Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is the leading cause of later illness and death after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. We hypothesized that the inclusion of antihuman ...T-lymphocyte immune globulin (ATG) in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute leukemia would result in a significant reduction in chronic GVHD 2 years after allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling.
We conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study of ATG as part of a conditioning regimen. A total of 168 patients were enrolled at 27 centers. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ATG or not receive ATG, with stratification according to center and risk of disease.
After a median follow-up of 24 months, the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 32.2% (95% confidence interval CI, 22.1 to 46.7) in the ATG group and 68.7% (95% CI, 58.4 to 80.7) in the non-ATG group (P<0.001). The rate of 2-year relapse-free survival was similar in the ATG group and the non-ATG group (59.4% 95% CI, 47.8 to 69.2 and 64.6% 95% CI, 50.9 to 75.3, respectively; P=0.21), as was the rate of overall survival (74.1% 95% CI, 62.7 to 82.5 and 77.9% 95% CI, 66.1 to 86.1, respectively; P=0.46). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of relapse, infectious complications, acute GVHD, or adverse events. The rate of a composite end point of chronic GVHD-free and relapse-free survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the ATG group than in the non-ATG group (36.6% vs. 16.8%, P=0.005).
The inclusion of ATG resulted in a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD after allogeneic transplantation than the rate without ATG. The survival rate was similar in the two groups, but the rate of a composite end point of chronic GVHD-free survival and relapse-free survival was higher with ATG. (Funded by the Neovii Biotech and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00678275.).
This open-label, randomized, phase 3 study compared melphalan at a dose of 200 mg per square meter of body-surface area plus autologous stem-cell transplantation with ...melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) and compared lenalidomide maintenance therapy with no maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
We randomly assigned 273 patients 65 years of age or younger to high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation or MPR consolidation therapy after induction, and 251 patients to lenalidomide maintenance therapy or no maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival.
The median follow-up period was 51.2 months. Both progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation than with MPR (median progression-free survival, 43.0 months vs. 22.4 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.32 to 0.61; P<0.001; and 4-year overall survival, 81.6% vs. 65.3%; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.93; P=0.02). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (41.9 months vs. 21.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.65; P<0.001), but 3-year overall survival was not significantly prolonged (88.0% vs. 79.2%; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.15; P=0.14). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly more frequent with high-dose melphalan than with MPR (94.3% vs. 51.5%), as were gastrointestinal adverse events (18.4% vs. 0%) and infections (16.3% vs. 0.8%); neutropenia and dermatologic toxic effects were more frequent with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (23.3% vs. 0% and 4.3% vs. 0%, respectively).
Consolidation therapy with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation, as compared with MPR, significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among patients with multiple myeloma who were 65 years of age or younger. Lenalidomide maintenance, as compared with no maintenance, significantly prolonged progression-free survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00551928.).
Summary Background High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare ...consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. Methods We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1–21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m2 ) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 , days 1, 8, and 15, dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, and lenalidomide 25 mg, days 1–21) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2 ) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1–21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01091831. Findings 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4–57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months 95% CI 20·6–36·7 vs 43·3 months 33·2–52·2; hazard ratio HR for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60–3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months 95% CI 27·8–not evaluable with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months 22·5–46·5 with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59–1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 26% of 129 patients vs 107 84% of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six 5% vs 25 20%), and infection (seven 5% vs 24 19%). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine 8% of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 13% of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight 8% vs five 5%), and systemic toxicities (seven 6% vs two 2%). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. Interpretation Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. Funding Celgene.
Summary Background Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (TD) is a standard induction therapy for myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of addition of bortezomib to TD (VTD) versus TD alone as ...induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods Patients (aged 18–65 years) with previously untreated symptomatic myeloma were enrolled from 73 sites in Italy between May, 2006, and April, 2008, and data collection continued until June 30, 2010. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (40 mg daily on 8 of the first 12 days, but not consecutively; total of 320 mg per cycle), either alone or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The randomisation sequence was computer generated by the study coordinating team and was stratified by disease stage. After double autologous stem-cell transplantation, patients received two 35-day cycles of their assigned drug regimen, VTD or TD, as consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to induction therapy. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. This study is still underway but is not recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01134484 , and with EudraCT , number 2005-003723-39. Findings 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (n=241 patients) or TD (n=239). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment, and 236 on VTD and 238 on TD were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After induction therapy, complete or near complete response was achieved in 73 patients (31%, 95% CI 25·0–36·8) receiving VTD, and 27 (11%, 7·3–15·4) on TD (p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in a significantly higher number of patients on VTD (n=132, 56%) than in those on TD (n=79, 33%; p<0·0001), with a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy in patients on VTD (n=23, 10%) than in those on TD (n=5, 2%; p=0·0004). Resolution or improvement of severe peripheral neuropathy was recorded in 18 of 23 patients on VTD, and in three of five patients on TD. Interpretation VTD induction therapy before double autologous stem-cell transplantation significantly improves rate of complete or near complete response, and represents a new standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for transplant. Funding Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology at the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) is approved in patients with myelofibrosis but the impact of pretreatment with RUX on outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) ...remains to be determined. We evaluated the impact of RUX on outcome in 551 myelofibrosis patients who received HSCT without (n = 274) or with (n = 277) RUX pretreatment. The overall leukocyte engraftment on day 45 was 92% and significantly higher in RUX responsive patients than those who had no or lost response to RUX (94% vs. 85%, p = 0.05). The 1-year non-relapse mortality was 22% without significant difference between the arms. In a multivariate analysis (MVA) RUX pretreated patients with ongoing spleen response at transplant had a significantly lower risk of relapse (8.1% vs. 19.1%; p = 0.04) and better 2-year event-free survival (68.9% vs. 53.7%; p = 0.02) in comparison to patients without RUX pretreatment. For overall survival the only significant factors were age > 58 years (p = 0.03) and HLA mismatch donor (p = 0.001). RUX prior to HSCT did not negatively impact outcome after transplantation and patients with ongoing spleen response at time of transplantation had best outcome.
The combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) is a new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. This phase III study examined the efficacy of the four-drug combination of ...bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) compared with VMP treatment alone in untreated multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.
A total of 511 patients were randomly assigned to receive nine cycles of VMPT followed by continuous VT as maintenance, or nine cycles of VMP at the same doses with no additional therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival.
The 3-year estimates of progression-free survival were 56% in patients receiving VMPT-VT and 41% in those receiving VMP (hazard ratio HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .008). At 3 years, the cumulative proportions of patients who did not go on to the next therapy were 72% with VMPT-VT and 60% with VMP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .007). Complete response rates were 38% in the VMPT-VT group and 24% in the VMP group (P < .001). The 3-year overall survival was 89% with VMPT-VT and 87% with VMP (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.60; P = .77). Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (38% v 28%; P = .02), cardiologic events (10% v 5%; P = .04), and thromboembolic events (5% v 2%; P = .08) were more frequent among patients assigned to the VMPT-VT group than among those assigned to the VMP group; treatment-related deaths were 4% with VMPT-VT and 3% with VMP.
VMPT followed by VT as maintenance was superior to VMP alone in patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.
In patients with myeloma, thalidomide significantly improves outcomes but increases the risk of thromboembolic events. In this randomized, open-label, multicenter trial, we compared aspirin (ASA) or ...fixed low-dose warfarin (WAR) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing thromboembolism in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens.
A total of 667 patients with previously untreated myeloma who received thalidomide-containing regimens and had no clinical indication or contraindication for a specific antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA (100 mg/d), WAR (1.25 mg/d), or LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg/d). A composite primary end point included serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths during the first 6 months of treatment.
Of 659 analyzed patients, 43 (6.5%) had serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden death during the first 6 months (6.4% in the ASA group, 8.2% in the WAR group, and 5.0% in the LMWH group). Compared with LMWH, the absolute differences were +1.3% (95% CI, -3.0% to 5.7%; P = .544) in the ASA group and +3.2% (95% CI, -1.5% to 7.8%; P = .183) in the WAR group. The risk of thromboembolism was 1.38 times higher in patients treated with thalidomide without bortezomib. Three major (0.5%) and 10 minor (1.5%) bleeding episodes were recorded.
In patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens, ASA and WAR showed similar efficacy in reducing serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, and sudden deaths compared with LMWH, except in elderly patients where WAR showed less efficacy than LMWH.
Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide ...maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance).
In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.58; P < .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P < .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients.
Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.
In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib-thalidomide demonstrated superior efficacy compared with ...bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of the schedule change on clinical outcomes and safety. Long-term outcomes appeared similar: 3-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P > .999), and 3-year overall survival rate was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). The complete response rate was 30% in the once-weekly and 35% in the twice-weekly group (P = .27). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 35% of once-weekly patients and 51% of twice-weekly patients (P = .003). The incidence of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was 8% in the once-weekly and 28% in the twice-weekly group (P < .001); 5% of patients in the once-weekly and 15% in the twice-weekly group discontinued therapy because of peripheral neuropathy (P < .001). This improvement in safety did not appear to affect efficacy. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01063179.
Summary Background The standard busulfan–cyclophosphamide myeloablative conditioning regimen is associated with substantial non-relapse mortality in patients older than 40 years with acute myeloid ...leukaemia who are undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Because the combination of busulfan plus fludarabine has been proposed to reduce non-relapse mortality, we aimed to compare this treatment with busulfan plus cyclophosphamide as a preparative regimen in these patients. Methods We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia at 25 hospital transplant centres in Italy and one in Israel. Eligible patients were aged 40–65 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than 3, and were in complete remission. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous busulfan plus cyclophosphamide or busulfan plus fludarabine. Treatment allocations were not masked to investigators or patients. Randomisation was done centrally via a dedicated web-based system using remote data entry, with patients stratified by donor type and complete remission status. Patients allocated to busulfan plus cyclophosphamide received intravenous busulfan 0·8 mg/kg four times per day during 2 h infusions for four consecutive days (16 doses from days −9 through −6; total dose 12·8 mg/kg) and cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg per day for two consecutive days (on days −4 and −3; total dose 120 mg/kg). Patients allocated to busulfan plus fludarabine received the same dose of intravenous busulfan (from days −6 through −3) and fludarabine at 40 mg/m2 per day for four consecutive days (from days −6 through −3; total dose 160 mg/m2 ). The primary endpoint was 1-year non-relapse mortality, which was assessed on an intention-to-treat basis; safety outcomes were assessed in the per-protocol population. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01191957. Findings Between Jan 3, 2008, and Dec 20, 2012, we enrolled and randomly assigned 252 patients to receive busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (n=125) or busulfan plus fludarabine (n=127). Median follow-up was 27·5 months (IQR 9·8–44·3). 1-year non-relapse mortality was 17·2% (95% CI 11·6–25·4) in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 7·9% (4·3–14·3) in the busulfan plus fludarabine group (Gray's test p=0·026). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were gastrointestinal events (28 23% of 121 patients in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 26 21% of 124 patients in the busulfan plus fludarabine group) and infections (21 17% patients in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 13 10% patients in the busulfan plus fludarabine group had at least one such event). Interpretation In older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, the myeloablative busulfan plus fludarabine conditioning regimen is associated with lower transplant-related mortality than busulfan plus cyclophosphamide, but retains potent antileukaemic activity. Accordingly, this regimen should be regarded as standard of care during the planning of allogeneic transplants for such patients. Funding Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco.
PDF
