Alessandra Larocca

Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone-Thalidomide Followed by Maintenance With Bortezomib-Thalidomide Compared With Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone for Initial Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE The combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) is a new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. This phase III study examined the efficacy of the four-drug combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) compared with VMP treatment alone in untreated multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 511 patients were randomly assigned to receive nine cycles of VMPT followed by continuous VT as maintenance, or nine cycles of VMP at the same doses with no additional therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The 3-year estimates of progression-free survival were 56% in patients receiving VMPT-VT and 41% in those receiving VMP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .008). At 3 years, the cumulative proportions of patients who did not go on to the next therapy were 72% with VMPT-VT and 60% with VMP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .007). Complete response rates were 38% in the VMPT-VT group and 24% in the VMP group (P < .001). The 3-year overall survival was 89% with VMPT-VT and 87% with VMP (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.60; P = .77). Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (38% v 28%; P = .02), cardiologic events (10% v 5%; P = .04), and thromboembolic events (5% v 2%; P = .08) were more frequent among patients assigned to the VMPT-VT group than among those assigned to the VMP group; treatment-related deaths were 4% with VMPT-VT and 3% with VMP. CONCLUSION VMPT followed by VT as maintenance was superior to VMP alone in patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly bortezomib in multiple myeloma patients

In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib-thalidomide demonstrated superior efficacy compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of the schedule change on clinical outcomes and safety. Long-term outcomes appeared similar: 3-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P > .999), and 3-year overall survival rate was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). The complete response rate was 30% in the once-weekly and 35% in the twice-weekly group (P = .27). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 35% of once-weekly patients and 51% of twice-weekly patients (P = .003). The incidence of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was 8% in the once-weekly and 28% in the twice-weekly group (P < .001); 5% of patients in the once-weekly and 15% in the twice-weekly group discontinued therapy because of peripheral neuropathy (P < .001). This improvement in safety did not appear to affect efficacy. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01063179.

Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients.

Complete response (CR) was an uncommon event in elderly myeloma patients until novel agents were combined with standard oral melphalan-prednisone. This analysis assesses the impact of treatment response on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We retrospectively analyzed 1175 newly diagnosed myeloma patients, enrolled in 3 multicenter trials, treated with melphalan-prednisone alone (n = 332), melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (n = 332), melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib (n = 257), or melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib-thalidomide (n = 254). After a median follow-up of 29 months, the 3-year PFS and OS were 67% and 27% (hazard ratio = 0.16; P < .001), and 91% and 70% (hazard ratio = 0.15; P < .001) in patients who obtained CR and in those who achieved very good partial response, respectively. Similar results were observed in patients older than 75 years. Multivariate analysis confirmed that the achievement of CR was an independent predictor of longer PFS and OS, regardless of age, International Staging System stage, and treatment. These findings highlight a significant association between the achievement of CR and long-term outcome, and support the use of novel agents to achieve maximal response in elderly patients, including those more than 75 years. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00232934, #ISRCTN 90692740, and #NCT01063179.

Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: An International Myeloma Working Group report

We conducted a pooled analysis of 869 individual newly diagnosed elderly patient data from 3 prospective trials. At diagnosis, a geriatric assessment had been performed. An additive scoring system (range 0-5), based on age, comorbidities, and cognitive and physical conditions, was developed to identify 3 groups: fit (score = 0, 39%), intermediate fitness (score = 1, 31%), and frail (score ≥2, 30%). The 3-year overall survival was 84% in fit, 76% in intermediate-fitness (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; P = .042), and 57% in frail (HR, 3.57; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of grade ≥3 nonhematologic adverse events at 12 months was 22.2% in fit, 26.4% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.23; P = .217), and 34.0% in frail (HR, 1.74; P < .001) patients. The cumulative incidence of treatment discontinuation at 12 months was 16.5% in fit, 20.8% in intermediate-fitness (HR, 1.41; P = .052), and 31.2% in frail (HR, 2.21; P < .001) patients. Our frailty score predicts mortality and the risk of toxicity in elderly myeloma patients. The International Myeloma Working group proposes this score for the measurement of frailty in designing future clinical trials. These trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093136 (EMN01), #NCT01190787 (26866138MMY2069), and #NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Statement for the Management, Treatment, and Supportive Care of Patients With Myeloma Not Eligible for Standard Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation

PURPOSE To provide an update on recent advances in the management of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. METHODS A comprehensive review of the literature on diagnostic criteria is provided, and treatment options and management of adverse events are summarized. RESULTS Patients with symptomatic disease and organ damage (ie, hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions) require immediate treatment. The International Staging System and chromosomal abnormalities identify high- and standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, corticosteroids, and alkylating agents are the most active agents. The presence of concomitant diseases, frailty, or disability should be assessed and, if present, treated with reduced-dose approaches. Bone disease, renal damage, hematologic toxicities, infections, thromboembolism, and peripheral neuropathy are the most frequent disabling events requiring prompt and active supportive care. CONCLUSION These recommendations will help clinicians ensure the most appropriate care for patients with myeloma in everyday clinical practice.

Aspirin or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide

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.

Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide has been linked to second primary malignancies in myeloma. We aimed to pool and analyse available data to compare the incidence of second primary malignancies in patients with and without lenalidomide exposure. METHODS We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, and the International Myeloma Workshop. Randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials that recruited patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 15, 2012, and in which at least one group received lenalidomide were eligible for inclusion. We obtained individual patient data (age, sex, date of diagnosis, allocated treatment and received treatment, duration of treatment and cause of discontinuation, maintenance treatment, date of first relapse, date of second primary malignancy diagnosis, type of second primary malignancy, date of death or last contact, and cause of death) by direct collaboration with the principal investigators of eligible trials. Primary outcomes of interest were cumulative incidence of all second primary malignancies, solid second primary malignancies, and haematological second primary malignancies, and were analysed by a one-step meta-analysis. FINDINGS We found nine eligible trials, of which seven had available data for 3254 patients. 3218 of these patients received treatment (2620 had received lenalidomide and 598 had not), and were included in our analyses. Cumulative incidences of all second primary malignancies at 5 years were 6·9% (95% CI 5·3-8·5) in patients who received lenalidomide and 4·8% (2·0-7·6) in those who did not (hazard ratio [HR] 1·55 [95% CI 1·03-2·34]; p=0·037). Cumulative 5-year incidences of solid second primary malignancies were 3·8% (95% CI 2·7-4·9) in patients who received lenalidomide and 3·4% (1·6-5·2) in those that did not (HR 1·1 [95% CI 0·62-2·00]; p=0·72), and of haematological second primary malignancies were 3·1% (95% CI 1·9-4·3) and 1·4% (0·0-3·6), respectively (HR 3·8 [95% CI 1·15-12·62]; p=0·029). Exposure to lenalidomide plus oral melphalan significantly increased haematological second primary malignancy risk versus melphalan alone (HR 4·86 [95% CI 2·79-8·46]; p<0·0001). Exposure to lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide (HR 1·26 [95% CI 0·30-5·38]; p=0·75) or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·33-2·24]; p=0·76) did not increase haematological second primary malignancy risk versus melphalan alone. INTERPRETATION Patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who received lenalidomide had an increased risk of developing haematological second primary malignancies, driven mainly by treatment strategies that included a combination of lenalidomide and oral melphalan. These results suggest that alternatives, such as cyclophosphamide or alkylating-free combinations, should be considered instead of oral melphalan in combination with lenalidomide for myeloma. FUNDING Celgene Corporation.

Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone-Thalidomide Followed by Maintenance With Bortezomib-Thalidomide Compared With Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone for Initial Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: Updated Follow-Up and Improved Survival

PURPOSE Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance). RESULTS In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P < .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients. CONCLUSION Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.

European Myeloma Network recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma management has undergone profound changes in the past thanks to advances in our understanding of the disease biology and improvements in treatment and supportive care approaches. This article presents recommendations of the European Myeloma Network for newly diagnosed patients based on the GRADE system for level of evidence. All patients with symptomatic disease should undergo risk stratification to classify patients for International Staging System stage (level of evidence: 1A) and for cytogenetically defined high- versus standard-risk groups (2B). Novel-agent-based induction and up-front autologous stem cell transplantation in medically fit patients remains the standard of care (1A). Induction therapy should include a triple combination of bortezomib, with either adriamycin or thalidomide and dexamethasone (1A), or with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (2B). Currently, allogeneic stem cell transplantation may be considered for young patients with high-risk disease and preferably in the context of a clinical trial (2B). Thalidomide (1B) or lenalidomide (1A) maintenance increases progression-free survival and possibly overall survival (2B). Bortezomib-based regimens are a valuable consolidation option, especially for patients who failed excellent response after autologous stem cell transplantation (2A). Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide are the standards of care for transplant-ineligible patients (1A). Melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide with lenalidomide maintenance increases progression-free survival, but overall survival data are needed. New data from the phase III study (MM-020/IFM 07-01) of lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone reached its primary end point of a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival as compared to melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide and provides further evidence for the efficacy of lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients (2B).

European myeloma network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications

The European Myeloma Network provides recommendations for the management of the most common complications of multiple myeloma. Whole body low-dose computed tomography is more sensitive than conventional radiography in depicting osteolytic disease and thus we recommend it as the novel standard for the detection of lytic lesions in myeloma (grade 1A). Myeloma patients with adequate renal function and bone disease at diagnosis should be treated with zoledronic acid or pamidronate (grade 1A). Symptomatic patients without lytic lesions on conventional radiography can be treated with zoledronic acid (grade 1B), but its advantage is not clear for patients with no bone involvement on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. In asymptomatic myeloma, bisphosphonates are not recommended (grade 1A). Zoledronic acid should be given continuously, but it is not clear if patients who achieve at least a very good partial response benefit from its continuous use (grade 1B). Treatment with erythropoietic-stimulating agents may be initiated in patients with persistent symptomatic anemia (hemoglobin <10g/dL) in whom other causes of anemia have been excluded (grade 1B). Erythropoietic agents should be stopped after 6–8 weeks if no adequate hemoglobin response is achieved. For renal impairment, bortezomib-based regimens are the current standard of care (grade 1A). For the management of treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy, drug modification is needed (grade 1C). Vaccination against influenza is recommended; vaccination against streptococcus pneumonia and hemophilus influenza is appropriate, but efficacy is not guaranteed due to suboptimal immune response (grade 1C). Prophylactic aciclovir (or valacyclovir) is recommended for patients receiving proteasome inhibitors, autologous or allogeneic transplantation (grade 1A).