 1 (7%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 1 (7%) had a PR. Two patients (13%) had progressed.
So the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 86% (13/15).
“In conclusion, we see that elotuzumab and PBMC administration with standard autologous stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance for consolidation therapy in multiple myeloma is certainly both safe and feasible,” Dr Osman said. “We’re planning a phase 2 study.”
*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.
SALT LAKE CITY—A novel transplant regimen is “safe and feasible” for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to a presentation at the 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings.
Researchers conducted a phase 1 trial investigating the addition of elotuzumab and autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) reconstitution to standard autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and lenalidomide maintenance in MM patients.
The regimen was considered well tolerated, as most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2.
The complete response (CR) rate was 40% at both 90 days and 1 year after ASCT.
Keren Osman, MD, of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, New York, reported these results as abstract 26.* This is an investigator-sponsored study, conducted in collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb, the company marketing elotuzumab.
Dr Osman noted that elotuzumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7. The drug directly activates natural killer (NK) cells through the SLAMF7 pathway and Fc receptors. Elotuzumab also targets SLAMF7 on MM cells and facilitates interaction with NK cells to mediate the killing of MM cells through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.
“The hypothesis behind this phase 1 study was that . . ., in the peri-transplant period, if we add elotuzumab, we will succeed in promoting NK-mediated elimination of residual multiple myeloma cells as well as promote transition from innate to adaptive immune responses against multiple myeloma-associated antigens,” Dr Osman said.
She and her colleagues tested this hypothesis in 15 MM patients. They had a median age of 59 (range, 49-70), and 60% of them were male.
Forty percent of patients had stage I disease, 27% had stage II, and 20% had stage III. All patients had an ECOG status of 0 (47%) or 1 (53%).
The patients had a median of 174 days since diagnosis (range, 98-393).
All patients had received 1 to 2 prior lines of therapy. They all had bortezomib as part of their induction therapy, and 67% of them had received lenalidomide.
Seventy-three percent of patients had any cytogenetic abnormality, and 47% had high-risk cytogenetics.
Treatment
Patients underwent leukopheresis for PBMC collection, followed by standard peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvest.
They received standard melphalan conditioning on day -1 and autologous stem cell rescue on day 0. Autologous PBMCs were reinfused on day 3 after stem cell infusion.
Elotuzumab was given at 20 mg/kg intravenously on day 4. The drug was given every 28 days up to cycle 12.
Lenalidomide maintenance was given at 10 mg orally on days 1 to 21 of every 28-day cycle, starting with cycle 4 of elotuzumab (90 days post-ASCT). Maintenance could continue beyond cycle 12 at the investigators’ discretion.
Thirteen patients completed a year of treatment. One patient withdrew from the study due to early progression. The other patient withdrew due to personal choice and had a very good partial response (VGPR) at withdrawal.
Safety
“The majority of the adverse events, including infusion reactions attributable to elotuzumab, were grade 2 or lower,” Dr Osman noted. “And there were no AEs related to PBMC administration.”
One patient had a delay in hematopoietic reconstitution, which resulted in hospitalization exceeding 21 days.
One patient had grade 3 hypertension, which was attributed to elotuzumab and resolved with supportive care.
Eight patients had grade 3 lymphopenia, which was associated with elotuzumab, during the maintenance phase. Patients received prophylactic antibiotics, and there were no opportunistic infections.
Efficacy
At screening (after induction but before ASCT), 13 patients (87%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a partial response (PR).
At 90 days post-ASCT, 2 patients (13%) had a stringent CR, and 4 (27%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 2 (13%) had a PR. One patient (7%) had progressed.
“In this very high-risk PR/VGPR population, stem cell transplant with elotuzumab and PBMC infusion resulted in a CR rate of 40%—with 13% of patients achieving stringent CR—by day 90,” Dr Osman noted. “And maintenance elotuzumab plus lenalidomide promoted further conversion to 33% stringent CR by 1 year.”
At 1 year, 5 patients (33%) had a stringent CR, and 1 (7%) had a CR. Six patients (40%) had a VGPR, and 1 (7%) had a PR. Two patients (13%) had progressed.
So the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 86% (13/15).
“In conclusion, we see that elotuzumab and PBMC administration with standard autologous stem cell transplant and lenalidomide maintenance for consolidation therapy in multiple myeloma is certainly both safe and feasible,” Dr Osman said. “We’re planning a phase 2 study.”
