Search

We conducted a pooled analysis of two phase III trials, RV-MM-EMN-441 and EMN01, to compare maintenance with lenalidomide-prednisone vs. lenalidomide in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible and -ineligible myeloma patients. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival, progression-free survival 2 and overall survival with both regimens. A secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of duration of maintenance on overall survival and on outcome after relapse. A total of 625 patients (lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n = 315, lenalidomide arm, n = 310) were analyzed. The median follow-up was 58 months. Median progression-free survival (25 vs. 19 months, p = 0.08), progression-free survival 2 (56 vs. 49 months, p = 0.9) and overall survival (73 months vs. NR, p = 0.08) were not significantly different between the two arms. Toxicity profiles of lenalidomide-prednisone and lenalidomide were similar, with the exception of neutropenia that was higher in the lenalidomide arm (grade &ge, 3: 9% vs. 19%, p &lt, 0.001), without an increase in the rate of infections. Overall survival (median NR vs. 49 months, p &lt, 0.001), progression-free survival from relapse (median 35 vs. 24 months, p = 0.004) and overall survival from relapse (median not reached vs. 41 months, p = 0.002) were significantly longer in patients continuing maintenance for &ge, 2 years. We showed that the addition of prednisone at 25 or 50 mg every other day (eod) to lenalidomide maintenance did not induce any significant advantage.

BACKGROUND: Fungal infections are still a relevant challenge for clinicians involved in the cure of patients with cancer. We retrospectively reviewed charts of hospitalized patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), in which a documented fungemia was diagnosed between January 2011 and December 2015 at 28 adult and 6 pediatric Italian Hematology Departments. METHODS: During the study period we recorded 215 fungal blood stream infections (BSI). Microbiological analyses documented that BSI was due to molds in 17 patients (8%) and yeasts in 198 patients (92%), being Candida spp identified in 174 patients (81%). RESULTS: Mortality rates were 70% and 39% for mold and yeast infections, respectively. Infection was the main cause of death in 53% of the mold and 18% of the yeast groups. At the multivariate analysis, ECOG ≥2 and septic shock were significantly associated with increased mortality, and removal of CVC survival was found to be protective. When considering patients with candidemia only, ECOG >2 and removal of CVC were statistically associated with overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although candidemia represents a group of BSI with a good prognosis, its risk factors largely overlap with those identified for all fungemias, even though the candidemia-related mortality is lower when compared to other fungal BSI. Management of fungal BSI is still a complex issue, in which both patients and disease characteristics should be focused to address a personalized approach. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In a randomized, phase 3 study, superior complete/near-complete response (CR/nCR) rates and extended progression-free survival were demonstrated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma patients (intention-to-treat analysis; VTD, n = 236; TD, n = 238). This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specifically assessed the efficacy and safety of consolidation with VTD or TD. Before starting consolidation, CR/nCR rates were not significantly different in the VTD (63.1%) and TD arms (54.7%). After consolidation, CR (60.6% vs 46.6%) and CR/nCR (73.1% vs 60.9%) rates were significantly higher for VTD-treated versus TD-treated patients. VTD consolidation significantly increased CR and CR/nCR rates, but TD did not (McNemar test). With a median follow-up of 30.4 months from start of consolidation, 3-year progression-free survival was significantly longer for the VTD group (60% vs 48% for TD). Grade 2 or 3 peripheral neuropathy (8.1% vs 2.4%) was more frequent with VTD (grade 3, 0.6%) versus TD consolidation. The superior efficacy of VTD versus TD as induction was retained despite readministration as consolidation therapy after double autologous transplantation. VTD consolidation therapy significantly contributed to improved clinical outcomes observed for patients randomly assigned to the VTD arm of the study. The study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01134484.

Background The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation.Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (I S S), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HS CT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment.Findings Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60.3 months (IQR 52. 2-67. 6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56.7 months [95% CI 49.3-64.5] vs 41.9 months [37.5-46.9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 0.62-0.85; p=0.0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42.1 months (IQR 32.3-49.2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58.9 months [54.0-not estimable] vs 45.5 months [39.5-58.4]; HR 0.77, 0.63-0.95; p=0.014). The most common grade >= 3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]).Interpretation This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (

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).

