Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: SSRN Electronic Journal, Elsevier BV

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1556-5068

URL: Article

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3516132

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2020

In: The Lancet Haematology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 7, No. 6 ( 2020-06), p. e456-e468

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2352-3026

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2020

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

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0134

Language: English

Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1225457-5

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036787-9

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

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.1760.1760

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 80, No. 16_Supplement ( 2020-08-15), p. 2700-2700

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) maintenance therapy is a low intensive, prolonged treatment, commonly administered to newly diagnosed patients (pts) at the end of front-line regimens. Lenalidomide (LEN) is considered the best available maintenance option for MM, the actual benefits or disadvantages of a LEN-based maintenance and its potential role as “selective pressure” on MM sublcones are still unclear. AIM: In this study we estimated the role of LEN maintenance therapy in eliciting genomic changes in a cohort of MM pts homogeneously up-front treated. PATIENTS-METHODS: Whole genome Copy Number Alterations (CNA) was obtained by SNPs array in 54 pts samples collected both at diagnosis(D) and at first relapse(R). Pts had an high-risk (HR) disease, defined by a median TTP of 29m. A custom gene-level CN calling algorithm was set up, to compute the evolution of every gene CN value and the genomic evolutive trajectories associated to changes of these values. High-risk genomic loci were defined using GISTIC to derive target genomic relevant for MM biology. After PIs induction therapy, 31/54 pts were treated with HD chemotherapy followed by either single or double ASCT; LEN maintenance therapy was then offered both to 20/31 auto-transplanted and to 6/23 not auto-transplanted pts. RESULTS: Three main evolutive trajectories (linear L, drift D, and branching B) were defined according to the CN changes' direction, reflecting a putative positive, negative, or both positive and negative selective pressure, respectively. A fourth, stable (S) trajectory was also observed, characterized by the absence of CN changes. Overall, 29, 15 and 10 pts relapsed with B/D, L and S pattern, respectively; at R, all LEN-treated pts changed their sub-clonal architecture: a B/D evolutive pattern characterized 70% of pts. By contrast, genome remained mostly stable in 61% of not-treated pts. We then focused on CN changes of specific chromosomal regions and/or genomic loci identified as high-risk, whose prognostic role has been already established in MM (i.e. TP53, CDKN2C, CKS1B). When present at D, these CNA tended to persist throughout the disease course, regardless of whether pts received or not maintenance. The emersion of any of these CNAs at R was widely observed both in pts receiving or not maintenance, whereas a negative selective pressure over them was more likely to occur in pts receiving maintenance, as compared to the others (50% vs 11% of B/D trajectories in LEN-treated vs not-treated pts, respectively). Strikingly, in LEN-treated pts, the extension of both TTP and OS was favored by the extinction and/or negative selection (B/D patterns) of the HR CNAs, and shortened by their stability or positive selection (L/S patterns) (median TTP 46 vs 32m HR=3.6, p=0.01; median OS 111 vs 63m HR 5.7, p=0.04 in B/D vs L/S pts, respectively). On the contrary, the absence of maintenance selective pressure seemed to affect neither the evolution trajectory, nor the clinical course of not-treated pts. CONCLUSION: The extinction of sub-clones carrying HR lesions in pts receiving maintenance therapy is likely to be associated to the negative selection exerted by the therapy. This might explain the extended survival of these pts. On the contrary, the subclones of pts not receiving maintenance might randomly evolve, due to the absence of a specific selective pressure. Citation Format: Andrea Poletti, Vincenza Solli, Marina Martello, Enrica Borsi, Lucia Pantani, Agboyi Lakpo, Silvia Armuzzi, Luca Nunzio Cifarelli, Elena Zamagni, Paola Tacchetti, Serena Rocchi, Katia Mancuso, Ilaria Rizzello, Giulia Marzocchi, Nicoletta Testoni, Luca Dozza, Maria Teresa Petrucci, Anna Marina Liberati, Giuseppe Rossi, Mario Boccadoro, Michele Cavo, Carolina Terragna. Negative selective pressure exerted by maintenance therapy promotes the extinction of sub-clones carrying high-risk lesions in multiple myeloma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 2700.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2020-2700

Language: English

Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1

detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 112, No. 11 ( 2008-11-16), p. 3316-3316

