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.).
n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple ...myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone
18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85,
=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients;
=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72,
=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72,
=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.
Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based triplets, in particular carfilzomib-Rd (KRd) and daratumumab-Rd (DaraRd), represent a standard of care in lenalidomide-sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) ...patients in first relapse. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT), suggested better outcome with DaraRd. Trying to address this issue in clinical practice, we collected data of 430 consecutive MM patients addressed to Rd-based triplets in first relapse between January 2017 and March 2021. Overall, the most common used regimen was DaraRd, chosen in almost half of the cases (54.4%), followed by KRd (34.6%). Different triplets were used much less commonly. In an attempt to limit the imbalance of a retrospective analysis, we conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between DaraRd and KRd. After PSM, efficacy of DaraRd versus KRd was similar in terms of overall-response rate (ORR) (OR: 0.9, P=0.685) as well as of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (OR: 0.9, P=0.582). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for DaraRd (29.8 vs. 22.5 months; P=0.028). DaraRd was tolerated better, registering a lower rate of grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity (OR: 0.4, P<0.001). With the limitations of any retrospective analysis, our real-life PSM comparison between DaraRd and KRd, in first-relapse MM patients, showed better tolerability and prolonged PFS of DaraRd, although with some gaps of performance, in particular of DaraRd, with respect to RCT. Carfilzomib-containing regimens, like KRd, still remain a valid second-line option in the emerging scenario of first-line daratumumab-based therapy.
A sequential approach including bortezomib induction, intermediate-dose melphalan, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), followed by lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance, has been ...evaluated. Efficacy and safety data have been analyzed on intention-to-treat and results updated. Newly diagnosed myeloma patients 65 to 75 years of age (n = 102) received 4 cycles of bortezomib-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-dexamethasone, tandem melphalan (100 mg/m2) followed by ASCT (MEL100-ASCT), 4 cycles of lenalidomide-prednisone consolidation (LP), and lenalidomide maintenance (L) until disease progression. The complete response (CR) rate was 33% after MEL100-ASCT, 48% after LP and 53% after L maintenance. After a median follow-up of 66 months, median time-to-progression (TTP) was 55 months and median progression-free survival 48 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, 5-year OS was 63%. In CR patients, median TTP was 70 months and 5-year OS was 83%. Median survival from relapse was 28 months. Death related to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 8/102 patients during induction or transplantation. Rate of death related to AEs was higher in patients ≥70 years compared with younger (5/26 vs 3/76, P = .024). Bortezomib-induction followed by ASCT and lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance is a valuable option for elderly myeloma patients, with the greatest benefit in those younger than 70 years of age.
•Bortezomib-induction/Mel100-ASCT/lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance is effective in elderly patients with excellent performance status.•Deaths related to AEs were higher in patients ≥70 years, suggesting the need of a more careful patient selection.
Treatment with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide improves the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma and is now considered a standard of care for patients not eligible for transplantation. However, ...this treatment is a major source of morbidity. A meta-analysis of data from individual patients (n=1680) in six randomized trials was performed, comparing the effects of melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide versus melphalan-prednisone. The main objective was to estimate the risk of serious adverse events and their impact on outcome. The primary endpoints were the 2-year cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities. At least 75% of the grade 3-4 toxicities occurred during the first 6 months of treatment in both treatment groups. The cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities was higher in the melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide group than in the melphalan-prednisone group (28% versus 22%; HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) as was the cumulative incidence of non-hematologic toxicities (39% versus 17%, HR 2.78, 95% CI 2.21-3.50). Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities were significantly increased in patients with poor Performance Status. Occurrence of grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities had a negative impact on both progression-free survival (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.45) and overall survival, (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.47). Besides toxicities, progression-free and overall survival were also negatively affected by advanced International Staging System stage, high creatinine levels and poor Performance Status. Age had a negative impact on survival as well. Although melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide improved outcome, it increased toxicities, especially non-hematologic ones. Serious non-hematologic toxicities, older age, poor Performance Status, and high creatinine levels negatively affected survival.
Continuous therapy (CT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death), but chemotherapy-resistant relapse may negatively impact overall ...survival (OS). Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death) may represent an additional tool to estimate outcome. This study evaluates the benefit of novel agent-based CT versus fixed duration of therapy (FDT) in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.
We included patients enrolled onto three phase III trials that randomly assigned patients to novel agent-based CT versus FDT. Primary analyses were restricted to the intent-to-treat population eligible for CT (patients progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment). Primary end points were PFS1, PFS2, and OS. All hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were adjusted for several potential confounders using Cox models.
In the pooled analysis of the three trials, 604 patients were randomly assigned to CT and 614 were assigned to FDT. Median follow-up was 52 months. In the intent-to-treat CT population, CT (n = 417), compared with FDT (n = 410), significantly improved PFS1 (median, 32 v 16 months, respectively; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.56; P < .001), PFS2 (median, 55 v 40 months, respectively; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75; P < .001), and OS (4-year OS, 69% v 60%, respectively; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; P = .003).
In this pooled analysis, CT significantly improved PFS1, PFS2, and OS. The improvement in PFS2 suggests that the benefit reported during first remission is not cancelled by a shorter second remission. PFS2 is a valuable end point to estimate long-term clinical benefit and should be included in future trials.
Abstract 3069▪FN2▪This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract
High-dose chemotherapy with haemopoietic stem-cell improves outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents ...questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in MM patients.
In this prospective randomized study, we compared conventional melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) in newly diagnosed MM patients younger than 65 years.
All patients (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1, 8, 15, 22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) consisting of six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 MEL200 (N=200) with stem-cell support. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (stages 1 and 2 vs. stage 3) and age (<60 vs. ≥60 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat.
Response rates were similar: at least very good partial response (≥VGPR) rate was 60% with MPR vs. 58% with MEL200 (p=.24); the complete response (CR) rate was 20% with MPR vs. 25% with MEL200 (p=.49). After a median follow-up of 26 months, the 2-year PFS was 54% in MPR and 73% in MEL200 (HR=0.51, p<.001). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups: 87% with MPR and 90% with MEL200 (HR 0.68, p=.19). In a subgroup analysis, MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS in both standard-risk patients without t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 46% in the MPR group vs. 78% in the MEL200 group, HR=0.57, p=.007) and high-risk patients with t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 27% for MPR vs. 71% for MEL200, HR=0.32, p=.004). In patients who achieved CR, the 2-year PFS was 66% for MPR vs. 87% for MEL200 (HR 0.26; p<.001); in those who achieved a partial response (PR), the 2-year PFS was 56% for MPR vs. 77% for MEL200 (HR 0.45; p<.001). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs. 89% (p<.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs. 17% (p<.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); the incidence of second tumors was 0.5% in MPR patients and 1.5% in MEL200 patients (p=.12). Deep vein thrombosis rate was 2.44% with MPR vs. 1.13% with MEL200 (p=.43).
PFS was significantly prolonged in the MEL200 group compared to MPR. This benefit was maintained in the subgroup of patients with standard- or high-risk cytogenetic features. Toxicities were significantly higher in the MEL200 group. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with conventional therapies including novel agents. These data will be updated at the meeting.
TableClinical outcome after MPR or MEL200 consolidationMPRMEL200P valueAll patientsCR20%25%.49≥VGPR60%58%.242-year PFS54%73%<.0012-year OS87%90%.19Standard-risk patients2-year PFS46%78%.007High-risk patients2-year PFS27%71%.004Patients who achieved CR2-year PFS66%87%<.001Patients who achieved PR2-year PFS56%77%<.001
Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:celgene: Honoraria. Ria:celgene: Consultancy. Caravita Di Toritto:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.
Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) but is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This prospective, open-label, ...randomized substudy of a phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with low-dose aspirin (ASA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with newly diagnosed MM, treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone induction and melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide consolidation. Overall, 342 patients who did not have clinical indications or contraindications to antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA 100 mg/d (n = 176) or LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg/d (n = 166). The incidence of VTE was 2.27% in the ASA group and 1.20% in the LMWH group. Compared with LMWH, the absolute difference in the proportion of VTE was 1.07% (95% confidence interval, −1.69-3.83; P = .452) in the ASA group. Pulmonary embolism was observed in 1.70% of patients in the ASA group and none in the LMWH group. No arterial thrombosis, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths were reported. No major hemorrhagic complications were reported. In previously untreated patients with MM receiving lenalidomide with a low thromboembolic risk, ASA could be an effective and less-expensive alternative to LMWH thromboprophylaxis. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00551928.
PDF
