Andrew R. Belch

International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma

New uniform response criteria are required to adequately assess clinical outcomes in myeloma. The European Group for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant/International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry criteria have been expanded, clarified and updated to provide a new comprehensive evaluation system. Categories for stringent complete response and very good partial response are added. The serum free light-chain assay is included to allow evaluation of patients with oligo-secretory disease. Inconsistencies in prior criteria are clarified making confirmation of response and disease progression easier to perform. Emphasis is placed upon time to event and duration of response as critical end points. The requirements necessary to use overall survival duration as the ultimate end point are discussed. It is anticipated that the International Response Criteria for multiple myeloma will be widely used in future clinical trials of myeloma.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid Compared with Pamidronate Disodium in the Treatment of Skeletal Complications in Patients with Advanced Multiple Myeloma or Breast Carcinoma A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Comparative Trial

The goal of the current study was to compare the long‐term (25‐month) safety and efficacy of zoledronic acid with pamidronate in patients with bone lesions secondary to advanced breast carcinoma or multiple myeloma.

Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is more than 1‰ annually in the general population and increases further in cancer patients. The risk of VTE is higher in multiple myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide or lenalidomide, especially in combination with dexamethasone or chemotherapy. Various VTE prophylaxis strategies, such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin or aspirin, have been investigated in small, uncontrolled clinical studies. This manuscript summarizes the available evidence and recommends a prophylaxis strategy according to a risk-assessment model. Individual risk factors for thrombosis associated with thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy include age, history of VTE, central venous catheter, comorbidities (infections, diabetes, cardiac disease), immobilization, surgery and inherited thrombophilia. Myeloma-related risk factors include diagnosis and hyperviscosity. VTE is very high in patients who receive high-dose dexamethasone, doxorubicin or multiagent chemotherapy in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide, but not with bortezomib. The panel recommends aspirin for patients with ⩽1 risk factor for VTE. LMWH (equivalent to enoxaparin 40 mg per day) is recommended for those with two or more individual/myeloma-related risk factors. LMWH is also recommended for all patients receiving concurrent high-dose dexamethasone or doxorubicin. Full-dose warfarin targeting a therapeutic INR of 2–3 is an alternative to LMWH, although there are limited data in the literature with this strategy. In the absence of clear data from randomized studies as a foundation for recommendations, many of the following proposed strategies are the results of common sense or derive from the extrapolation of data from many studies not specifically designed to answer these questions. Further investigation is needed to define the best VTE prophylaxis.

Phase III Study of R-CVP Compared With Cyclophosphamide, Vincristine, and Prednisone Alone in Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Follicular Lymphoma

PURPOSE To compare the long-term outcome of patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) needing therapy, after treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CVP) versus CVP plus rituximab (R-CVP) and to evaluate the predictive value of known prognostic factors after treatment with R-CVP. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated CD20-positive stage III/IV FL were randomly assigned to eight cycles of R-CVP (n = 159) or CVP alone (n = 162). The median follow-up period was 53 months. RESULTS The primary end point-time to treatment failure (TTF), which included patients without a response after four cycles as an event-was significantly prolonged in patients receiving R-CVP versus CVP (P < .0001). Improvements in all other end points, including overall and complete response rates (P < .0001), time to progression (TTP; P < .0001), response duration (P < .0001), time to next antilymphoma treatment (P < .0001), and overall survival (OS; P = .029; 4-year OS: 83% v 77%;) were achieved with R-CVP versus CVP alone. Univariate analyses demonstrated an improvement in TTP with R-CVP versus CVP irrespective of the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) subgroup, the International Prognostic Index (IPI) subgroup, baseline histology, and the presence or absence of B symptoms or bulky disease. By multivariate analysis, FLIPI retains a strong predictive power for TTP in the presence of the trial treatment effect. CONCLUSION Analysis of all outcome measures, including OS, confirm the benefit of adding R to CVP in the front-line treatment of FL.

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. METHODS This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1-21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. FINDINGS The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2-13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6-4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9-2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39-0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING Celgene Corporation.

Efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa in anaemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Summary. This phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa in anaemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies. Patients (n = 344) with lymphoma or myeloma received darbepoetin alfa 2·25 μg/kg or placebo s.c., once weekly for 12 weeks. The percentage of patients achieving a haemoglobin response was significantly higher in the darbepoetin alfa group (60%) than in the placebo group (18%) (P < 0·001), regardless of baseline endogenous erythropoietin level. However, increased responsiveness was observed in patients with lower baseline erythropoietin levels. Darbepoetin alfa also resulted in higher mean changes in haemoglobin than placebo from baseline to the last value during the treatment phase (1·80 g/dl vs 0·19 g/dl) and after 12 weeks of treatment (2·66 g/dl vs 0·69 g/dl). A significantly lower percentage of patients in the darbepoetin alfa group received red blood cell transfusions than in the placebo group (P < 0·001). The efficacy of darbepoetin alfa was consistent for patients with lymphoma or myeloma. Improvements in quality of life were also observed with darbepoetin alfa. The overall safety profile of darbepoetin alfa was consistent with that expected for this patient population. Darbepoetin alfa significantly increased haemoglobin and reduced red blood cell transfusions in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies receiving chemotherapy.

Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Myeloma

BACKGROUND The combination melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) is considered a standard therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. However, emerging data on the use of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone warrant a prospective comparison of the two approaches. METHODS We randomly assigned 1623 patients to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in 28-day cycles until disease progression (535 patients), to the same combination for 72 weeks (18 cycles; 541 patients), or to MPT for 72 weeks (547 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone versus MPT. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 20.7 months with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 21.2 months with MPT (hazard ratio for the risk of progression or death, 0.72 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. MPT and 0.70 for continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs. 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was superior to MPT for all secondary efficacy end points, including overall survival (at the interim analysis). Overall survival at 4 years was 59% with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone, 56% with 18 cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and 51% with MPT. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were somewhat less frequent with continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone than with MPT (70% vs. 78%). As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with fewer hematologic and neurologic toxic events, a moderate increase in infections, and fewer second primary hematologic cancers. CONCLUSIONS As compared with MPT, continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone given until disease progression was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival, with an overall survival benefit at the interim analysis, among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. (Funded by Intergroupe, Francophone du Myélome and Celgene; FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00689936; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number, 2007-004823-39.).

Leukemia Following Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer

An international collaborative group of cancer registries and hospitals identified 114 cases of leukemia following ovarian cancer. We investigated the possible etiologic role of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other factors, using a case-control study design, with three controls matched to each case of leukemia. Chemotherapy alone was associated with a relative risk of 12 (95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 to 32), as compared with surgery alone, and patients treated with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy had a relative risk of 10 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.4 to 28). Radiotherapy alone did not produce a significant increase in risk as compared with surgery alone. The risk of leukemia was greatest four or five years after chemotherapy began, and the risk was elevated for at least eight years after the cessation of chemotherapy. The drugs cyclophosphamide, chlorambucil, melphalan, thiotepa, and treosulfan were independently associated with significantly increased risks of leukemia, as was the combination of doxorubicin hydrochloride and cisplatin. Chlorambucil and melphalan were the most leukemogenic drugs, followed by thiotepa; cyclophosphamide and treosulfan were the weakest leukemogens, and the effect per gram was substantially lower at high doses than at lower doses. The extent to which the relative risks of leukemia are offset by differences in chemotherapeutic effectiveness is not known.

Daratumumab monotherapy in patients with treatment-refractory multiple myeloma (SIRIUS): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND New treatment options are needed for patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. We assessed daratumumab, a novel CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody, in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial done in Canada, Spain, and the USA, patients (age ≥18 years) with multiple myeloma who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous daratumumab 8 mg/kg or 16 mg/kg in part 1 stage 1 of the study, to decide the dose for further assessment in part 2. Patients received 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 16 mg/kg per week for 8 weeks (cycles 1 and 2), then every 2 weeks for 16 weeks (cycles 3-6), and then every 4 weeks thereafter (cycle 7 and higher). The allocation schedule was computer-generated and randomisation, with permuted blocks, was done centrally with an interactive web response system. In part 1 stage 2 and part 2, patients received 16 mg/kg dosed as in part 1 stage 1. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (partial response [PR] + very good PR + complete response [CR] + stringent CR). All patients who received at least one dose of daratumumab were included in the analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01985126. FINDINGS The study is ongoing. In part 1 stage 1 of the study, 18 patients were randomly allocated to the 8 mg/kg group and 16 to the 16 mg/kg group. Findings are reported for the 106 patients who received daratumumab 16 mg/kg in parts 1 and 2. Patients received a median of five previous lines of therapy (range 2-14). 85 (80%) patients had previously received autologous stem cell transplantation, 101 (95%) were refractory to the most recent proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs used, and 103 (97%) were refractory to the last line of therapy. Overall responses were noted in 31 patients (29.2%, 95% CI 20.8-38.9)-three (2.8%, 0.6-8.0) had a stringent CR, ten (9.4%, 4.6-16.7) had a very good PR, and 18 (17.0%, 10.4-25.5) had a PR. The median time to first response was 1.0 month (range 0.9-5.6). Median duration of response was 7.4 months (95% CI 5.5-not estimable) and progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-4.6). The 12-month overall survival was 64.8% (95% CI 51.2-75.5) and, at a subsequent cutoff, median overall survival was 17.5 months (95% CI 13.7-not estimable). Daratumumab was well tolerated; fatigue (42 [40%] patients) and anaemia (35 [33%]) of any grade were the most common adverse events. No drug-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. INTERPRETATION Daratumumab monotherapy showed encouraging efficacy in heavily pretreated and refractory patients with multiple myeloma, with a favourable safety profile in this population of patients. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.