Search

Background As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged >= 18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of beta(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1,4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15,2017,559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15.9 months (IQR 9.9-21.7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11.20 months [95% CI 9.66-13-73] vs 7.10 months [5.88-8-48]; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0-77; p

Introduction: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this observational, noninterventional European post-authorization safety study, the safety profile of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone was investigated and compared with that of other agents in the treatment of RRMM in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Patients had received ≥ 1 prior antimyeloma therapy; prior lenalidomide was excluded. Treatment was per investigator's routine practice. Adverse events were analyzed by incidence rates per 100 person-years to account for differences in observation length and treatment duration. Results: In total, 2150 patients initiated lenalidomide, and 1479 initiated any other antimyeloma therapy, predominately bortezomib (80.3%), which was primarily administered intravenously (74.3%). The incidence rate of neuropathy was lower with lenalidomide (10.5) than with bortezomib (78.9) or thalidomide (38.7). Lenalidomide also had a lower incidence rate of infections (68.7) versus bortezomib (95.9) and thalidomide (76.0). Conversely, the incidence rate of neutropenia was higher with lenalidomide (38.0) than with bortezomib (18.2) or thalidomide (25.7). The incidence rates of thrombocytopenia were 24.4, 40.4, and 14.4 with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and thalidomide, respectively. Conclusion: No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified in this study, which is the largest prospective real-world European study of lenalidomide in patients with RRMM to date. These results confirm that the safety profile of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in RRMM in a real-world setting is comparable to that reported in clinical trials. © 2020 The Authors Given the key role of lenalidomide in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, it is important to evaluate the safety of lenalidomide in real-world populations of patients who may not qualify for clinical trial participation. This noninterventional, European post-authorization safety study confirms that the real-world safety profile of lenalidomide is similar to what has been reported in clinical trials. © 2020 The Authors

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 (ISS), 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/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT 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/m2 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. Funding: Janssen and Celgene. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

Purpose Renal impairment (RI) limits treatment options in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we prospectively studied pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in patients with RRMM and moderate or severe RI, including those receiving hemodialysis. Patients and Methods MM-013, a noncomparative, European phase II trial, enrolled three patient cohorts: moderate RI (cohort A; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 30 to, 45 mL/min/1.73 m2); severe RI (cohort B; estimated glomerular filtration rate,, 30 mL/min/1.73 m2); and severe RI that requires hemodialysis (cohort C). Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg/d on days 1 to 21 and LoDEX 20 or 40 mg once per week in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was overall response rate. Results Of 81 enrolled patients (33, 34, and 14 patients in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively), 13 were still receiving treatment at data cutoff (January 28, 2017). Overall response rates were 39.4%, 32.4%, and 14.3%, with a median duration of response of 14.7 months, 4.6 months, and not estimable, respectively. Of importance, 100%, 79.4%, and 78.6% of patients, respectively, achieved disease control. With a median follow-up of 8.6 months, median overall survival was 16.4 months, 11.8 months, and 5.2 months, respectively. Complete renal responses were observed only in cohort A (18.2%), and no patients in cohort C became hemodialysis independent. Grade 3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events and pomalidomide discontinuations as a result of treatment-emergent adverse events occurred more frequently in cohort C. Pomalidomide pharmacokinetics were comparable among the three renal cohorts. Conclusion Pomalidomide 4 mg/d plus LoDEX is efficacious in patients with RRMM with moderate or severe RI, including those who had more advanced disease and required hemodialysis. The safety profile was acceptable among the three groups, and no new safety signals were observed. © 2018 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Renal impairment is associated with poor prognosis in myeloma. This analysis of the pivotal phase 3 FIRST trial examined the impact of renally adapted dosing of lenalidomide and dexamethasone on outcomes of patients with different degrees of renal impairment. Transplant-ineligible patients not requiring dialysis were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone until disease progression (n=535) or for 18 cycles (72 weeks; n=541), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide for 12 cycles (72 weeks; n=547). Follow-up is ongoing. Patients were grouped by baseline creatinine clearance into no (≥ 80 mL/min [n=389]), mild (≥ 50 to < 80 mL/min [n=715]), moderate (≥ 30 to < 50 mL/min [n=372]), and severe impairment (< 30 mL/min [n=147]) subgroups. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy reduced the risk of progression or death in no, mild, and moderate renal impairment subgroups vs. melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide therapy (HR = 0.67, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively). Overall survival benefits were observed with continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment vs.melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide treatment in no or mild renal impairment subgroups. Renal function improved from baseline in 52.6% of lenalidomide and dexamethasone–treated patients. The safety profile of continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone was consistent across renal subgroups, except for grade 3/4 anemia and rash, which increased with increasing severity of renal impairment. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment, with renally adapted lenalidomide dosing, was effective for most transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma and renal impairment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00689936); EudraCT (2007- 004823-39). Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and the Celgene Corporation. © 2016 Ferrata Storti Foundation.

Comunicazione orale Haemathologica, (abstract) vol 88 (suppl) n.ro 15

BLOOD, VOL 100 N.RO 11

The REAL/WHO classification constitutes a new tool for the better understanding and treatment of malignant lymphomas. The authors focus on the key features of B-cell lymphomas with an indolent behavior, aiming to contribute to the cross-talk between pathologists and clinicians.Each lymphoma entity is analyzed on the basis of the most representative contributions in the literature and the authors' experience gained in studying more than 20,000 lymphoid tumors over a 20-year period.Guidelines for diagnosis and areas of interest for future clinico-pathologic studies are identified and discussed. Within this context, selected data obtained by the application of novel markers are presented.The present know- ledge and organization of malignant lymphomas now make the development of tailored therapies a feasible goal.