Adherence to and effectiveness of lenalidomide after 1 year of treatment in a real world setting.

BACKGROUND: In combination with dexamethasone, lenalidomide is prescribed in the oral treatment of Multiple Myeloma for patients who have received at least one previous therapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate medication adherence to lenalidomide of Multiple Myeloma patients, as well as Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival one year from the beginning of the treatment. SETTING: The study was carried out in Pescara Hospital, in Italy. All Multiple Myeloma patients who began lenalidomide therapy between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2016 were included in our study. METHODS: Adherence to treatment was calculated by using the ratio between the Received Daily Dose and the Prescribed Daily Dose. Effectiveness in real world has been evaluated as Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival one year from the beginning of the treatment.Main outcomes measure: We assessed medication adherence and effectiveness of lenalidomide in the treatment of Multiple Myeloma. RESULTS: Adherence to the overall mean treatment was 0.73 ± 0.15, relative to 81 patients evaluated in our study. 32% of patients achieved an adherence equal to or greater than 80%. Real-life effectiveness in terms of Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival showed values of ​​53.75% and 88%, respectively, one year from the beginning of treatment. CONCLUSION: The analysis of adherence in Multiple Myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide one year from the beginning of therapy reveal a concerning lack of adherence. Moreover, the lack of correlation of the levels of adherence with patient-related variables shows that, in the case of Multiple Myeloma, adherence is not related to personal, social and environmental characteristics that may determine each patient's correct treatment implementation, but is directly influenced by disease evolution.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

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.

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.

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone followed by double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (GIMEMA-MMY-3006): long-term follow-up analysis of a randomised phase 3, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial, which compared bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) combination therapy with thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before and consolidation therapy after double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, showed the superiority of the triplet regimen over the doublet in terms of increased complete response rate and improved progression-free survival. We report the results from the final analysis of the study. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18-65 years with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher were enrolled at 73 centres in Italy. Patients were randomised (1:1) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily orally for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (total 320 mg per cycle; 40 mg on days 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 in the VTD regimen, and 40 mg on days 1-4 and 9-12 in the TD regimen), either alone (TD group) or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; VTD group). After double autologous HSCT, patients received two 35-day cycles of either the VTD or TD regimen, according to random assignment, as consolidation therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response and near complete response after induction (already reported). In this updated analysis we assessed long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (secondary endpoints of the study) with an extended 10-year median follow-up, and analysed the variables influencing survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01134484. FINDINGS: Between May 10, 2006, and April 30, 2008, 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (241 patients) or TD (239 patients). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment. 236 (99 [42%] women) in the VTD group and 238 (102 [43%] women) in the TD group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The data cutoff date for this analysis was May 31, 2018. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124·1 months (IQR 117·2-131·7). The 10-year progression-free survival estimate for patients in the VTD group was 34% (95% CI 28-41) compared with 17% (13-23) for the TD group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·50-0·77]; p<0·0001). 60% (95% CI 54-67) of patients in the VTD group were alive at 10 years versus 46% (40-54) of patients in the TD group (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·90]; p=0·0068). VTD was an independent predictor of improved progression-free survival (HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·48-0·76]; p<0·0001) and overall survival (HR 0·68 [0·50-0·91]; p=0·010). The incidence of second primary malignancies per 100 person-years was 0·87 (95% CI 0·49-1·44) in the VTD group compared with 1·41 (0·88-2·13) in the TD group. INTERPRETATION: Incorporation of VTD into double autologous HSCT resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in long-term progression-free survival and overall survival, confirming that a regimen including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug is the gold standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who are fit for high-dose chemotherapy. FUNDING: Seràgnoli Institute of Haematology, University of Bologna, and BolognAIL.

Long-term remission in BCR/ABL-positive AML-M6 patient treated with Imatinib Mesylate.

BCR/ABL-positive acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rare disease, characterized by a poor prognosis, with resistance to induction chemotherapy and frequent relapses in responsive patients. Here we report a case of BCR/ABL-positive AML-M6 who, after relapse, was treated with Imatinib Mesylate (600 mg/die) and within 4 months achieved a cytogenetic and molecular complete response. After more than 4 years of continuous Imatinib therapy, nested RT-PCR for BCR/ABL is persistently negative. The case reported shows that the response obtained with Imatinib Mesylate in BCR/ABL-positive AML may be long lasting, offering a chance of successful treatment for this poor prognosis group of patients.