Abstract: Background. Several trials have shown the superiority of high-dose melphalan (usually 200 mg/m2, MEL200) versus standard therapy in myeloma patients. Intermediate-dose melphalan (100 mg/m2, MEL100) was also superior to the standard dose, but MEL100 has not been clinically compared with MEL200 in a randomized study. In this prospective, randomized, phase III trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of MEL200 and MEL100. Aims. The primary end points were complete remission (CR) rate, event-free survival (EFS) and incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity, infections and treatment-related mortality (TRM). Methods. Inclusion criteria were previously untreated myeloma, aged ≤ 65 and Durie and Salmon stage II or III. Exclusion criteria were abnormal pulmonar, cardiac, liver and renal function, HBV, HCV, or HIV positivity, concomitant cancer or psychiatric disease. The institutional review board approved the protocol and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patients received 2 cycles of 28-day-dexamethasone- doxorubicin-vincristine (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 day 1, vincristine 1 mg day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg days 1–4) and 2 cycles of cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2, day 1) followed by stem cell harvest. MEL200 patients was conditioned with 2 cycles of melphalan 200 mg/m2 and MEL100 patients with 2 courses of melphalan 100 mg/m2. All MEL courses were followed by stem cell reinfusion. Results. Two-hundred and ninety-eight patients (median age 57) were randomly assigned either to MEL200 (149 patients) or to MEL100 (149 patients). All patients were evaluated for response, EFS and OS in intention-to-treat analysis. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups with the exception of chromosomal 13 deletion, present in 69% of MEL200 and 45% of MEL100 patients (p=0.02). Ninety-six patients completed tandem MEL200; 103 tandem MEL100. The very good partial response rate was higher in MEL200 group (37% versus 21%, p=0.003), but CR was 15% in the MEL200 group and 8% in the MEL100 group (p=0.07). The median follow-up for censored patients was 40.5 months. The 4-years EFS was 44.5% in the MEL200 and 18.3% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53–0.95, p=0.02). The 5-years overall survival (OS) was 59.2% in the MEL200 and 44.7% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.78, 95% CI 0.52–1.16, p=0.22). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was comparable, but a higher proportion of MEL200 patients required platelet transfusions (p=0.002). Grade 3–4 non-hematologic adverse events were reported in 38% of MEL200 patients and in 19% of MEL100 patients (p 〈 0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 mucositis was 16% after MEL200 and 3% after MEL100 (p 〈 0.0001). The incidence of severe gastrointestinal toxicity was 19% after MEL200 and 2% after MEL100 (p 〈 0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 infections and of TRM was similar in both groups. Conclusions. In conclusion, MEL200 resulted in a significantly higher very good partial response rate. This translated in a superior EFS, but not OS. Mel200 was associated with less gastrointestinal toxicity, including mucositis.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V112.11.3316.3316