*Information in the abstract differs from the presentation.
Study reveals lack of sexual aids for cancer survivors
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
ORLANDO—A new study suggests many US cancer centers do not have therapeutic aids for patients who experience sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment.
Of 25 cancer centers polled, 80% said they had no sexual aids available on site for men, and 64% said they had no such aids for women.
Sharon Bober, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues presented this research at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium (abstract 134*).
“[P]roviding sexual aids is one step toward treating sexual health like any other aspect of survivorship care,” Dr Bober said.
“It should be no different than providing wigs and head coverings to women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy. It’s important to give patients the message that regaining sexual health is a perfectly valid and life-affirming aspect of regaining overall quality of life.”
Dr Bober and her colleagues conducted this study to determine the availability of sexual aids at 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.
The researchers called these centers posing as a spouse, adult child, or sibling of a patient. The team made separate calls to ask about sexual aids for women and those for men.
Women’s sexual aids
Twenty-four percent of cancer centers (n=6) said they had sexual aids for women, 64% (n=16) did not, and 12% of centers were unreachable (n=3).
The most common aids were personal lubrication, vaginal moisturizer, and vaginal dilators—all of which were available at 5 centers.
Three centers had vibrators, 2 had books/pamphlets, 2 had pelvic floor exercisers, and 2 had product lists.
Men’s sexual aids
Twelve percent of cancer centers (n=3) said they had sexual aids for men, 80% (n=20) did not, and 8% (n=2) were unreachable.
Two centers said they had personal lubrication available for men, 2 had penile support rings, 1 had vacuum erection devices, and 1 had books/pamphlets.
Next steps
Now, Dr Bober and her colleagues hope to query the other 44 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to see what products they are selling and perhaps conduct patient surveys to find out what types of resources are most useful for cancer survivors.
“What we really need to do is go to the centers that are successfully providing sexual health products and find out how they promote and provide resources to their patients,” Dr Bober said.
“We can’t keep the conversation at the 10,000-foot level. We need to talk concretely about how to partner with providers to make sexual health resources, including sexual health aids, available so cancer survivors can get the help that they need.”
*Information presented differs from the abstract.
Treatment and Management of Multiple Myeloma (FULL)
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016]. 
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016].
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
Early Treatment and Diagnosis
Dr. Ascensão. An area that is becoming very important is identifying and separating smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) from multiple myeloma (MM) and determining when to start treatment. At the Washington DC VAMC (DCVAMC) we started early on bisphosphonates and thalidomide without much benefit, but perhaps we were treating the wrong disease.
Dr. Mehta. Identifying patients as early as possible is often the best way to start. Treating early disease is easier than treating late disease, and it avoids all the complications. The problem is we don’t want to treat too many people because some of the people with SMM will never develop overt MM and, therefore, may not need treatment. We don’t have benign treatment yet. Whatever treatment we decide to use is going to carry adverse effects and toxicity.
So the trick is identifying those patients with SMM who are likely to progress in a finite period and, therefore, can be helped by treating early to avoid the complications of late diagnosis. We know that early treatment for patients with high-risk SMM helps. In a report from Lancet Oncology, early treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone reduces time to progression.1 There are other reports that treating early reduces time to progression.
So how do we identify those patients who are going to progress? We have a few clues. We know that patients who have a myeloma spike of > 1.5 g/dL are more likely to progress than others…The more discordant the / ratio from 1:1, the higher the risk for progression. And if that ratio is 1:100 or more, that would be a risk factor for progression.
We know from the work of Mayo Clinic researchers that if there are ≥ 60% of plasma cells in the bone marrow then it is a risk factor for progression. And we know from early studies that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of bone lesions, even long before they become detectable by X-ray, also is a risk factor for rapid development to myeloma.
...Methods such as genotyping, which we do here at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, even in patients with MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance), can identify high-risk patients, but that is not the standard of care yet. But it may become the standard of care in the days to come.
Another thing to think about for MGUS patients: Are there ways to identify what causes MGUS patients to evolve to SMM and then to overt myeloma, and to develop means of interrupting the progression cascade? There have been clinical trials on treatments (eg, bisphosphonates, thalidomide, aspirin, and cyclooxygenase inhibitors), but we haven’t found any safe, good treatment to prevent progression yet. With better technologies, we may be able to do that.
