Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome ...inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 x 10.sup.-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome ...inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 x 10.sup.-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with high healthcare resource utilisation. Better understanding of the hospital use by patients with MM is needed to plan future resource allocation ...to care for these patients. The aim of this study was to characterise the hospital use by patients with MM in the English National Health Service (NHS).
Methods: Routinely-collected aggregate hospital admissions data from patients with MM were used from all 451 hospital trusts in the English NHS. This included elective and non-elective hospital admissions from April 1st 2014 to March 31st 2018. Patients were identified using the ICD-10 code for MM (C90.0) as either primary or secondary diagnosis. The number of admissions, number of patients, procedures, and total NHS hospital costs (based on Healthcare Resource Groups and NHS national tariff) were extracted alongside data to identify what percentage of the total NHS admissions are related to MM. Elective admissions were defined as admissions where the decision to admit preceded the time of the actual admission.
Results: There were 754,345 admission records reported during the period of analysis from 17,555 women and 24,290 men. Of these, 675,400 (89%) were elective and 78,945 non-elective admissions. The total cost during the period analysed was £183,389,143 for elective and £227,650,088 for non-elective admissions. For elective admissions, 65% of the costs were for day-cases. Despite non-elective admissions constituting only 11% of all admissions, they accounted for 55% of the total hospitalisation costs. Over the period of analysis, elective admissions increased in average by 4.5% per year whilst the average yearly increase in costs was 1.5%; for non-elective hospitalisations, these figures were 4.1% and 9.0%, respectively (Figure). Of the total number of non-elective admissions over the study period, 58% were by men. Most of the procedures for elective admissions were related to chemotherapy and for non-elective ones the majority regarded radiology.
While only 0.2% of all patients admitted to the NHS between April 2014 and March 2018 had a MM code, they accounted for 1% of all admission records and 0.5% of all inpatient NHS costs. During this period, patients with MM had on average 19 elective and 3 non-elective admissions per year, compared to 3 elective and 2 non-elective admissions per year per person for all patients admitted to the NHS.
Conclusions: MM is associated with a large number of hospital admissions in the English NHS, relative to the low incidence of the disease. While the majority of the hospital admissions are elective, non-elective admissions accounted for the majority of costs. The impact of non-elective admissions should be included when assessing the economic burden of MM and the benefits from novel therapies. Further research is needed to understand the timing of non-elective admissions in the natural history of MM.
Ramasamy:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nador:Amgen: Research Funding. Kishore:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support. Rabin:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel support , Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Yong:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria. Ashcroft:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amaris Medical: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bowcock:Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
There are limited real world data on ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) in multiply relapsed myeloma. We analyzed outcomes of 116 patients who received IRd predominantly at second and ...subsequent relapse including those refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs). With a median follow up 16.3 months, the overall response rate was 66.9%; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.7 months with median overall survival (OS) not reached (NR). PFS and OS were significantly shorter in advanced disease (PFS; 12.6 vs. 21.2 months (p = .01), OS; 15.9 months vs. NR (p = .01) for ISS3 vs. ISS 1&2, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly shorter in clinical high risk (CHR) compared to standard risk (SR) patients (PFS; 9.3 months vs. NR (p = .001), OS; 11.5 months vs. NR (p < .001), respectively). There was a trend toward shorter PFS in PI-refractory patients 13.7 vs. 19.6 months for non-PI refractory (p = .2). The triplet combination was generally well tolerated.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow cancer, which predominantly affects older people. The incidence is increasing in an ageing population.Over the last 10 years, patient outcomes have improved. ...However, this is less apparent in older, less fit patients, who are ineligible for stem cell transplant. Research is required in this patient group, taking into account frailty and aiming to improve: treatment tolerability, clinical outcomes and quality of life.
Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma is a national, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive) induction therapy delivery with ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD), and to compare maintenance lenalidomide to lenalidomide+ixazomib, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not suitable for stem cell transplant. Overall, 740 participants will be registered into the trial to allow 720 and 478 to be randomised at induction and maintenance, respectively.All participants will receive IRD induction with the dosing strategy randomised (1:1) at trial entry. Patients randomised to the standard, reactive arm will commence at the full dose followed by toxicity dependent reactive modifications. Patients randomised to the adaptive arm will commence at a dose level determined by their International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. Following 12 cycles of induction treatment, participants alive and progression free will undergo a second (double-blind) randomisation on a 1:1 basis to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide+placebo versus lenalidomide+ixazomib until disease progression or intolerance.
Ethical approval has been obtained from the North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (19/NE/0125) and capacity and capability confirmed by local research and development departments for each participating centre prior to opening to recruitment. Participants are required to provide written informed consent prior to trial registration. Trial results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
ISRCTN17973108, NCT03720041.
