Search

Purpose of Review: In this review, we discuss the most important aspects of the role of high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM)., Recent Findings: Almost 40 years after the publication of the first study on safety and efficacy of HDM and ASCT in MM patients, and despite the introduction of several drugs and combinations with various targets on the plasma cell and the surrounding microenvironment, HDM-ASCT still stands as a standard of care for the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed MM patients. Indeed, all attempts to replace HDM-ASCT with novel-agent-based, non-transplant strategies have failed to demonstrate their efficacy, at least in terms of progression-free survival., Summary: Despite such a long history in MM, a number of open issues regarding HDM-ASCT still exist, from the choice between using transplant in first-line therapy or at relapse to the use of tandem HDM-ASCT in high-risk patients. With the introduction of more and more effective multidrug regimens and of novel immunotherapeutic approaches, the challenge between transplant and non-transplant is not over yet., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT., Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3-35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7-33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group., Interpretation: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Funding: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Lenalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo or observation in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). All studies had PFS as the primary end point, and none were powered for overall survival (OS) as a primary end point. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to better understand the impact of lenalidomide maintenance in this setting. Patients and Methods The meta-analysis was conducted using primary-source patient-level data and documentation from three RCTs (Cancer and Leukemia Group B 100104, Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell'Adulto RV-MM-PI-209, and Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome 2005-02) that met the following prespecified inclusion criteria: an RCT in patients with NDMM receiving ASCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance versus placebo or observation with patient-level data available and achieved database lock for primary efficacy analysis. Results Overall, 1,208 patients were included in the meta-analysis (605 patients in the lenalidomide maintenance group and 603 in the placebo or observation group). The median PFS was 52.8 months for the lenalidomide group and 23.5 months for the placebo or observation group (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55). At a median follow-up time of 79.5 months for all surviving patients, the median OS had not been reached for the lenalidomide maintenance group, whereas it was 86.0 months for the placebo or observation group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.90; P = .001). The cumulative incidence rate of a second primary malignancy before disease progression was higher with lenalidomide maintenance versus placebo or observation, whereas the cumulative incidence rates of progression, death, or death as a result of myeloma were all higher with placebo or observation versus lenalidomide maintenance. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant OS benefit and confirms the PFS benefit with lenalidomide maintenance after ASCT in patients with NDMM when compared with placebo or observation.

High-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for patients younger than 65 years of age with multiple myeloma (MM). However, this therapeutic approach has undergone substantial advances in this last decade, mainly due to the introduction of new drugs such as thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib. These new drugs, in different combinations, have shown to significantly increase response rates after induction therapy and ASCT. Moreover, the positive results obtained with these agents in consolidation and maintenance strategies after ASCT strongly support the concept of continuous therapy, whose ultimate goal is the long-term control of the disease and the improvement of outcome. Preliminary data from studies investigating next generation proteasome inhibitors, such as carfilzomib and ixazomib, used upfront as well as at subsequent therapeutic lines, demonstrate the possibility of achieving molecular remission in most of the patients. The deeper responses obtained with new drugcombinations questioned the role of ASCT, and large, ongoing, phase 3 trials will shed light on the role and the timing of ASCT., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

Outcome of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has greatly improved with the use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and new agents, such as immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide and lenalidomide) and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib). When compared to conventional chemotherapy, high-dose melphalan with ASCT significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival, while overall survival benefit was not consistent across all trials. ASCT is considered the standard treatment for patients who are younger than 65 years and who do not have limiting comorbidities. New, effective agents have been introduced as part of induction, consolidation and maintenance treatments within ASCT and in combinations with chemotherapy for patients not eligible for ASCT. The remarkable results obtained with these regimens are questioning the role of ASCT for newly diagnosed MM patients. This article aims to delineate the role of ASCT in the era of novel agents based on the results of recent clinical trials.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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.).