Dr. Ascensão. At the DCVAMC often we receive consults for a patient who had a little anemia, diabetes, renal disease, and the serum protein electrophoresis reveals a very small peak. How often should you follow patients? Do you do a complete workup the moment you see an MGUS or do you wait until they reach SMM?
Dr. Mehta. I don’t think every patient needs a complete workup. If you have obviously identifiable reasons for the anemia or the renal failure, then it’s less likely to be suspicious for myeloma. But patients with M spikes > 1 g/dL deserve a workup with a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and at least bone X-rays, although MRIs would be even better.
I would differentiate based on the amount of M protein. Higher M protein patients deserve to have at least a bone marrow aspirate and bone study. Patients
with M protein > 1g/dL deserve to be seen every 3 to 4 months. I see patients with tiny little peaks every 6 months. And then, after 1 or 2 years, I turn over their care to the primary care doctor to follow. If we had research protocols to look at those patients and find the methods for progression, which I had at one point, then of course, we could see them more often and try to unravel the mystery.
Use of Imaging
Dr. Ascensão. That’s pretty close to what we do at DCVAMC. What do you think is the role for a bone survey as opposed to MRIs and positron emission tomography (PET) scans in this setting?
Dr. Mehta. In the real world X-rays are more accessible and much less expensive. So for the patient with very low risk who doesn’t have any complaints and
who has a low M spike, I think a bone survey is adequate. But you need about 30% to 40% bone destruction before you’re going to find anything on the X-ray.
MRIs are much more sensitive, plus they tell you about bone marrow involvement, but that should be reserved for the patient who has symptoms or a high
M protein. At Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System we simply can’t get PET scans for myeloma patients. At the myeloma center across the street from us, PET scans are used for routine evaluations.
Dr. Chauncey. I agree with Dr. Mehta. At VA Puget Sound Healthcare System (VAPSHCS) there isn’t a problem getting PET scans, but we probably get far fewer
scans than Arkansas. I still like the skeletal survey because it directs you where to look for potential pathologic fracture. It’s definitely not as sensitive as the dedicated myeloma MRI, but it’s a lot easier to get at VAPSHCS, especially as a screening tool.
Dr. Ascensão. Right, I believe there are some issues about the number of osteolytic lesions that may drive diagnosis.
Dr. Mehta. For patients with high M protein, I always request MRI. But the correlation is poorer in patients who have lower M protein. I try to limit it to the patients who have symptoms or high M protein, but I don’t have any evidence-based data to prove that’s the right way.
Dr. Ascensão. If you were going to start treatment of SMM that you believe is evolving to a more regular myeloma, do you do anything different than you would for any of the patients that you have identified as having active myeloma? Do you have different protocols for those patients as opposed to patients who present de novo with active myeloma?
Dr. Mehta. Those patients should be treated with the same drugs, an IMiD and a steroid. And the question is plus or minus a proteasome inhibitor. Studies have shown that an IMiD with a steroid gets much better results than using observation alone. Whether you would get even better results with the proteasome inhibitor remains to be seen. Maybe we can do that study.
Dr. Chauncey. We strive to identify high-risk SMM patients and treat them accordingly. Alternatively, physicians are pulling the trigger for therapy earlier and earlier and when they come for transplant with a diagnosis of MM, it is critical to review the initial diagnostic information. Most transplant centers have experience with this phenomena and know that they don’t want to transplant a non-high-risk SMM or any MGUS. However, by the time the patient is referred for transplantation, the initial clinical data are sometimes obscured or inaccessible.
Dr. Ascensão. We also look into the bone bearing areas, which allows us to make sure that if the patient has hip problems, we can work on how to approach them, whether we want to radiate those patients to prevent fractures.
Use of Bisphosphonates
Dr. Cosgriff. Myeloma metastasizes to bone, and it is one of the common sites of metastatic disease. It poses some interesting complications, whether it is from hypercalcemia due to metastatic sites, or pain syndromes. Bisphosphonates are indicated for myeloma, and they have been for years. Interestingly, unlike some of the other disease, the use of bisphosphonates induces apoptosis in myeloma. So we have seen some disease control with these agents.
The 2 bisphosphonates that are available for use are pamidronate and zoledronic acid. At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), we have been
using pamidronate exclusively for individuals with myeloma. There was a 2003 paper that evaluated the use of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related events in myeloma and in patients with metastatic breast cancer.2 In the subset analysis of myeloma patients with the bisphosphonates, there was no difference between pamidronate and zoledronic acid.