Background
Transplant non-eligible (TNE) myeloma patients are a very heterogeneous group that is not well-defined on the basis of age alone, but rather by the interplay of age, physical function, ...cognitive function and comorbidity better defined as ‘frailty’. The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) has published a scoring system for myeloma patient frailty that predicts survival, adverse events and treatment tolerability using age, the Katz Activity of Daily Living (ADL), the Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). It has been proposed to be useful in determining the feasibility of treatment regimens and appropriate dose reductions but has not been validated prospectively.
We hypothesize that by defining subgroups of patients based on the IMWG frailty score, and guiding up-front dose adjustments we can personalize therapy to improve treatment tolerability and therefore short-term outcomes, along with quality of life. In addition we plan to compare the use of single agent immunomodulatory (IMiD) based maintenance therapy with an IMiD and proteasome inhibitor maintenance doublet to try and improve long-term outcomes for patients.
Study Design and Methods
Myeloma XIV (NCT03720041) is a phase III, multi-center, randomized controlled trial to compare standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive) induction therapy delivery with the novel triplet ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd), and to compare maintenance lenalidomide (R) to lenalidomide plus ixazomib (IR) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not suitable for a stem cell transplant.
The trial outline is shown in Figure 1. All participants receive induction treatment with ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone and are randomized (R1) on a 1:1 basis at trial entry to the use of frailty score-adjusted up-front dose reductions vs. standard up-front dosing followed by toxicity dependent reactive dose modifications during therapy. Following 12 cycles of induction treatment participants alive and progression-free undergo a second randomization (R2) on a 1:1 basis to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide plus placebo versus lenalidomide plus ixazomib. Participants and their treating physicians are blinded to maintenance allocation.
The primary objectives of the study are to determine: •Early treatment cessation (within 60 days of randomization) for standard versus frailty-adjusted up-front dosing•Progression-free survival (PFS, from maintenance randomization) for lenalidomide + placebo (R) versus lenalidomide + ixazomib (IR)
The secondary objectives of the study include determining: progression-free survival (PFS) for standard versus frailty-adjusted up-front dosing reductions, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), treatment compliance and total amount of therapy delivered, toxicity & safety including the incidence of Second Primary Malignancies (SPMs), Quality of Life (QoL), cost-effectiveness of standard versus frailty-adjusted up-front dosing of IRd and cost-effectiveness of IR versus R. Exploratory analyses include the association of molecular subgroups with response, PFS and OS.
Seven hundred and forty participants will be enrolled into the trial at R1 to give 80% power to demonstrate a difference in early cessation and ensure that at least 478 participants remain and are randomized at R2 (based on attrition rates in our previous study Myeloma XI). At R2 478 patients will give us 80% power to detect an eight month difference in PFS between R and IR.
Display omitted
Cairns:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Pawlyn:Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Amgen, Celgene, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Royle:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Best:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Bowcock:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boyd:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Henderson:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy. Kishore:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Jazz, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Mottram:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Owen:Janssen: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Jackson:Celgene, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria. Cook:Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, GlycoMimetics, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.
Frailty adjusted dosing. Ixazomib and lenalidomide combination as maintenance.
Background:
Immunomodulatory (IMiD) compounds are effective therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) acting via modulation of the CUL4 E3-ubiquitin ligase cereblon. Based on their structure individual ...IMiD compounds have different substrate specificities altering both their efficacy and side effect profile. These mechanistic differences impact the optimum sequencing of these agents as induction and maintenance. Within the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial we compared triplet induction regimens containing Lenalidomide (Len) or Thalidomide (Thal) and maintenance treatment with Len or observation. With extensive long term follow up data we have explored the interaction of the induction and maintenance use of Thal and Len before and after ASCT.
Methods:
Myeloma XI is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial for newly diagnosed MM, with pathways for transplant eligible (TE) and non-eligible patients. TE patients were randomized between Len or Thal plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CRD vs CTD) continued for a minimum of 4 cycles and to max. response. For patients with a suboptimal response there was a subsequent randomization to intensification with a proteasome inhibitor containing triplet or no further therapy prior to ASCT. A maintenance randomization at 3 months post ASCT compared Len till disease progression vs observation (Obs). Analyses by molecular risk strata were pre-specified in the protocol. Adverse cytogenetic abnormalities were defined as gain(1q), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), or del(17p): standard risk (SR, no adverse cytogenetic abnormalities), high risk (HiR, one adverse cytogenetic abnormality), or ultra-high risk (UHiR, two or more adverse cytogenetic abnormalities).
Results:
2042 TE patients were randomized to CRD n=1021 and CTD n=1021. After a median follow up of 68 months (interquartile range 49-83) for the induction randomization, 1378 PFS and 728 OS primary endpoint events had occurred. Patients received a median (range) of 5 (1-18) cycles of CRD and 5 (1-13) cycles of CTD induction therapy. There were higher rates of haematological toxicity with CRD and peripheral neuropathy with CTD.