No abstract available

Background: Candidaemia is an important infectious complication for haematological malignancy patients. Antifungal prophylaxis reduces the incidence of candidaemia but may be associated with breakthrough candidaemia. Objective: To analyse the Candida species’ distribution and relative antifungal susceptibility profiles of candidaemia episodes in relation to the use of antifungal prophylaxis among Italian SEIFEM haematology centres. Methodology: This multicentre retrospective observational SEIFEM study included 133 single-species candidaemia episodes of haematological malignancy patients for whom antifungal susceptibility testing results of blood Candida isolates were available between 2011 and 2015. Each participating centre provided both clinical and microbiological data. Results: Non-Candida albicans Candida (NCAC) species were the mostly isolated species (89, 66.9%), which accounted for C parapsilosis (35, 26.3%), C glabrata (16, 12.0%), C krusei (14, 10.5%), C tropicalis (13, 9.8%) and uncommon species (11, 8.3%). C albicans caused the remaining 44 (33.1%) episodes. Excluding 2 C albicans isolates, 23 of 25 fluconazole-resistant isolates were NCAC species (14 C krusei, 6 C glabrata, 2 C parapsilosis and 1 C tropicalis). Fifty-six (42.1%) of 133 patients developed breakthrough candidaemia. Systemic antifungal prophylaxis consisted of azoles, especially fluconazole and posaconazole, in 50 (89.3%) of 56 patients in whom a breakthrough candidaemia occurred. Interestingly, all these patients tended to develop a C krusei infection (10/56, P =.02) or a fluconazole-resistant isolate’s infection (14/50, P =.04) compared to patients (4/77 and 10/77, respectively) who did not have a breakthrough candidaemia. Conclusions: Optimisation of prophylactic strategies is necessary to limit the occurrence of breakthrough candidaemia and, importantly, the emergence of fluconazole-resistant NCAC isolates’ infections in haematological malignancy patients.

Infections by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria are a worrisome phenomenon in hematological patients. Data on the incidence of MDR colonization and related bloodstream infections (BSIs) in haematological patients are scarce. A multicentric prospective observational study was planned in 18 haematological institutions during a 6-month period. All patients showing MDR rectal colonization as well as occurrence of BSI at admission were recorded. One-hundred forty-four patients with MDR colonization were observed (6.5% of 2226 admissions). Extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing (ESBL-P) enterobacteria were observed in 64/144 patients, carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria in 85/144 and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VREs) in 9/144. Overall, 37 MDR-colonized patients (25.7%) developed at least one BSI; 23 of them (62.2%, 16% of the whole series) developed BSI by the same pathogen (MDRrel BSI), with a rate of 15.6% (10/64) for ESBL-P enterobacteria, 14.1% (12/85) for CR Gram-negative bacteria and 11.1% (1/9) for VRE. In 20/23 cases, MDRrel BSI occurred during neutropenia. After a median follow-up of 80 days, 18 patients died (12.5%). The 3-month overall survival was significantly lower for patients colonized with CR Gram-negative bacteria (83.6%) and VRE (77.8%) in comparison with those colonized with ESBL-P enterobacteria (96.8%). CR-rel BSI and the presence of a urinary catheter were independent predictors of mortality. MDR rectal colonization occurs in 6.5% of haematological inpatients and predicts a 16% probability of MDRrel BSI, particularly during neutropenia, as well as a higher probability of unfavourable outcomes in CR-rel BSIs. Tailored empiric antibiotic treatment should be decided on the basis of colonization.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain a major clinical issue in patients with hematological malignancies (HMs). To confirm the efficacy and safety of the new azole isavuconazole (ISV) in a clinical care setting, we planned a multicenter retrospective study; we collected data on all possible/probable/proven IFDs in patients with HMs treated with ISV in 17 centers. Between July 2016 and November 2018, 128 patients were enrolled, and 122 were fully evaluable. ISV was employed as the 1st line therapy in 43 (35%) patients and as a subsequent therapy in 79 (65%) patients. The response rate was 82/122 patients (67.2%); it was similar when using ISV as a 1st or 2nd line treatment (60.5% vs 70.9%, respectively; p = 0.24). In multivariate analysis, both female sex (OR: 2.992; CI: 1.22–7.34) and induction phase of treatment (OR: 3.953; CI: 1.085–14.403) were predictive of a favorable response. At a median follow-up of 5 months, 43 (35.2%) patients were dead; the 1-year overall survival (OS) was 49.9%. In multivariate analysis, the response to ISV (OR: 0.103; CI: 0.041–0.262) and IFD refractoriness to previous antifungals (OR: 3.413; CI: 1.318–8.838) were statistically significant for OS. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 15/122 patients (12.3%); grade 3–4 AEs were reported in 5 (4%) and led to ISV discontinuation. Our study confirms the safety and tolerability of ISV, also in diseases other than acute leukemia. Phase of hematological disease, gender and refractoriness to previous antifungals are the main predictive factors for the aforementioned response and outcome.