At the time, zoledronic acid was significantly more expensive than pamidronate, and so VAPORHCS opted to use pamidronate as a cost-saving measure. But there are the other reasons for picking pamidronate: Zoledronic acid has some dose recommendations and guidelines for individuals with renal failure, which is often a significant problem in patients with myeloma as well. To get around dose adjustments that need to be made for zoledronic acid, VAPORHCS switched to pamidronate, which is looser with the recommendations on renal failure.
Earlier use criteria, like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, stated that if the renal failure was due to the disease itself and not some other outlying factor, a full 90-mg dose of pamidronate could still be used. That comment has since been removed. We still pay attention to it and reduce pamidronate dosing to 60 mg for patients with renal failure.
The prices for zoledronic acid have dropped significantly since it became a generic. The nice thing about zoledronic acid is that it has a short infusion time of 15 minutes. As chair space becomes a problem—VAPHCS has significant issues with that—zoledronic acid looks more and more attractive. The FDA label states that pamidronate should be infused over 4 hours, but VAPHCS typically has been infusing it for 3 hours.
It should be noted that denosumab (XGEVA), a monoclonal antibody that also is targeted for hypercalcemia, has been specifically excluded for myeloma. It
has no FDA indication for myeloma. It does have an indication for hypercalcemia. Whether or not you can state that the patient with myeloma is hypercalcemic, and that’s the reason you want to use it, it starts crossing into some gray area. The drug is still significantly more expensive and it seems to have similar efficacy rates compared with both pamidronate and zoledronic acid, so VAPHCS limits its use to individuals who would otherwise be contraindicated to zoledronic acid or pamidronate due to renal failure.
Dr. Ascensão. How often do you give it, every month, every 3 months?
Dr. Cosgriff. Currently, VAPORHCS is giving bisphosphonates every month whether in the chemotherapy unit or in the short stay unit. We are starting to reevaluate that. I have heard some emerging data that suggest we can use it once a quarter and get the same results. Those data are still emerging. It would be nice to be able to reduce the infusion frequency. But bisphosphonates adhere to bone and get incorporated into the bone matrix and stay there for an extended period of time, upwards of 6 months to a year, as with zoledronic acid.
Osteonecrosis
Dr. Ascensão. Do you require dental clearance prior to first dose?
Dr. Cosgriff. Bisphosphonates have a warning for 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw include poor dentition or major dental work, like extractions and illfitting dentures but not necessarily root canals. Ill-fitting dentures tend to rub on the gums and irritate the bone layer underneath. It’s the irritation of the bone that’s the biggest risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaw.
We require that patients see the dentist because we’ve had individuals develop osteonecrosis eventhough we thought they had good dentition. If a patient is seeing a dentist outside of the VA system, we ask them to notify their dentist that they’re receiving bisphosphonates. Because of the risk and because we’ve had some individuals with good dentition develop it, VAPORHCS requires all patients, particularly those who are receiving zoledronic acid, to have dental evaluations. Denosumab also has a listed 2% incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, so those individuals also need to be evaluated by our dental service.
Dr. Ascensão. The DCVAMC has the same problem. I have a patient that presented primarily with a plasmacytoma, and we tried to get him to see the dentist. The dentist said, ‘You’ve got to get your teeth pulled.’ The patient has tried to see outside dentists and is finding all kinds of excuses because he would like to have implants.
Dr. Cosgriff. Anytime that you somehow damage or irritate that bone, that becomes a risk factor for the development of osteonecrosis. And for those individuals, we delay the bisphosphonate. If they’re having pain syndrome, we try to support them with opiates. We would love to be able to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—they have really good efficacy against bone pain—but renal function and renal failures prevent the use of those in a majority of patients. We start bisphosphonates as soon as dental clears them.
Dr. Mehta. Isn’t there a contraindication for denosumab and some evidence that it may worsen MM outcomes?
Dr. Cosgriff. When the drug first came on the market, it specifically stated in the package insert that it is not to be used in MM (it doesn’t state it specifically anymore). There is a thought that maybe some underlying mechanism exists that might stimulate some of the myeloma problems, which is why I get a little concerned when people say, “Well, I’m using it for hypercalcemia, I’m not using it to treat or to prevent a skeletal-related event in patients with myeloma.” That becomes a gray area and in that type of situation, I would recommend treating the hypercalcemia with a single dose and then switching the
patient to a bisphosphonate.
