Maria Teresa Petrucci

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND The standard treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy is melphalan and prednisone. This phase 3 study compared the use of melphalan and prednisone with or without bortezomib in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 682 patients to receive nine 6-week cycles of melphalan (at a dose of 9 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and prednisone (at a dose of 60 mg per square meter) on days 1 to 4, either alone or with bortezomib (at a dose of 1.3 mg per square meter) on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32 during cycles 1 to 4 and on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 during cycles 5 to 9. The primary end point was the time to disease progression. RESULTS The time to progression among patients receiving bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone (bortezomib group) was 24.0 months, as compared with 16.6 months among those receiving melphalan-prednisone alone (control group) (hazard ratio for the bortezomib group, 0.48; P<0.001). The proportions of patients with a partial response or better were 71% in the bortezomib group and 35% in the control group; complete-response rates were 30% and 4%, respectively (P<0.001). The median duration of the response was 19.9 months in the bortezomib group and 13.1 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 for the bortezomib group (P=0.008). Adverse events were consistent with established profiles of toxic events associated with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. Grade 3 events occurred in a higher proportion of patients in the bortezomib group than in the control group (53% vs. 44%, P=0.02), but there were no significant differences in grade 4 events (28% and 27%, respectively) or treatment-related deaths (1% and 2%). CONCLUSIONS Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone was superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were ineligible for high-dose therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00111319.)

Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan and prednisone alone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Since 1960, oral melphalan and prednisone (MP) has been regarded as the standard of care in elderly multiple myeloma patients. This multicentre randomised trial compared oral MP plus thalidomide (MPT) with MP alone in patients aged 60-85 years. METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to receive oral MP for six 4-week cycles plus thalidomide (n=129; 100 mg per day continuously until any sign of relapse or progressive disease) or MP alone (n=126). Analysis was intention-to-treat. This study is registered at , number NCT00232934. RESULTS Patients treated with thalidomide had higher response rates and longer event-free survival (primary endpoints) than patients who were not. Combined complete or partial response rates were 76.0% for MPT and 47.6% for MP alone (absolute difference 28.3%, 95% CI 16.5-39.1), and the near-complete or complete response rates were 27.9% and 7.2%, respectively. 2-year event-free survival rates were 54% for MPT and 27% for MP (hazard ratio [HR] for MPT 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.75, p=0.0006). 3-year survival rates were 80% for MPT and 64% for MP (HR for MPT 0.68, 95% CI 0.38-1.22, p=0.19). Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 48% in MPT patients and 25% in MP patients (p=0.0002). Introduction of enoxaparin prophylaxis reduced rate of thromboembolism from 20% to 3% (p=0.005). CONCLUSION Oral MPT is an effective first-line treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Anticoagulant prophylaxis reduces frequency of thrombosis. Longer follow-up is needed to assess effect on overall survival.

Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study

BACKGROUND Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (TD) is a standard induction therapy for myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of addition of bortezomib to TD (VTD) versus TD alone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS Patients (aged 18-65 years) with previously untreated symptomatic myeloma were enrolled from 73 sites in Italy between May, 2006, and April, 2008, and data collection continued until June 30, 2010. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (40 mg daily on 8 of the first 12 days, but not consecutively; total of 320 mg per cycle), either alone or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11). The randomisation sequence was computer generated by the study coordinating team and was stratified by disease stage. After double autologous stem-cell transplantation, patients received two 35-day cycles of their assigned drug regimen, VTD or TD, as consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to induction therapy. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. This study is still underway but is not recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01134484, and with EudraCT, number 2005-003723-39. FINDINGS 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (n=241 patients) or TD (n=239). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment, and 236 on VTD and 238 on TD were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After induction therapy, complete or near complete response was achieved in 73 patients (31%, 95% CI 25·0-36·8) receiving VTD, and 27 (11%, 7·3-15·4) on TD (p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in a significantly higher number of patients on VTD (n=132, 56%) than in those on TD (n=79, 33%; p<0·0001), with a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy in patients on VTD (n=23, 10%) than in those on TD (n=5, 2%; p=0·0004). Resolution or improvement of severe peripheral neuropathy was recorded in 18 of 23 patients on VTD, and in three of five patients on TD. INTERPRETATION VTD induction therapy before double autologous stem-cell transplantation significantly improves rate of complete or near complete response, and represents a new standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma who are eligible for transplant. FUNDING Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology at the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Continuous Lenalidomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide has tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity against multiple myeloma. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized study compared melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or melphalan-prednisone (MP) followed by placebo in patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-week cycles of MPR followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until a relapse or disease progression occurred [152 patients]) or to receive MPR (153 patients) or MP (154 patients) without maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with MPR-R (31 months) than with MPR (14 months; hazard ratio, 0.49; P<0.001) or MP (13 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Response rates were superior with MPR-R and MPR (77% and 68%, respectively, vs. 50% with MP; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively, for the comparison with MP). The progression-free survival benefit associated with MPR-R was noted in patients 65 to 75 years of age but not in those older than 75 years of age (P=0.001 for treatment-by-age interaction). After induction therapy, a landmark analysis showed a 66% reduction in the rate of progression with MPR-R (hazard ratio for the comparison with MPR, 0.34; P<0.001) that was age-independent. During induction therapy, the most frequent adverse events were hematologic; grade 4 neutropenia was reported in 35%, 32%, and 8% of the patients in the MPR-R, MPR, and MP groups, respectively. The 3-year rate of second primary tumors was 7% with MPR-R, 7% with MPR, and 3% with MP. CONCLUSIONS MPR-R significantly prolonged progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefit observed in patients 65 to 75 years of age. (Funded by Celgene; MM-015 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405756.).

