Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 121-121
    Abstract: Background: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based induction and consolidation proved to be effective in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) eligible for melphalan 200 mg/m2-autologous stem cell transplant (MEL200-ASCT). High response rates have been reported with the second-generation PI Carfilzomib in combination with Lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) or Cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd). Aims: The primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KRd induction-ASCT-KRd consolidation (KRd-ASCT-KRd) vs 12 cycles of KRd (KRd12) vs KCd induction-ASCT-KCd consolidation (KCd-ASCT-KCd). Methods: NDMM pts ≤65 years were randomized (1:1:1; stratification ISS and age) to: KRd-ASCT-KRd: 4 28-day cycles with KRd induction (Carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; Lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21; dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KRd consolidation cycles; KRd12: 12 KRd cycles; KCd-ASCT-KCd: 4 28-day induction cycles with KCd (Carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1,8,15; dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KCd consolidation cycles. Thereafter, pts were randomized to maintenance with Lenalidomide alone or plus Carfilzomib. Centralized minimal residual disease (MRD) evaluation - 8-color second generation flow cytometry, sensitivity 10-5 - was performed in pts achieving ≥very good partial response (VGPR). Endpoints were pre-maintenance stringent complete response (sCR) and MRD negativity in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Data cut-off was May 30, 2018. Results: 474 NDMM pts were randomized (KRd-ASCT-KRd, n=158; KRd12, n=157; KCd-ASCT-KCd, n=159) and analyzed. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Median follow-up was 20 months. Depth of response improved during treatment (Figure). By ITT analysis, rates of pre-maintenance sCR was similar between KRd-ASCT-KRd (41%) and KRd12 (42%), and significantly higher than with KCd-ASCT-KCd (30%; P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.047; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.028). Similarly, rate of ≥CR was 49% with KRd-ASCT-KRd, 52% with KRd12 and 38% with KCd-ASCT-KCd (P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.041; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.014) and rate of ≥CR+unconfirmed CR (missing immunofixation confirmation) raised to 60% vs 63% vs 46% in the 3 groups, respectively; rate of ≥VGPR was 88% with KRd-ASCT-KRd, 86% with KRd12 and 74% with KCd-ASCT-KCd (P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.002; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.008). In multivariate analysis, the main factor affecting probability of achieving ≥VGPR, ≥CR or sCR was treatment with KRd-ASCT-KRd or KRd12 vs KCd, with no significant impact of ISS Stage or FISH abnormalities. In ITT analysis (MRD missing [31/395 VGPR pts, 8%] and 〈 VGPR were considered as MRD positive), MRD negativity was again similar with KRd-ASCT-KRd (58%) and KRd12 (54%) and significantly higher than with KCd-ASCT-KCd (41%; P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.004; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.023); 82% vs 78% vs 88% of pts in the 3 groups, respectively, could maintain extended MRD negative status with 2 MRD negative results obtained apart ≥6 months (either pre-ASCT and post consolidation or post consolidation and during maintenance). During treatment (excluding ASCT) the most frequent grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (KRd-ASCT-KRd 20%, KRd12 10%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 16%), thrombocytopenia (KRd-ASCT-KRd 15%, KRd12 8%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 13%) and infections (KRd-ASCT-KRd 14%, KRd12 12%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 13%). Grade 3-4 dermatologic AEs (KRd-ASCT-KRd, 5% with KRd12 12%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 1%), increase in liver enzymes (KRd-ASCT-KRd 9%, KRd12 10%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 1%) and hypertension (KRd-ASCT-KRd 3%, KRd12 8%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 3%) were more frequent with KRd12. Rates of grade 3-4 cardiac AEs (KRd-ASCT-KRd 3%, KRd12 2%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 4%) and thrombosis (KRd-ASCT-KRd 1%, KRd12 2%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 2%) were below 5% in all arms. Discontinuation for AEs was similar in the 3 arms (KRd-ASCT-KRd 6%, KRd12 8%, KCd-ASCT-KCd 7%). Conclusions: Rates of MRD negativity, sCR, ≥CR, ≥VGPR were significantly higher with KRd-ASCT-KRd and KRd12 vs KCd. At present, no differences in MRD and overall best response (sCR, ≥CR, ≥VGPR) were noticed between KRd-ASCT-KRd and KRd12; longer follow-up is needed to evaluate survival. Treatment was well tolerated. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gay: Roche: Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Galli:Sigma-Tau: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Belotti:Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board. Zamagni:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Angelucci:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Chair Steering Committee TELESTO protocol in MDS; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Chair DMC proptocol BELIEVE 1 and BELIVE 2 in Thalassemia; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (MA) and CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CH): Other: Chair DMC CRISPR CAS9 in Hemoglobinopathies; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Italy: Other: Local (national) advisory board on AML; Roche Italia: Other: Local (national) advisory board on biosimilars. Annibali:Celgene; Takeda; Amgen, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Offidani:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Clinical Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 27, No. 13 ( 2021-07-01), p. 3695-3703
    Abstract: Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need. Experimental Design: We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data (n = 1,218) were split into training (n = 844) and validation sets (n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment. Results: The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells & gt;60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P & lt; 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P & lt; 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P & lt; 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P & lt; 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P & lt; 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P & lt; 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM. Conclusions: On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1078-0432 , 1557-3265
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1225457-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036787-9
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 1760-1760
    Abstract: Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is still an incurable disease and patients may relapse despite achievement of complete remission (CR). Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) on bone marrow (BM) is a sensitive diagnostic tool to measure response and is highly predictive of outcome in MM as previously reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of MRD monitoring by MFC in MM patients receiving novel agents with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and to investigate the efficacy of treatments by using MRD-negativity as a deeper response criteria. Methods: The RV-MM-COOP-0556 (EMN02/HO95 MM) study is a phase III, randomized, trial including newly diagnosed MM patients ≤ 65 years. All subjects received 4 cycles of Bortezomib-Cyclophosphamide-Dexamethasone (VCD) induction, followed by Cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and subsequent stem cell mobilization and collection. Afterward, patients were randomized to receive 4 cycles of Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone (VMP) vs one or two cycles of High-Dose-Melphalan (HDM) followed by ASCT. After intensification patients were secondly randomized to receive two cycles of consolidation with Bortezomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (VRD) vs no consolidation, followed by Lenalidomide maintenance in both arms. Patients who achieved CR/sCR according to IMWG criteria (Rajkumar et al. Blood 2011) after intensification/consolidation treatment, were eligible for the MRD sub-study. MRD analysis by MFC was performed on BM samples after intensification/consolidation, after 6 courses of maintenance, and thereafter every 6 months until progression, to detect monoclonal plasma cells (PCs). Here, we used a double antibody combination (CD138Fitc/CD20PerCp-Cy5.5/CD117APC/CD45APC-H7/CD38PE-Cy7; cyKappaFitc/cyLambdaPE/CD19PerCp-Cy5.5/CD56APC/CD45APC-H7/CD38 PE-Cy7): one tube was employed to obtain PCs quantification, the other one to validate PCs clonality. MRD-negativity was defined when 〈 20 clonal PCs were detected among ≥2.000.000 leukocytes ( 〈 0.001%). Results: One hundred-eleven Italian patients (58 male/53 female) with a median age of 56 years (IQR 52-62) entered MRD sub-study. Sixteen (14%) were ISS stage III, 24 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetic profile and 10 (9%) had LDH levels higher than the upper normal limit. Forty-five patients (40%) received VMP as intensification and 66 (60%) underwent ASCT, thereafter 65 (58%) received VRD consolidation, 24 after VMP and 41 after ASCT. The median follow-up were 28.7 and 17 months from starting treatment and from MRD enrollment, respectively. After intensification/consolidation, 4 patients were not evaluable for MRD due to unsuitable samples, MRD negativity rate was 79% (85 out of 107 evaluable patients) and was independent from the intensification therapy: actually 50/63 patients who received ASCT and 35/44 patients who received VMP achieved MRD negativity. Within MRD-negative patients, 48/85 (56%) received VRD consolidation without major differences between VMP and ASCT. With the limitation related to the shorter follow-up, depth of response further improved during maintenance: 11/22 (50%) of MRD-positive patients became MRD-negative, independently from previous