Dr. Mehta. And of course, bisphosphonates also lower calcium. They can be used to treat hypercalcemia.
Dr. Cosgriff. Yes. Zoledronic acid does have limitations in renal failure, though pamidronate doesn’t have quite the same limitations. The VAPORHCS tries to
use exclusively for hypercalcemia as well. The data show that when using zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate, you end up with the same outcomes as far as hypercalcemia. The zoledronic acid onset of action is a little faster, around 12 to 24 hours vs 48 to 72 hours with pamidronate, but you can get around that by using calcitonin over a short period; 48 hours is typically the maximum efficacy for calcitonin in treating hypercalcemia. So we use pamidronate in place of that, supplementing with calcitonin.
The result is that at 7 days, pamidronate and zoledronic acid show the same efficacy rates for treating hypercalcemia. But the renal function sometimes prevents us from doing that. Denosumab does become an option for hypercalcemia, but again, I caution against its use for treating hypercalcemia in patients with myeloma due to the risk of advancing the myeloma.
Bone Marrow Transplant
Dr. Ascensão. Do you transplant for 1 or 2 bone marrows? What’s the best maintenance regimen postallograft, and when do you start? Do you use lenalidomide the first month of the transplant or do you wait until day 100?
Dr. Chauncey. From my perspective, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has never really lost prominence. It is true that the concept of marrow transplantation for MM has been around for more than 20 years for those patients with first best response (Note that I’ll use best response rather than first remission). The concept was developed in an era when we had much less effective therapy, and in comparative trials, progressionfree survival was consistently superior and occasionally, overall survival was better with transplantation. As treatments got better, responses got better, and there were regular questions as to whether we still needed transplantation. But the data show that as responses got better, the progression-free survivals continued to improve, and transplantation still adds something to initial therapy.
Probably the most current data are from the Dana Farber- IFM trial for which Nikhil Munshi, MD, is an investigator. The trial includes induction with lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, which is one of the more aggressive induction regimens. When upfront transplant vs delayed transplant are compared, it seems the preliminary data still favor having an upfront transplant after initial induction therapy.
The consensus is that autologous transplantation adds to the better response that we see with better induction therapy. Overall survival has become a less accessible endpoint since the initial trials, and that’s really a consequence of having better salvage therapy, and the confounding effects of subsequent treatments. We have so many options for salvage therapy that it’s now very hard to look at overall survival as an endpoint in trials of initial therapy.
A sometimes contentious question when it comes to payers, and less so in the VA, is how many transplants to do as part of initial therapy? Little Rock and the French did some of the pioneering work on tandem transplants. The BMT CTN 0702–StaMINA trial looks at this directly, and is mature and should be presented soon [Editorial Note: Preliminary results were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 6, 2016].
The approach at VAPSHCS and most other transplant centers has typically been to harvest a sufficient quantity of peripheral blood stem cells to do 2 transplants. If less than a very good partial response is achieved after the first transplant, then we do a second transplant in tandem fashion.
One exception would be for plasma cell leukemia, which is very aggressive. In that case, we would routinely perform tandem transplantation. We are unlikely to ever have a randomized trial that compares 1 vs 2 transplants in that particular setting.
Another question is whether a second autologous transplantation can be useful in a nontandem fashion, and there is a large amount of retrospective data about its use as salvage treatment. In eras when there were not as many effective therapies, salvage autologous transplant was more attractive. As new therapies came along, its use has somewhat waned, but there’s been renewed interest because dose-intensive melphalan with autologous rescue is relatively safe and not cross-resistant to other therapies. It also offers the option of a drug holiday after the transplant, whereas salvage drug therapy is typically continuous.
There is no universal agreement on nontandem second transplantation, there are no consistent algorithms to say when it is appropriate, but it’s worth discussing with the transplant programs, especially if there is a lot of toxicity with current salvage therapy.
The last question is the role of allogeneic transplantation, and while I’m generally a proponent of allogeneic transplantation for many diseases, in spite of some really significant efforts, the majority of allogeneic data for MM has not been very positive. The large BMT-CTN 0102 trial compared tandem autologous transplant at first response to a single autologous transplantation followed by reduced-intensity autologous transplantation from a matched sibling. This study was limited in part by enrollment bias, but the published results did not favor an allogeneic approach.3 Although there was less relapse in the allogeneic setting, the mortality of allogeneic transplant was not overcome by the decrease in relapse. Neither progression-free or overall survivals at 3 years were better in the allogeneic group.