CRD induction was associated with a significantly improved median PFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95%CI 0.77, 0.96, CRD 36 months vs CTD 33 months, P=0.005, Figure 1A) and median OS (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.70, 0.93, CRD 96 months vs CTD 85 months, P=0.004, Figure 1B). Responses were deeper with CRD (>=VGPR 65.3%, PR 24.5%) than CTD (>=VGPR 52.8%, PR 33.2%) and depth of response was associated with outcome. Significant heterogeneity in PFS outcome was identified between molecular risk groups with HiR and UHiR benefiting most from induction with CRD rather than CTD (SR HR 0.99 95%CI 0.79, 1.24, HiR HR 0.58 0.44, 0.78, UHiR HR 0.60 0.38, 0.94, P.het 0.01).
897 TE patients were randomized to Len (n=496) and Obs (n=401). After a median follow up of 68 months (interquartile range 51-84) for the maintenance randomization, 527 PFS primary endpoint events had occurred. Lenalidomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared to observation (median PFS Len 64 54,76 vs Obs 32 28,36, HR 0.52 0.45,0.61, P<0.001). This was consistent across all risk subgroups (SR HR 0.44 95%CI 0.34, 0.56, HiR HR 0.50 0.37, 0.67, UHiR HR 0.52 0.31, 0.87, P. het 0.87).
Optimum outcomes were seen in those receiving Len as both induction and maintenance therapy (Figure 1C). Patients receiving CRD induction followed by Len maintenance (CRD-R) had a median PFS of 77 months 56, 86 compared to CTD-R 64 49, 74, CRD-Obs 37 33, 42 and CTD-Obs 44 38, 51.
Conclusions:
In this study the use of Len as both induction and maintenance was associated with the best outcomes irrespective of cytogenetic risk group. With long term follow up CRD induction for newly diagnosed transplant eligible myeloma patients was associated with both a PFS and OS benefit compared to CTD and was better tolerated. The PFS impact of CRD was particularly notable in patients with high and ultra-high risk disease. Lenalidomide maintenance was associated with significantly longer PFS than observation across all risk groups.
on behalf of the NCRI Haematological Oncology Clinical Studies Group
Display omitted
Jackson:Celgene, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria. Pawlyn:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Cairns:Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Takeda: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kishore:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Jazz, Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Novartis: Other: Travel expenses; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis, Janssen: Research Funding. Lindsay:Celgene: Other: personal fees and non-financial support ; Takeda: Other: personal fees and non-financial support ; Amgen: Other: non-financial support. Russell:Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; DSI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Owen:Janssen: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Gregory:Abbvie, Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen, Merck: Research Funding. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy. Davies:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Oncopeptides, Roche, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Consultant/Advisor; Janssen, Celgene: Other: Research Grant, Research Funding. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene Corporation: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene Corporation, Janssen: Research Funding.
CTD/CRD induction therapy and Lenalidomide maintenance 10mg 21/28 days
Multiple myeloma has been shown to have substantial clonal heterogeneity, suggesting that agents with different mechanisms of action might be required to induce deep responses and improve outcomes. ...Such agents could be given in combination or in sequence on the basis of previous response. We aimed to assess the clinical value of maximising responses by using therapeutic agents with different modes of action, the use of which is directed by the response to the initial combination therapy. We aimed to assess response-adapted intensification treatment with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) versus no intensification treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had a suboptimal response to initial immunomodulatory triplet treatment which was standard of care in the UK at the time of trial design.
The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment, intensification treatment, and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to intensification treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol (cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone) and achieved a partial or minimal response. For the intensification treatment, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to cyclophosphamide (500 mg daily orally on days 1, 8, and 15), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), and dexamethasone (20 mg daily orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) up to a maximum of eight cycles of 21 days or no treatment. Patients were stratified by allocated induction treatment, response to induction treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, assessed from intensification randomisation to data cutoff, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009–010956–93, and has completed recruitment.
Between Nov 15, 2010, and July 28, 2016, 583 patients were enrolled to the intensification randomisation, representing 48% of the 1217 patients who achieved partial or minimal response after initial induction therapy. 289 patients were assigned to CVD treatment and 294 patients to no treatment. After a median follow-up of 29·7 months (IQR 17·0–43·5), median progression-free survival was 30 months (95% CI 25–36) with CVD and 20 months (15–28) with no CVD (hazard ratio HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48–0·75, p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 77·3% (95% Cl 71·0–83·5) in the CVD group and 78·5% (72·3–84·6) in the no CVD group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67–1·43, p=0·93). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking CVD were haematological, including neutropenia (18 7% patients), thrombocytopenia (19 7% patients), and anaemia (8 3% patients). No deaths in the CVD group were deemed treatment related.
Intensification treatment with CVD significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and a suboptimal response to immunomodulatory induction therapy compared with no intensification treatment, but did not improve overall survival. The manageable safety profile of this combination and the encouraging results support further investigation of response-adapted approaches in this setting. The substantial number of patients not entering this trial randomisation following induction therapy, however, might support the use of combination therapies upfront to maximise response and improve outcomes as is now the standard of care in the UK.
Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Myeloma UK.
PDF
