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.
•The 1-year incidence estimate of breakthrough infections (BTIs)/hospitalization/death was 24%.•A greater risk of incident BTIs was observed with BA.5 and XBB/EG.•The search for a new prophylaxis is ...urgently needed.
Whether pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150 mg/150 mg (T/C) in individuals with hematologic disease (HD) may lead to a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (BTI)/hospitalization, or death in the Omicron era remains to be established.
An observational study included participants with HD who received PrEP. BTIs were defined as SARS-CoV-2 positivity by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. The incidence of BTIs (95% CI) and of BTIs/hospitalization/death was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and as the number of BTIs per 100 person-years of follow-up according to the circulating variant of concern (VoC). A Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the association between the rate of incidence and circulating VoCs after controlling for demographics and clinical factors.
We included 550 HD patients: 71% initiated T/C PrEP when BA.5 was the most prevalent, followed by XBB/EG, BA.2, and BA.1 (19%, 7%, and 3%, respectively). Overall, the 1-year incidence estimate of BTIs/hospitalization/death was 24% (18.7-29.4%). A greater risk of incident infections was observed when BA.5 and XBB/EG sub-lineages circulated (aRR 5.05 2.17, 11.77; P < .001 and 3.82 1.50, 9.7; P = 0.005, compared to BA.1, respectively).
The 1-year incidence of SARS-CoV-2 BTIs/hospitalization/death was 24% which is in line with what was observed in other similar studies. The risk appeared to be higher when more recent Omicron sub-lineages were circulating suggesting a reduction of in vitro neutralization.
Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of ...standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).
The multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has changed over the last years due to the introduction of novel drugs. Despite improvements in the MM outcome, MM remains an incurable disease. Daratumumab is a ...human IgGK monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with tumor activity associated with immunomodulatory mechanism. In combination with standard of care regimens, including bortezomib (Vd) or lenalidomide (Rd), daratumumab prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in new diagnosis MM. We report the data of the MM GIMEMA Lazio group in 171 heavily treated pts who received daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) or daratumumab, velcade and dexamethasone (DVd). The overall response rate was 80%, and the overall survival (OS) and PFS were 84% and 77%, respectively. In addition, pts treated with DRd showed a better median PFS compared to pts treated with DVd, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common hematologic treatment‐emergent adverse events (TAEs) were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The most common nonhematologic TAEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy and infections. Our data confirmed that DRd or DVd therapy is effective and safe in RRMM pts, and our real‐life analysis could support the physicians regarding the choice of optimal therapy in this setting of pts.
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.
PDF