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2008

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 1778-1778

Abstract: Multiple Myeloma (MM) maintenance therapy is a low intensive, prolonged treatment, commonly administered to newly diagnosed patients (pts) at the end of fixed-time, front-line regimens. Lenalidomide (LEN) is considered the best available maintenance option for MM able to prolong pts survival. However, the actual benefits or disadvantages of a LEN-based continuous maintenance and its potential role as selective pressure able to induce genomic changes are still unclear. The identification of specific therapy-driven modifications has been so far prevented by the scarce number of homogeneously-treated cohorts of pts with paired samples (diagnosis, D and relapse, R). In this study we estimated the role of LEN maintenance therapy in eliciting genomic changes in a cohort of MM pts homogeneously up-front treated with PI-based regimens. Whole genome Copy Number Aberrations (CNAs) landscape was obtained by SNPs array in 54 pts whose BM-CD138+ were collected both at D and at first R. Pts had an high-risk (HR) disease, as defined both by the presence of HR cytogenetic aberration at baseline in 81% of pts and by the 29 m median TTP. RawCopy 1.10 was used for the segmentation of SNPs array signals; samples' purity was adjusted by using manually reviewed ASCAT solutions. A custom gene-level CN calling approach was set up, to match every gene's CN value at D and R, thus generating genomic evolutive patterns based on changes of these values. Finally, high-risk genomic loci were computed using GISTIC 2.0_v7 to derive focal regions with oncogene and/or tumor suppressor genes relevant for MM biology. After induction therapy, 31/54 pts were treated with HD chemotherapy followed by either single or double ASCT; LEN maintenance therapy was then offered both to 20/31 auto-transplanted and to 6/23 not auto-transplanted pts. Three main evolutive trajectories (linear L, drift D, and branching B) were defined according to the CN changes' direction, reflecting a putative positive, negative, or both positive and negative selective pressure, respectively. A fourth, stable (S) trajectory was also observed, characterized by the absence of CN changes between D and R. Overall, 29, 15 and 10 pts relapsed with B/D, L and S pattern, respectively; at R, all LEN-treated pts quantitively and qualitatively changed their sub-clonal architecture: a B/D evolutive pattern characterized 70% of pts. By contrast, genome remained mostly stable in 61% of not-treated pts. We then focused on CN changes of specific chromosomal regions and/or genomic loci, whose prognostic role has been already established in MM (i.e. CN losses of TP53 on chr17p, RB1 on chr13q, CYLD on chr16q, CDKN2C and FAM46C on chr1p; CN gain of CKS1B on chr1q). When present at D these CNAs tended to persist throughout the disease course regardless of whether pts received or not maintenance. The emersion of any of these CNAs at R was widely observed both in pts receiving or not maintenance, whereas a negative selective pressure over them was more likely to occur in pts receiving maintenance, as compared to the others (50% vs 11% of B/D trajectories in LEN-treated vs not-treated pts, respectively). Strikingly, in LEN-treated pts, the extension of both TTP and OS was favored by the extinction and/or negative selection of the HR CNAs (B/D patterns), and shortened by their stability or positive selection (L/S patterns) (median TTP 46 vs 32 m HR=3,6 CI 1,2-10,6, p=0.01; median OS 111 vs 63 m HR 5,7 CI 1,1-32,4, p=0.04 in B/D vs L/S pts, respectively). On the contrary, the absence of maintenance selective pressure seemed to affect neither the evolution trajectory, nor the clinical course of not-treated pts (fig 1). The extinction of sub-clones carrying HR lesions in pts receiving maintenance therapy is likely to be associated to the negative selection exerted by the therapy itself. This might explain the extended survival of pts receiving maintenance and relapsing with B/D evolution patterns, as compared to that of pts whose genomic landscape either tended to remain stable or let the prevalent emersion of HR genomic features. On the contrary, the sub-clonal architecture of pts not receiving maintenance seemed to randomly evolve, due to the absence of a specific therapy-related selective pressure. Overall, information on the genomic changes occurring throughout the disease course might be relevant for the recognition of pts most benefitting from a continuous therapy. Thanks to AIRC_IG2014-15839, RF-2016-02362532 Disclosures Zamagni: Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Tacchetti:BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mancuso:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Petrucci:Janssen-Cilag: 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; Takeda: 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; Sanofi: 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. Liberati:Incyte: Consultancy; Servier: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol & Mayer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rossi:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. 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. Cavo:amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; sanofi: 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, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-127799

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Elsevier BV, Vol. 22 ( 2022-08), p. S6-S7