Survival of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The prognosis of elderly patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) is usually dismal, while the true survival of older patients not included in clinical trials is not known. We retrospectively evaluated the impact on survival of an aggressive versus a non-aggressive approach in 1005 patients aged >60 years registered in the database of the GIMEMA cooperative group. DESIGN AND METHODS: Group A patients (n=621) received aggressive treatment, while group B patients (n=384) underwent non-aggressive therapy. The groups were different for risk factor distribution: the patients in group B had a higher median age, worse performance status (PS) and a higher proportion of previous myelodysplastic disease. RESULTS: The overall median survival was 7 and 5 months in groups A and B, respectively (p min of 0.0001). At multivariate analysis the following factors were associated with a significantly shorter survival: age >71 years (RR=1.27; 95% CI=1.07-1.50), PS=2-4 (RR=1.44; 95% CI=1.24-1.68), white cell count > 10,000 mL (RR=1.37; 95% CI=1.06-1.75), and heart dysfunction requiring treatment (RR=1.26; 95% CI=1.05-1.50). No difference in survival was associated with aggressive or non-aggressive treatment (RR=1.1; 95% CI=0.94-1.32). Patients aged min of 70 years, with no heart disease, but a white cell count > 10,000/mL showed a significantly better survival when treated aggressively (median survival 7 vs 3 months, p = 0.011). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite an obvious selection of patients with a worse prognosis in group B, the difference in survival between the two groups was marginal. Multivariate analysis failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit in aggressively treated patients. All these considerations indicate that elderly patients with AML are overall unlikely to benefit from aggressive treatment, so that this should be offered only to selected patients.

TET2 mutations in Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms: identification of three novel mutations and relationship with clinical and laboratory findings.

High-throughput DNA sequence analysis was used to screen for TET2 mutations in peripheral blood derived DNA from 97 patients with BCR-ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Overall six mutations in the coding region of the gene were identified in 7 patients with an overall mutational frequency of 7.2%. In polycythemia vera patients (n = 25) 2 mutations were identified (8%), and in those with essential thrombocythemia (n = 55) 2 mutations (3.6%); in those with unclassifiable MPN (n = 8) 3 mutations (37.5%). No primary myelofibrosis patients (n = 6) harboured TET2 mutations. Three unreported mutations were identified (p.P177fs, p.C1298del, and p.P411del), the first two in patients with unclassifiable MPN, the last in a patient with essential thrombocythemia. On multivariate analysis the diagnosis of an unclassifiable MPN was significantly related to the presence of TET2 mutations (P = 0.02; OR: 2.81; 95% CI 1.11-7.06). We conclude that TET2 mutations occur in both JAK2 V617F-positive and -negative MPNs and are more frequent in MPN-U patients. This could represent the biological link between the different classes of myeloid malignancies.

Is the absence of JAK2 mutation a risk factor for bleeding in essential thrombocythemia? An analysis of 106 patients.

BACKGROUND: JAK2(V617F) mutation has been recognized as a possible thrombotic risk factor in essential thrombocythaemia (ET). It's role is probably due to an increased myeloid proliferation and white blood cells (WBC) activation. Only few data are available about the effect of JAK2(V617F) on hemorrhagic risk. The aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of the mutational status on hemorrhagic complication. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed laboratory and clinical findings of 106 consecutive patients with ET to evaluate possible relationships between thrombosis, abnormal bleeding, peripheral blood count, overexpression of PRV1 and JAK2(V617F) mutational status. RESULTS: ON UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS WE FOUND: an association between JAK2(V617F) mutation and thrombotic events before or at diagnosis (p<0.003, OR=4.44, 95% CI=1.74-12.4); no statistical correlation between the median value of JAK2(V617F) burden and an increased risk of thrombosis (p=0.4, 95% CI= -22.8-10.4); significant relationships between mutated status and higher haematocrit, high WBC count and low platelet count; and a strong correlation between JAK2(V617F) and PRV1 overexpression (p<0.0001). Moreover, the presence of the JAK2(V617F) mutation and a WBC count greater than 8.4 x 10(9)/L were found to be independent factors related to thrombotic complications in multivariable analysis (p<0.006, OR=3.85, 95% CI=1.3-11.9; and p<0.002, OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.08-7.03, respectively). The prognostic impact of JAK2 mutation status and WBC count on thrombosis was evaluated in the whole cohort. Only new cases occurring in patients without previous thrombotic events were recorded for the analysis. The multivariable analysis showed a statistical correlation between the presence of the mutation and a WBC count greater than 8.12 x 10(6)/L and an increased risk of thrombosis if no cytoreductive treatment was started at diagnosis (JAK2(V617F) p=0.02; WBC p=0.02; OR=4.97; 95% CI=1.04-23.8). Finally, wild-type JAK2 was associated with a higher haemorrhagic risk (p=0.02) in univariate analysis but only a platelet count greater than 1,022 x 10(9)/L was associated with an increased risk of bleeding in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the role of both JAK2(V617F) as factor associated with an increased risk of thrombosis at the diagnosis and during follow-up in no treated patients. Moreover a WBC count over 8.4 x 10(9)/L1 was also strictly associated to an increased risk of thrombosis. Regarding bleedings, our statistical analysis allows to exclude the mutation protective role on haemorrhage.

Chromosome 11 rearrangements and specific MLL amplification revealed by spectral karyotyping in a patient with refractory anaemia with excess of blasts (RAEB).

A patient with refractory anaemia with excess of blasts (RAEB) had a complex karyotype with multiple markers. Spectral karyotyping (SKY) showed rearrangements including three different der(11), containing a very high number of MLL gene copies, shown by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. Fibre-FISH experiments disclosed the presence of chromatin fibres with multiple MLL copies with a head-to-tail pattern. Apparently, no other region flanking the MLL site was present in the three der(11). MLL amplification was confirmed by the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The patient died 6 months after diagnosis, supporting the severe prognosis of sole MLL amplification.