Despite small studies showing feasibility and promising results, it’s currently very hard to advocate for allogeneic transplantation in MM. There are certainly centers that continue to have their own approach, with some in the U.S. that are pioneering tweaks on allogeneic regimens and graft engineering, but the data are typically small and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ultimately be a better way to do allogeneic transplantation in MM, but rather that we don’t currently know the best way to approach this strategy.
Next Steps in Myeloma Treatment
Dr. Ascensão. There are some people who are now starting to talk about a cure for myeloma. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, it’s a chronic disease that, if we can take care of the complications and maybe by starting treatment early. I’m not sure Agent Orange-exposed patients do better or worse. That’s something that needs to be researched if we can find a way to compare within this group and within the type of treatment that patients get.
Is it reasonable to start looking for minimal residual disease in cells? Should we shoot for the best response? I think one of the points that Dr. Chauncey made a number of times, and I agree, is that our patient population may not be able to tolerate some of the more aggressive therapies. Perhaps we need to find a slightly different version of this algorithm for VA patients.
Dr. Chauncey. There’s a diverse biology for both veterans and nonveterans alike. There are patients for whom a deeper response will lead to longer remission and better survival, and there are others whose disease will smolder with a lower tumor burden and not progress quickly. A lot of the early gene expression profiling data on this comes from Little Rock. Unfortunately, determination of an individual’s biology is not readily accessible in the clinic, and we are typically unable to clearly define each patient’s inherent disease biology.
Dr. Mehta. We just don’t have the answers as to exactly what to do with the information that we get except watch more closely and treat a little bit earlier. We don’t even know the significance of minimal residue disease and how often to test for it and if it correlates truly with longer-term survival. These are great research questions. We need to accumulate the data and try to analyze it. We need to participate in the big data programs.
Dr. Ascensão. The other thing, of course, is now we have new immunotherapy approaches beyond transplant, which includes some of the checkpoint inhibitors and there’s some exciting data coming out. So I think the future looks good.
We all are committed to treating our patients, our veterans, to the best of our abilities. And I think the VA has done a very good job in allowing us to do this for our patients and allowing us to provide the best treatments available out there.
Click here to read the digital edition.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
1. Mateos MV, Hernández MT, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1127-1136.
2. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer. 2003;98(8):1735-1744.
3. Krishnan A, Pasquini MC, Logan B, et al; Blood Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). Autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation followed by allogeneic or autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma (BMT CTN 0102): a phase 3 biological assignment trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1195-11203.
Denosumab on par with zoledronic acid for multiple myeloma bone disease
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
The study by Dr. Raje and colleagues is the largest placebo-controlled study ever done in patients with myeloma, but there are still many questions about how to move forward with this treatment. For instance, since only patients with myeloma-related bone disease at diagnosis were enrolled, the benefit of denosumab in patients without bone disease is uncertain. Additionally, the study did not show a survival benefit for denosumab over zoledronic acid.
Cost is also a factor, as denosumab is a higher priced treatment and requires continuous therapy. New treatment options, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are also available. It’s unclear how denosumab adds value in the context of these new therapies.
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, and Efstathios Kastritis, MD, are with the department of clinical therapeutics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Dr. Dimopoulos had received honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kastritis has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Prothena, Takeda, and Genesis Pharma. Their remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30075-5).
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid at delaying skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and one or more lytic bone lesions, according to findings from an international randomized trial.
In a phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab or intravenous zoledronic acid, plus the investigator’s choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy. The primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab at preventing time to first skeletal-related event, compared with zoledronic acid, was met, reported Noopur Raje, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, and colleagues.
Median progression-free survival, an exploratory endpoint, was significantly longer with denosumab – 46.1 months vs. 35.4 months – translating into a hazard ratio of 0.82 (P = .036) for progression on denosumab. There was no difference in overall survival, however.
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a promoter of osteoclast formation, activation, and survival. Zoledronic acid is a bisphosphonate that may have antimyeloma effects, the investigators noted.
“The greater progression-free survival with denosumab than with zoledronic acid is compelling in view of the previous preclinical and clinical evidence supporting an anti-RANKL[receptor factor kappa-B ligand]–mediated, antimyeloma effect. These results, in combination with the improved renal adverse event profile, support denosumab as an additional option to the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Oncology.