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2152-2650

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2152-2650(22)00284-1

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2540998-0

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2193618-3

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

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.392.392

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 3195-3195

Abstract: INTRODUCTION. Bortezomib- and/or lenalidomide-based combinations are standard initial approaches in transplant (ASCT) ineligible NDMM. Different studies confirmed the advantages of continuous treatment. Despite the benefits of bortezomib maintenance, the parenteral administration and the risk of peripheral neuropathy (PN) limit its long-term use. The oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) Ixazomib plus Lenalidomide-dexamethasone was effective and well tolerated at diagnosis or relapse. The need for a convenient and well tolerated PI-based frontline therapy for an extended duration with minimal cumulative toxicity remains an unmet need for the elderly. In this prospective, multicenter, phase II randomized study, we assessed Ixazomib in combination with dexamethasone, Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide or Bendamustine, followed by Ixazomib maintenance in ASCT-ineligible NDMM. METHODS. NDMM patients (pts) ≥65 years old or younger ASCT-ineligible could be enrolled. Treatment consisted of nine 28-day induction cycles of Ixazomib 4 mg on days 1,8,15 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15,22 (Id) or combined with Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 orally on days 1,8,15 (ICd) or plus Thalidomide 100 mg/day (ITd) or plus Bendamustine 75 mg/m2 iv on days 1,8 (IBd); followed by maintenance with Ixazomib 4 mg on days 1,8,15 until progression. Because the study included the novel drug Ixazomib, dual stopping rules combining efficacy (at least very good partial response [VGPR] rate), and safety (predefined toxicity possibly related to Ixazomib) were planned and analyzed in a cohort of 5 patients in each arm during the first 4 cycles. Here we report the results of the cohort analysis during the first 4 cycles and the efficacy and safety analysis during induction treatment. RESULTS. In February 2017, the protocol was amended due to a low enrolment and the IBd arm, the only one including an iv drug, was closed. After closing this arm, all the other all oral arms continued the enrolment. Overall, 175 pts were enrolled (Id 42, ICd 61, ITd 61, and IBd 11 pts) and 171 pts started treatment. Median age was 74 years, 20% of pts had high risk cytogenetics, 44% were fit, 30% intermediate and 26% frail, according to the IMWG frailty score. Median follow-up was 13.2 months (IQR 8.9-20.7). During the first 4 cycles, at least VGPR rate was 24% with Id, 33% with ICd, 31% with ITd and 18% with IBd. In March 2018, after the analysis of the 4th cohort, the Id arm was closed due to high risk of inefficacy. Overall response rate (ORR) during induction was 73%, VGPR was 39%. ≥VGPR rates were 24% in Id, 48% in ICd, 43% in ITd and 27% in IBd. Median time to first response was 2.4 and to the best response 4 months. Responses were comparable according to cytogenetics: in high risk pts, ORR was 77%, ≥VGPR 46% and ≥nCR 17% as compared to 71%, 36% and 18% in standard risk pts (p=0.53, p=0.33 and p=1, respectively). Response rates were also comparable according to frailty status: in frail pts, ORR was 73%, ≥VGPR 36% and ≥nCR 11% as compared to 75%, 40% and 17% in intermediate and 70%, 40% and 22% in fit pts (p=0.78, p=0.90 and p=0.32, respectively). Median number of induction cycles was 9 (IQR 5-9); 93 (53%) pts completed induction treatment and 14 (8%) pts are still on induction treatment. During the first 4 cycles, hematologic toxicity was limited, and non-hematologic toxicity manageable. The most frequent G3-4 adverse event (AE) was rash in ITd arm (11%); discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 6%. During induction, the rate of at least 1 hematologic G≥3 AE was 11% and at least 1 non-hematologic G≥3 AE was 44%. The most frequent G≥3 AEs were neutropenia (8%), gastrointestinal (9%), infections (11%), neurologic (11%) and dermatologic (6%). G3-4 thrombocytopenia (3%) and PN (5%) were limited. Ixazomib dose reduction due to AEs was required in 15% of pts. The rate of non-hematologic AEs was slightly higher in ITd arm (37% in Id, 37% in ICd, 53% in ITd, 55% in IBd). Early death rate ( 〈 60 days from start therapy) was 1%. CONCLUSIONS. ITd and ICd are convenient all-oral induction regimens for ASCT-ineligible NDMM, confirming an improved efficacy of a triplet vs a doublet combination, also in intermediate and frail patients. Id showed lower efficacy, thus suggesting a possible effect of the dose of Ixazomib or the absence of a third drug. Treatment was feasible, with limited toxicity and low discontinuation rate due to AEs, although ITd induced a slightly higher toxicity, but mainly attributable to Thalidomide. Disclosures Larocca: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Corradini:Servier: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; BMS: Other: Travel Costs; Kite: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceutics: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs. Mina:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Roche: Other: Clinical trial support; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trial support; Novartis: Other: Clinical trial support. Petrucci: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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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. Patriarca:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zambello:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Belotti:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cellini:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Galli:Takeda: Honoraria; Leadiant (Sigma-Tau): Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Aquino:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Sabbata:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ballanti:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Offidani: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; Amgen: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bringhen:Celgene Corporation: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-124388

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7