intensification therapy. Conclusions: MRD detection by MFC is a feasible technique in MM and allows to detect residual tumor cells among CR and sCR patients. Preliminary MRD results show that, in patients achieving CR, intensification with VMP or ASCT induced comparable rates of MRD-negativity and maintenance with Lenalidomide further improved depth of response in both arms. Longer follow-up is needed to correlate MRD status to prognosis and clinical outcome and to evaluate the role of maintenance therapy in increasing the quality of response. Disclosures Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association . Gay:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Larocca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria. Gamberi:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rossi:Celgene: Research Funding. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Elsevier BV, Vol. 22 ( 2022-08), p. S6-S7
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2152-2650
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2540998-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2193618-3
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 392-392
    Abstract: Introduction. High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients. We compared consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (CRD), and maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone (RP) versus lenalidomide alone (R). Methods. This is an open-label, randomized, phase 3 study. We enrolled newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients aged ≤65 years. Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomized patients to consolidation with melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL200) followed by ASCT or CRD (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15; dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21); and to maintenance with RP (lenalidomide 10 mg days 1-21; prednisone 50 mg every other day) or R alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results. 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009 and May 6, 2011. Median follow-up was 54.5 months. MEL200 significantly increased PFS (median PFS from the start of consolidation: 43.3 versus 28.6 months; HR 0.40, P 〈 0.001) and overall survival (OS; 4-year: 86% versus 73%; HR 0.42, P=0.004) compared with CRD. Median PFS from the start of maintenance was 37.5 months with RP versus 28.5 months with R maintenance (HR 0.84, P=0.336); 3-year OS was 83% with RP versus 88% with R maintenance (HR 1.53, P=0.210). Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities (84% versus 26%, P 〈 0.001), gastrointestinal toxicities (20% versus 5%, P 〈 0.001) and infections (19% versus 6%, P=0.002) were higher with MEL200 than with CRD. No significant difference in adverse events (AEs) between RP and R was noticed. The most frequent grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were neutropenia (8% with RP versus 13% with R; P=0.193), infections (8% with RP versus 5% with R; P=0.417), systemic AEs (6% vs 2%; P=0.174) and vascular AEs (4% with RP versus 2% with R; P=0.449). In the RP arm, lenalidomide dose-reduction for AEs was required in 9% of patients; prednisone dose-reduction was required in 36% of patients (median time to prednisone dose-reduction: 4 months); 5% discontinued treatment for toxicity and 3% stopped treatment after developing a second primary malignancy (SPM). In the R arm, lenalidomide dose-reduction was required in 21% of patients; 8% discontinued lenalidomide for toxicity; 2% stopped treatment after developing a SPM. The median duration of lenalidomide treatment was comparable in the 2 groups. Conclusions. MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS and OS compared with CRD, regardless of maintenance. RP maintenance did not significantly improve PFS and OS compared with R alone. Disclosures Gay: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria. Ria:Italfarmaco: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bringhen:Merck Sharp & Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Novartis: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. Patriarca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 39, No. 15_suppl ( 2021-05-20), p. 8002-8002
    Abstract: 8002 Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) are one of the most powerful prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM). In the FORTE study, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction/consolidation with ASCT (KRd_ASCT) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs KRd without ASCT (KRd12, HR 0.64) or carfilzomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd) plus ASCT (KCd_ASCT, HR 0.53). KR maintenance significantly improved PFS vs R (HR 0.63). Methods: MM patients (pts) were randomized to KRd_ASCT vs KCd_ASCT vs KRd12 and, thereafter, to KR vs R maintenance. Subgroup analyses according to FISH evaluated the impact of each single high-risk (HiR) CA [del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), del1p and 1q gain (3 copies) or amp1q (≥4 copies)] and that of combined CA, defining HiR by the presence of ≥1 HiR CA and double-hit (DH) by the presence of ≥2 HiR CA. Pts negative for all the