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.

Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders

In multiple myeloma, the use of multiparametric flow cytometry in many laboratories is currently restricted to clinical research studies and the differential diagnosis of unusual cases. This article report the indications of the European Myeloma Network for flow cytometry in patients with monoclonal gammopathies, and the technical recommendations for the analysis of plasma cells. The European Myeloma Network (EMN) organized two flow cytometry workshops. The first aimed to identify specific indications for flow cytometry in patients with monoclonal gammopathies, and consensus technical approaches through a questionnaire-based review of current practice in participating laboratories. The second aimed to resolve outstanding technical issues and develop a consensus approach to analysis of plasma cells. The primary clinical applications identified were: differential diagnosis of neoplastic plasma cell disorders from reactive plasmacytosis; identifying risk of progression in patients with MGUS and detecting minimal residual disease. A range of technical recommendations were identified, including: 1) CD38, CD138 and CD45 should all be included in at least one tube for plasma cell identification and enumeration. The primary gate should be based on CD38 vs. CD138 expression; 2) after treatment, clonality assessment is only likely to be informative when combined with immunophenotype to detect abnormal cells. Flow cytometry is suitable for demonstrating a stringent complete remission; 3) for detection of abnormal plasma cells, a minimal panel should include CD19 and CD56. A preferred panel would also include CD20, CD117, CD28 and CD27; 4) discrepancies between the percentage of plasma cells detected by flow cytometry and morphology are primarily related to sample quality and it is, therefore, important to determine that marrow elements are present in follow-up samples, particularly normal plasma cells in MRD negative cases.

Bortezomib Plus Melphalan and Prednisone Compared With Melphalan and Prednisone in Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma: Updated Follow-Up and Impact of Subsequent Therapy in the Phase III VISTA Trial

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to confirm overall survival (OS) and other clinical benefits with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan and prednisone (MP) in the phase III VISTA (Velcade as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma) trial after prolonged follow-up, and evaluate the impact of subsequent therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated symptomatic patients with myeloma ineligible for high-dose therapy received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (n = 344) or MP (n = 338). RESULTS With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, there was a 35% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio, 0.653; P < .001); median OS was not reached with VMP versus 43 months with MP; 3-year OS rates were 68.5% versus 54.0%. Response rates to subsequent thalidomide- (41% v 53%) and lenalidomide-based therapies (59% v 52%) appeared similar after VMP or MP; response rates to subsequent bortezomib-based therapy were 47% versus 59%. Among patients treated with VMP (n = 178) and MP (n = 233), median survival from start of subsequent therapy was 30.2 and 21.9 months, respectively, and there was no difference in survival from salvage among patients who received subsequent bortezomib, thalidomide, or lenalidomide. Rates of adverse events were higher with VMP versus MP during cycles 1 to 4, but similar during cycles 5 to 9. With VMP, 79% of peripheral neuropathy events improved within a median of 1.9 months; 60% completely resolved within a median of 5.7 months. CONCLUSION VMP significantly prolongs OS versus MP after lengthy follow-up and extensive subsequent antimyeloma therapy. First-line bortezomib use does not induce more resistant relapse. VMP used upfront appears more beneficial than first treating with conventional agents and saving bortezomib- and other novel agent-based treatment until relapse.

Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

We present a pooled update of two large, multicenter MM-009 and MM-010 placebo-controlled randomized phase III trials that included 704 patients and assessed lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone plus placebo in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Patients in both studies were randomized to receive 25 mg daily oral lenalidomide or identical placebo, plus 40 mg oral dexamethasone. In this pooled analysis, using data up to unblinding (June 2005 for MM-009 and August 2005 for MM-010), treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone significantly improved overall response (60.6 vs 21.9%, P<0.001), complete response rate (15.0 vs 2.0%, P<0.001), time to progression (median of 13.4 vs 4.6 months, P<0.001) and duration of response (median of 15.8 months vs 7 months, P<0.001) compared with dexamethasone-placebo. At a median follow-up of 48 months for surviving patients, using data up to July 2008, a significant benefit in overall survival (median of 38.0 vs 31.6 months, P=0.045) was retained despite 47.6% of patients who were randomized to dexamethasone-placebo receiving lenalidomide-based treatment after disease progression or study unblinding. Low β2-microglobulin and low bone marrow plasmacytosis were associated with longer survival. In conclusion, these data confirm the significant response and survival benefit with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

Melphalan, Prednisone, and Lenalidomide Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: A Report From the GIMEMA—Italian Multiple Myeloma Network

PURPOSE Lenalidomide has shown significant antimyeloma activity in clinical studies. Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide have been regarded as the standard of care in elderly multiple myeloma patients. We assessed dosing, efficacy, and safety of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) in newly diagnosed elderly myeloma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Oral melphalan was administered in doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1 to 4, prednisone at a 2-mg/kg dose on days 1 to 4, and lenalidomide at doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg on days 1 to 21, every 28 days for nine cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with lenalidomide alone. Aspirin was given as a prophylaxis for thrombosis. RESULTS Fifty-four patients were enrolled and evaluated after completing the assigned treatment schedule. The maximum tolerated dose was defined as 0.18 mg/kg melphalan and 10 mg lenalidomide. With these doses, 81% of patients achieved at least a partial response, 47.6% achieved a very good partial response, and 23.8% achieved a complete immunofixation-negative response. In all patients, 1-year event-free and overall survival rates were 92% and 100%, respectively. At the maximum tolerated dose, grade 3 adverse events included neutropenia (38.1%), thrombocytopenia (14.2%), febrile neutropenia (9.5%), vasculitis (9.5%), and thromboembolism (4.8%); grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (14.2%) and thrombocytopenia (9.5%). CONCLUSION Oral MPR therapy is a promising first-line treatment for elderly myeloma patients. Hematologic adverse events were frequent but manageable. A low incidence of nonhematologic adverse events was noted. Aspirin appears to provide adequate antithrombosis prophylaxis.

Revised International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma: A Report From International Myeloma Working Group

PURPOSE The clinical outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) is heterogeneous. A simple and reliable tool is needed to stratify patients with MM. We combined the International Staging System (ISS) with chromosomal abnormalities (CA) detected by interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization after CD138 plasma cell purification and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to evaluate their prognostic value in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical and laboratory data from 4,445 patients with NDMM enrolled onto 11 international trials were pooled together. The K-adaptive partitioning algorithm was used to define the most appropriate subgroups with homogeneous survival. RESULTS ISS, CA, and LDH data were simultaneously available in 3,060 of 4,445 patients. We defined the following three groups: revised ISS (R-ISS) I (n = 871), including ISS stage I (serum β2-microglobulin level < 3.5 mg/L and serum albumin level ≥ 3.5 g/dL), no high-risk CA [del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16)], and normal LDH level (less than the upper limit of normal range); R-ISS III (n = 295), including ISS stage III (serum β2-microglobulin level > 5.5 mg/L) and high-risk CA or high LDH level; and R-ISS II (n = 1,894), including all the other possible combinations. At a median follow-up of 46 months, the 5-year OS rate was 82% in the R-ISS I, 62% in the R-ISS II, and 40% in the R-ISS III groups; the 5-year PFS rates were 55%, 36%, and 24%, respectively. CONCLUSION The R-ISS is a simple and powerful prognostic staging system, and we recommend its use in future clinical studies to stratify patients with NDMM effectively with respect to the relative risk to their survival.