The trial included 1,718 patients age 18 and older treated at 259 centers in 29 countries. All patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with at least one documented lytic bone lesion. The patients were randomly assigned to denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were stratified by intent to undergo autologous stem cell transplant, antimyeloma therapy regimen, stage according to the International Staging System, previous skeletal-related events, and region.
As noted, the trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of denosumab, with a hazard ratio for time to first skeletal-related event vs. zoledronic acid of 0.98 (P = .010).
The safety analysis, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication (850 on denosumab and 852 on zoledronic acid) showed that the agents were associated with similar incidences of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and pneumonia. The incidence of renal toxicity, however, was lower with denosumab than with zoledronic acid (10% vs. 17%, respectively), whereas hypocalcemia was higher with denosumab (17% vs. 12%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, a common problem with osteoclast inhibitors.
There was one treatment-related death, a case of cardiac arrest in a patient treated with zoledronic acid.
The investigators noted that the study was limited by a lack of response data, and by the fact that patients with creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/minute were not enrolled because of study blinding and the product label of zoledronic acid.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
SOURCE: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
FROM LANCET ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma with bone involvement.
Major finding: The hazard ratio for noninferiority of denosumab was 0.98 (P = .010).
Data source: A phase 3 randomized double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial in 1,718 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with one or more lytic bone lesions.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Raje and multiple coauthors disclosed personal fees from Amgen and other companies. Three of the coauthors are current or former Amgen employees.
Source: Raje NS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X.
Drug receives orphan designation for MM
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to PT-112 as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).
PT-112 is a small-molecule conjugate of pyrophosphate and platinum that promotes apoptosis with damage-associated molecular patterns, leading to downstream T-cell recruitment in the tumor microenvironment.
PT-112 is currently under investigation in a phase 1/2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory MM (NCT03288480).
Phosplatin Therapeutics LLC, the company developing PT-112, has enrolled the first cohort of patients in this trial.
In preclinical experiments, PT-112 demonstrated synergy with lenalidomide and bortezomib in RPMI-8226 cells and dexamethasone-resistant MM1R cells.
Single-agent PT-112 produced responses in mice with established MM. Researchers said PT-112 had “pronounced” activity against bortezomib-refractory Vk12598 tumors, which significantly improved overall survival in the mice.
This research was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1797).
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
Cutaneous multiple myeloma is a deadly indicator
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
Cutaneous involvement was present in less than 1.2% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and was associated with reduced overall survival, according to the results of a small, retrospective analysis.
Cutaneous manifestations of MM can be divided into nonspecific and specific lesions, according to according to Yu Ri Woo, MD, and colleagues at Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Nonspecific cutaneous manifestations include amyloidosis, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud’s phenomenon, xanthomas, pyoderma gangrenosum, and purpura, and were excluded from the study, while the specific cutaneous manifestation in MM was exemplified by secondary extramedullary plasmacytomas, seen as cutaneous waxy dome-shaped nodules with variable sizes in various locations. These were assessed in the study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The medical records of 1,228 patients with MM seen at two institutions from Jan.1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2016, were examined. Among these patients, 14 (1.14%) had specific cutaneous involvement of MM indicated, and their charts were evaluated further for their clinical and histopathologic findings.
There were no significant differences seen among patients in terms of age, sex, the presence of heavy or light chain disease, International Staging System stage, or albumin level.
Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with patients without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.6).
In a subgroup analyses of those patients who had MM with cutaneous involvement, the presence of erythematous nodules (P = .004), multiple cutaneous lesions (P = .002), and the absence of a grenz zone (P = .004) were associated with reduced overall survival.
Although the investigators found a relatively low incidence of cutaneous involvement in their database study, they pointed out that the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM might be higher than expected.
“Many clinicians are less interested in the cutaneous lesions specifically,” they wrote, indicating that the original physicians may not have been looking for such lesions closely or reporting them if found. “Additional large sample prospective research is needed to determine the exact incidence of cutaneous involvement in MM.”
The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:471-8.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with cutaneous involvement showed significantly reduced overall survival, compared with those without cutaneous involvement (median, 28 months vs. 57 months; HR, 1.9).
Study details: A retrospective study of 1,228 patients with multiple myeloma, of whom 14 patients had cutaneous involvement (1.14%).
Disclosures: The investigators reported that they had no funding sources or conflicts of interest.
Source: Woo YR et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:471-8.