HiR CA were considered at standard risk (SR). The primary objective was the impact of treatment on PFS according to pt risk. Results: 396 out of 474 enrolled pts were included in the analysis with complete FISH data: 243 HiR, 105 DH and 153 SR. Among HiR pts, 60 had del17p, 65 t(4;14), 20 t(14;16), 44 del1p, 126 1q gain and 49 amp1q. SR pts benefited from intensification with KRd_ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.47, p = 0.05) and KCd_ASCT (HR 0.38, p = 0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 80%, 67% and 57%, respectively. In HiR pts, KRd_ASCT improved PFS vs KRd12 (HR 0.6, p = 0.04) and KCd_ASCT (HR 0.57, p = 0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 62%, 45% and 45%, respectively. The advantage with KRd_ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.53, p = 0.07) and KCd_ASCT (HR 0.49; p = 0.03) was also observed in DH pts (4-year PFS 55%, 31% and 33%, respectively). Analyses by single CA were limited by the small number of pts in each subgroup, but a trend towards a PFS benefit from KRd_ASCT vs KRd12 was seen in pts with del17p (HR 0.61, p = 0.3), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p = 0.2) and 1q gain (HR 0.45, p = 0.02). In pts with del1p, KRd_ASCT (HR 0.24, p = 0.06) and KRd12 (HR 0.33, p = 0.09) showed superiority over KCd_ASCT, while amp1q pts had the worst outcome regardless of treatment (KRd_ASCT vs KCd_ASCT, HR 1.16, p = 0.73; KRd12 vs KCd_ASCT, HR 1.34, p = 0.45). KR improved PFS vs R in SR (3-year PFS 90% vs 73%, HR 0.42, p = 0.06), HiR (3-year PFS 69% vs 56%, HR 0.6, p = 0.04) and DH pts (3-year PFS 67% vs 42%, HR 0.53, p = 0.1). Despite the small subgroups, a beneficial trend with KR vs R was observed in pts with del17p (HR 0.59, p = 0.37), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p = 0.3), 1q gain (HR 0.54, p = 0.07) and del1p (HR 0.23, p = 0.08), while amp1q pts showed the worst outcome and no benefit from KR vs R (HR 0.83, p = 0.7). Conclusions: KRd_ASCT and KR maintenance are highly effective in SR and also in HiR and DH pts, with impressive 4-year PFS from diagnosis (KRd_ASCT: HiR 62%, DH 55%) and 3-year PFS from maintenance (KR: HiR 69%, DH 67%), thus supporting their use in HiR pts, who represent an unmet medical need. Clinical trial information: NCT02203643.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 27 ( 2022-09-20), p. 3120-3131
    Abstract: High levels of circulating tumor plasma cells (CTC-high) in patients with multiple myeloma are a marker of aggressive disease. We aimed to confirm the prognostic impact and identify a possible cutoff value of CTC-high for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), in the context of concomitant risk features and minimal residual disease (MRD) achievement. METHODS CTC were analyzed at diagnosis with two-tube single-platform flow cytometry (sensitivity 4 × 10 –5 ) in patients enrolled in the multicenter randomized FORTE clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203643 ). MRD was assessed by second-generation multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity 10 –5 ). We tested different cutoff values in series of multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazards regression analyses on PFS outcome and selected the value that maximized the Harrell's C-statistic. We analyzed the impact of CTC on PFS and OS in a MV analysis including baseline features and MRD negativity. RESULTS CTC analysis was performed in 401 patients; the median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 45-54 months). There was a modest correlation between the percentage of CTC and bone marrow plasma cells ( r = 0.38). We identified an optimal CTC cutoff of 0.07% (approximately 5 cells/µL, C-index 0.64). In MV analysis, CTC-high versus CTC-low patients had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.97, P 〈 .001; 4-year PFS 38% v 69%) and OS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.56; P 〈 .001; 4-year OS 68% v 92%). The CTC levels, but not the bone marrow plasma cell levels, affected the outcome. The only factor that reduced the negative impact of CTC-high was the achievement of MRD negativity (interaction P = .039). CONCLUSION In multiple myeloma, increasing levels of CTC above an optimal cutoff represent an easy-to-assess, robust, and independent high-risk factor. The achievement of MRD negativity is the most important factor that modulates their negative prognostic impact.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 136, No. Supplement 1 ( 2020-11-5), p. 37-38