Objectives To investigate the incidence, treatment and outcome of breakthrough invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in adult acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients after posaconazole prophylaxis. Methods From January 2010 to April 2012, all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AML were prospectively registered at 33 participating Italian centres. All cases of IFIs occurring within 30 days after the end of the first induction chemotherapy were recorded. The strategy of antifungal treatment (empirical, pre-emptive or targeted) and the drugs used were analysed. ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01315925. Results In total, 1192 patients with newly diagnosed AML were enrolled in the study, of whom 510 received posaconazole prophylaxis and were included in the present analysis. Of these patients, 140 (27%) needed systemic antifungal treatment. Among the 127 evaluable cases, an empirical approach was utilized in 102 patients (80%), a pre-emptive approach in 19 patients (15%) and targeted therapy in 6 patients (5%). Only five patients died of IFIs (three in the empirical group and two in the targeted group; 4%). A critical review of IFI diagnoses at 30 days demonstrated that among the patients treated empirically, ∼30% were not affected by IFIs but rather only by fever of unidentified origin. A comparison between the empirical and the pre-emptive groups showed no significant differences regarding the attributable and overall mortalities. Conclusions This study confirms that posaconazole prophylaxis reduces the incidence of breakthrough IFIs and does not modify the efficacy of subsequent systemic antifungal treatment, regardless of the approach (empirical or pre-emptive) or the antifungal drug used.

Purpose Empiric antibiotic monotherapy is considered the standard of treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer, but this approach may be inadequate because of the increasing prevalence of infections caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, superiority trial, adult, febrile, high-risk neutropenic patients (FhrNPs) with hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned to receive piperacillin/tazobactam (4.5 g intravenously every 8 hours) with or without tigecycline (50 mg intravenously every 12 hours; loading dose 100 mg). The primary end point was resolution of febrile episode without modifications of the initial allocated treatment. Results Three hundred ninety FhrNPs were enrolled (combination/monotherapy, 187/203) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITTA). The ITTA revealed a successful outcome in 67.9% v 44.3% of patients who had received combination therapy and monotherapy, respectively (127/187 v 90/203; absolute difference in risk (adr), 23.6%; 95% CI, 14% to 33%; P < .001). The combination regimen proved better than monotherapy in bacteremias (adr, 32.8%; 95% CI, 19% to 46%; P < .001) and in clinically documented infections (adr, 36%; 95% CI, 9% to 64%; P < .01). Mortality and number of adverse effects were limited and similar in the two groups. Conclusion The combination of piperacillin/tazobactam and tigecycline is safe, well tolerated, and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam alone in febrile, high-risk, neutropenic hematologic patients with cancer. In epidemiologic settings characterized by a high prevalence of infections because of MDR microorganisms, this combination could be considered as one of the first-line empiric antibiotic therapies.