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/m(2)) 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.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of bortezomib as induction therapy before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in myeloma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients age 65 to 75 years were eligible. Induction (bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone [PAD]) included four 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m(2) on day 4), and dexamethasone (40 mg/d; cycle 1: days 1 to 4, 8 to 11, and 15 to 18; cycles 2 to 4: days 1 to 4). Autologous transplantation was tandem melphalan 100 mg/m(2) (MEL100) and stem-cell support. Consolidation included four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d on days 1 to 21 every 28 days) plus prednisone (50 mg every other day), followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (LP-L; 10 mg/d on days 1 to 21) until relapse. Primary end points were safety (incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (response rate). Results A total of 102 patients were enrolled. In a per-protocol analysis, after PAD, 58% of patients had very good partial response (VGPR) or better, including 13% with complete response (CR); after MEL100, 82% of patients had at least VGPR and 38% had CR; and after LP-L, 86% of patients had at least VGPR and 66% had CR. After median follow-up time of 21 months, the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 69%, and the 2-year overall survival rate was 86%. During induction, treatment-related mortality was 3%; grade 3 to 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (10%), peripheral neuropathy (16%), and pneumonia (10%). During consolidation-maintenance, grade 3 to 4 AEs were neutropenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (6%), pneumonia (5%), and cutaneous rash (4%). CONCLUSION Bortezomib as induction before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance, is an effective regimen.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplastic disorder affecting elderly people. The treatment for all patients with MM was, for about 40 years, based on the combination of melphalan plus prednisone, with a very low rate of complete remissions and a survival that remained unacceptably low (about 36 months). Diverse factors, including comorbidity, performance status, decreased physiologic reserve, and potential undertreatment, contribute to these poor outcomes. Recently, however, the reduced treatment-related morbidity and mortality associated with autologous stem-cell transplantation and the availability of effective new drugs with acceptable toxicity, such as thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib, have greatly modified the traditional treatment paradigms in older patients with MM, challenging, in some cases, the definition of elderly and rapidly transforming the traditional palliative treatments to a new global therapeutic strategy, with the final objective of significantly improving the quality and the duration of life for elderly people with this disease. In this review, we report updated data for the front-line treatment of MM in the elderly population, examining the role of new drugs combined with melphalan or their incorporation within more complex combinations, including other so-called conventional drugs such as (pegylated)-doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone. We also assess the role of autologous and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation with adjusted conditioning regimens in selected elderly patients.

Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy typically characterised by neoplastic plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. Treatment for multiple myeloma consists of multi-line chemotherapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation and has been rapidly evolving in recent years. However, clinical trials are unable to provide patients and clinicians with long-term prognostic information nor policymakers with the full body of evidence needed to perform economic evaluation of new therapies or make reimbursement decisions. To address these limitations of the available evidence, this study aimed to develop and validate the EpiMAP Myeloma model, a discrete-event simulation model of multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways. Risk equations were estimated using the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma & Related Diseases Registry after multiple imputation of missing data. Risk equation coefficients were combined with multiple myeloma patients at diagnosis from the Registry to perform the simulation. The model was validated with 100 bootstraps of an out-of-sample prediction analysis using a 70/30 split of the 4,121 registry patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2023, resulting in 2,884 and 1,237 patients in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. For 90% of the 120 months in the 10-year post-diagnosis period, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the validation and simulated cohorts. These results highlight that the EpiMAP Myeloma model is robust at predicting multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways in Australia & New Zealand. In the future, clinicians will be able to use the EpiMAP Myeloma model to provide personalised estimates of life expectancy to patients based on their specific characteristics, disease stage, and response to treatment. Policymakers will also be able to use the model to perform economic evaluation, to forecast the number of patients receiving treatment at different stages, and to determine the downstream impact of listing new, effective therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases.Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group.Interpretation: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone.Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.Translation: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: In this review, two types of soft‐tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high‐risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor‐based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor‐based regimen such as lenalidomide‐bortezomib‐dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high‐dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma‐like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)‐RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high‐unmet need population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a rare, but very aggressive, plasma cell dyscrasia, representing a distinct clinicopathological entity as compared to multiple myeloma (MM), with peculiar biological and clinical features. A hundred times rarer than MM, the disease course is characterized by short remissions and poor survival. PCL is defined by an increased percentage (>20%) and absolute number (>2 × 109/l) of plasma cells in the peripheral blood. PCL is defined as ‘primary’ when peripheral plasmacytosis is detected at diagnosis, ‘secondary’ when leukemization occurs in a patient with preexisting MM. Novel agents have revolutionized the outcomes of MM patients and have been introduced also for the treatment of PCL. Here, we provide an update on biology and treatment options for PCL. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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/m(2)) 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/m(2), 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/m(2)) 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A still not well defined proportion of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (AuSCT) fails to mobilize CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) at all or to collect an adequate number for a safe procedure or sufficient for multiple transplants. These so-called "poor-mobilizers" are difficult to be predicted, due to marked difference across previous heterogeneous studies. Methods: We aimed to develop a method based on simple clinical parameters for predicting unsuccessful (<2 × 106/kg) or sub-optimal (<5 × 106/kg) collections of CD34+ PBSC in newly diagnosed MM patients eligible for AuSCT, treated with novel agents and receiving an homogeneous mobilizing therapy with cyclophosphamide and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). To this purpose, 1,348 patients enrolled in five consecutive Italian clinical trials were retrospectively analysed. Age, baseline low peripheral blood cell counts, use of lenalidomide, and haematological toxicity developed during induction were taken into account as possible factors associated with poor mobilization. Results: Overall, 280 patients (20.8%) showed either sub-optimal (167 patients, 12.4%) or unsuccessful (113 patients, 8.4%) collections. All analysed parameters negatively influenced the procedure, but only age and haematological toxicity during induction maintained their significance at multivariate analysis. Based on ordinal logistic regression model, we constructed a risk heat-map where the four parameters were pooled and weighted according to their relevance as single or combined variables. This model was predictive for different probabilities of failure, suboptimal or optimal outcomes Conclusions: We found that about one fifth of newly diagnosed MM fails to collect an adequate number of PBSC. Our model, based on a large group of patients treated frontline with novel agents and receiving the most popular mobilizing approach currently employed in Europe, is applicable in individual subjects and may contribute to the early identification of "poor mobilizer" phenotypes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: For many years, the oral combination melphalan–prednisone (MP) has been considered the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. In the era of novel agents, the introduction of immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors has challenged the role of MP and led to new standards of care for this disease. Five randomized phase III studies compared the traditional MP with the MP plus thalidomide (MPT). All these studies showed a prolonged time to progression (TTP) with the 3-drug combination. However, in only two of these trials this advantage translated into an improvement in overall survival (OS). In another randomized trial, MP plus bortezomib (VMP) was correlated with an increase in both TTP and OS compared with MP. Preliminary data showed the superiority of the association of VMP plus thalidomide followed by bortezomib–thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) vs VMP and melphalan–prednisone–lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) compared to MP. Promising results have also been reported with the combination of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. The availability of different efficacious regimens provided clinicians with the opportunity of tailoring the proper and specific approach for each patient. The choice should be based on patients'' comorbidities and biologic age, while taking into account the expected toxicity profiles of each treatment regimen. Moreover, an accurate management of therapy-related adverse events and a gentler approach, particularly for patients older than 75years, with appropriate age-adjusted dose reductions, should be considered to further improve outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent studies have demonstrated that novel therapeutic combinations are challenging melphalan and prednisone (MP) as the standard of care in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Combination regimens containing bortezomib or thalidomide can achieve response rates, especially complete response rates, which are superior to those seen with standard MP alone, and offer new possibilities for this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Maintenance therapy following ASCT can delay disease progression and prolong survival in multiple myeloma (MM). To date, lenalidomide is the only agent approved as post-ASCT maintenance. While bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Ixazomib, currently approved for relapsed/refractory MM, is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its efficacy, convenient once-weekly oral dosing, and low toxicity profile. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) randomized (3:2) NDMM patients to receive ixazomib or matched placebo following induction, high-dose therapy and transplantation on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for 2 years, until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was PFS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; for the overall population, median age was 58 years (range, 24–73), 37% vs 63% had International Staging System (ISS) disease stage I vs II or III, 18% had high-risk cytogenetics, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)/IMiD without PI/PI+IMiD induction therapy, and 79%/21% had achieved complete or very good partial response/partial response following induction+HDT-ASCT. After a median follow-up of 31 months, with 54% of patients having had a PFS event, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response vs placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented minimal residual disease (MRD) positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib vs placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including patients with ISS III (HR 0.661), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625), PI-exposed (HR 0.750) and PI-naïve (HR 0.497) patients. With ixazomib vs placebo, discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was low (7% vs 5%); 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death with ixazomib maintenance, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]