    Abstract: Introduction: The multicentre, randomized, open-label, phase 3 EMN02/HO95 study for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) included two randomization stages (1:1) to (R1) intensification therapy with either upfront ASCT or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP), and thereafter to (R2) consolidation therapy or no consolidation, followed by lenalidomide maintenance in both arms. Results of the final analysis from R1 (M. Cavo et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020, 7, e456-68) showed that at a median follow-up of 60.5 months progression-free survival (PFS), the primary study endpoint, was significantly improved with ASCT compared with VMP (median, 57 versus 42 months; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.85, adjusted p=0.0001). However, no difference between these groups was found in terms of overall survival (OS), a secondary endpoint (HR 0·90, 0·71-1·13, adjusted p=0·35). Methods: We performed an updated analysis of the study with longer-term follow-up. Efficacy endpoints included OS, PFS on next-line therapy (PFS2), and time to next treatment (TTnT). Analyses were restricted to patients randomized to either ASCT (n=702) or VMP (n=495). Clinical outcomes of patients randomized to upfront ASCT or receiving ASCT at the time of progression after primary randomization to VMP (delayed ASCT) were also explored. Results: At an extended median follow-up of 75 months (IQR 67-84), patients randomized to ASCT had a significantly longer OS than those randomized to VMP (Figure). Median OS was not reached in both arms, and the 75-month survival estimate was 69% (95% CI 65-73) in the ASCT group versus 63% (95% CI 59-68) in the VMP group (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0-98, adjusted p=0.034). Patients who benefited the most from randomization to ASCT were those with unfavourable prognostic characteristics at baseline, including ISS disease stage 2-3 (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p=0.047), R-ISS stage 2-3 (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, p=0.042), and the presence of at least one of the following cytogenetic abnormalities on FISH analysis: t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) in ≥10% CD138-positive plasma cells, and/or del(17p) in ≥20% enriched plasma cells. Overall, the 75-month OS estimate for patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 54% with ASCT versus 39% with VMP (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.89, p=0.010). The magnitude of OS benefit with ASCT, as measured by the HR value, was the highest for patients with del(17p) positivity (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86, p=0.013). PFS2 from R1 was significantly longer for patients in the ASCT arm than for those in the VMP arm. The 75-month PFS2 estimate was 57% in the ASCT group and it was 49% in the VMP group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90, adjusted p=0.002) (Figure). Patients randomized to ASCT had a significantly longer TTnT in comparison with those who were randomly assigned to VMP. Median TTnT values for these groups were 66 versus 47 months, respectively (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.82, adjusted p & lt;0.001) (Figure). Demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline of patients in the delayed ASCT group were comparable with those of patients who were randomized to upfront ASCT. PFS2 and TTnT in the upfront ASCT group were significantly longer than in the delayed ASCT group. Median PFS2 values were 85 versus 51 months, respectively (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.66, p & lt;0.001). Median TTnT values were 59 versus 29 months, respectively (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26-0.40, adjusted p & lt;0.001). At the time that this analysis was performed, the rate of events of death was 30% in the upfront ASCT group versus 46% in the delayed ASCT group. In both the ASCT and VMP arms of the study, lenalidomide maintenance at the dose of 10 mg orally on day 1-21 of 28-day cycles was planned until progressive disease or undue toxicity. The median duration of lenalidomide treatment was 34 (IQR 13-63) months; 28% of patients were still on treatment at 60 months after start of lenalidomide and 31% discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events (27%) or second primary malignancies (4%). At a median follow-up of 70 (IQR 60-77) months from start of maintenance therapy, median PFS with lenalidomide was 56 months in the ASCT arm and 42 months in the VMP arm (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91, adjusted p=0.002). OS curves started to diverge at 5 years, and the 70-month estimate was 74% in the ASCT arm versus 69% in the VMP arm, suggesting that longer-term follow-up analysis is required. Conclusions: Upfront ASCT significantly prolonged OS, PFS2 and TTnT in comparison with VMP in NDMM patients. Figure Disclosures Cavo: Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac:Janssen & janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Petrucci:GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zamagni:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galli:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Maisnar:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, The Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hansson:Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy. Belotti:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zambello:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liberati:Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Broyl:Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Ludwig:Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Boards; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Waage:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Shire: Honoraria. Mellqvist:Janssen. Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages