Health-related quality of life in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with either thalidomide or lenalidomide-based regimen until progression: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study.

Data on the impact of long term treatment with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. The HOVON-87/NMSG18 study was a randomized, phase 3 study in newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients with multiple myeloma, comparing melphalan-prednisolone in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide, followed by maintenance therapy until progression (MPT-T or MPR-R). The EORTC QLQ-C30 and MY20 questionnaires were completed at baseline, after three and nine induction cycles and six and 12 months of maintenance therapy. Linear mixed models and minimal important differences were used for evaluation. 596 patients participated in HRQoL reporting. Patients reported clinically relevant improvement in global quality of life (QoL), future perspective and role and emotional functioning, and less fatigue and pain in both arms. The latter being of large effect size. In general, improvement occurred after 6-12 months of maintenance only and was independent of the World Health Organisation performance at baseline. Patients treated with MPR-R reported clinically relevant worsening of diarrhea, and patients treated with MPT-T reported a higher incidence of neuropathy. Patients who remained on lenalidomide maintenance therapy for at least three months reported clinically meaningful improvement in global QoL and role functioning at six months, remaining stable thereafter. There were no clinically meaningful deteriorations, but patients on thalidomide reported clinically relevant worsening in neuropathy. In general, HRQoL improves both during induction and maintenance therapy with immunomodulatory drugs. The side effect profile of treatment did not negatively affect global QoL, but it was, however, clinically relevant for the patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NTR1630).

Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma.

The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Long-term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy, showed promising results without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 patients between nine 4-week cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial was undertaken by Dutch-Belgium Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and the Nordic Myeloma Study Group (the HOVON87/NMSG18 trial). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T, and 319 received MPR-R. After a median follow-up of 36 months, PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-23 months) vs 23 months (95% CI, 19-27 months) with MPR-R (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). Response rates were similar, with at least a very good partial response of 47% and 45%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grades 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64% vs 27%. Neuropathy of at least grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm: 16% vs 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 vs 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance vs myelosuppression with MPR.

Short versus extended treatment with a carbapenem in patients with high-risk fever of unknown origin during neutropenia: a non-inferiority, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Early antibiotic discontinuation has been advocated in haematology patients with fever of unknown origin during chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, but its safety is unknown. We aimed to assess if short treatment with carbapenems is non-inferior to extended treatment. METHODS: This non-inferiority, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial was done in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients (≥18 years) who were treated with intensive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) for a haematological malignancy, and had fever of unknown origin during high-risk neutropenia (<0·5 × 109/L expected for ≥7 days) were eligible. After onset of fever, patients received either 500 mg intravenous imipenem-cilastatin four times a day or 1000 mg intravenous meropenem three times a day. Between 48 h and 72 h of treatment, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated sequence to receive a short-term (72 h [60-84]; short treatment group) or extended (≥9 days until being afebrile for 5 days or neutrophil recovery; extended treatment group) carbapenem regimen. The composite primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as recurrent fever or a carbapenem-sensitive infection between day 4 and day 9 and septic shock or respiratory failure or death from day 4 until neutrophil recovery. The study was designed to assess the non-inferiority of the short treatment compared with the extended treatment regimen, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. The primary outcome was adjudicated by an independent outcome committee, who were masked to treatment allocation, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is completed and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02149329. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2014, and July 1, 2019, 281 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 144 (51%) patients were assigned to the short treatment group and 137 (49%) to the extended treatment group. Median age was 59 years (IQR 52-65); 109 (39%) patients were women and 172 (61%) were men; 205 (73%) patients received HSCT. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 28 (19%) of 144 patients in the short treatment group versus 21 (15%) of 137 patients in the extended treatment group had treatment failure (adjusted risk difference [ARD] 4·0% [90% CI -1·7% to 9·7%]; p=0·25). In the per-protocol analysis (n=225), 24 (23%) of 104 patients in the short treatment group and 19 (16%) of 121 patients in the extended treatment group had treatment failure (ARD 7·3% [0·3% to 14·9%]; p=0·11). The most common grade 3-5 infection-related adverse events were mucositis (23 [20%] of 114 adverse events in the short treatment group vs 28 [29%] of 98 adverse events in the extended treatment group), fever of unknown origin (20 [18%] vs 16 [16%] events), and bacteraemia (15 [13%] vs 13 [13%] events). The number of serious adverse events were higher in the short treatment group (23 [16%] of 144 patients) than in the extended treatment group (14 [10%] of 137 patients), due to an increased rate of readmission (17 [12%] patients in the short treatment group vs ten [7%] in the extended treatment group). Death before 30 days after neutrophil recovery occurred in five (3%) participants in the short treatment group: two due to progressive leukaemia, two due to candidaemia, and one due to Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia and drug-induced pneumonitis. One (1%) patient died in the extended treatment group due to candidaemia. None of the deaths were related to carbapenem-sensitive infections. INTERPRETATION: Early discontinuation of carbapenem treatment in patients with febrile neutropenia of unknown origin does not result in increased treatment failure. Our study supports short treatment if patients are afebrile after 3 days of carbapenem treatment. However, because secondary analyses suggested that serious adverse events and all-cause mortality occurred more often in patients who are persistantly febrile the short treatment group, we recommend vigilance for non-susceptible pathogens and early resumption of empirical therapy in patients who are deteriorating. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Fonds NutsOhra.

Real-world Outcomes of Sequential Androgen-receptor Targeting Therapies with or Without Interposed Life-prolonging Drugs in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the Dutch Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Cross resistance between androgen-receptor targeting therapies (ARTs) (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone [ABI+P] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may affect responses to second ART (ART2). OBJECTIVE: To establish treatment duration and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response of ART2 in real-world mCRPC patients treated with or without other life-prolonging drugs (LPDs; ie, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, or radium-223) between ART1 and ART2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively registered in Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry (CAPRI). Patients treated with both ARTs were clustered into two subgroups: ART1>ART2 or ART1>LPD>ART2. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were ≥50% PSA response and treatment duration of ART2. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression after multiple imputations were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 273 patients were included with a median follow-up of 8.4 mo from ART2. Patients with ART1>ART2 were older and had favourable prognostic characteristics at ART2 baseline compared with patients with ART1>LPD>ART2. No differences between ART1>ART2 and ART1>LPD>ART2 were found in PSA response and treatment duration. Multivariate analysis suggested that PSA response of ART2 was less likely in patients with visceral metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.143, p=0.04) and more likely in patients with a relatively longer duration of androgen-deprivation treatment (OR 1.028, p=0.01) and with ABI + P before ENZ (OR 3.192, p=0.02). A major limitation of this study was missing data, a common problem in retrospective observational research. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of ART2 seems to be low, with a low PSA response rate and a short treatment duration irrespective of interposed chemotherapy or radium-223, especially in patients with short time on castration, visceral disease, and ENZ before ABI+P. PATIENT SUMMARY: We observed no differences in outcomes of patients treated with sequential abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (ABI+P) and enzalutamide (ENZ) with or without interposed chemotherapy or radium-223. In general, outcomes were lower than those in randomised trials, questioning the additional effect of second treatment with ABI+P or ENZ in daily practice.

High-Intensity Care in the End-of-Life Phase of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from the Dutch CAPRI-Registry.

Background: Intensive end-of-life care (i.e., the overuse of treatments and hospital resources in the last months of life), is undesirable since it has a minimal clinical benefit with a substantial financial burden. The aim was to investigate the care in the last three months of life (end-of-life [EOL]) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Castration-resistant prostate cancer registry (CAPRI) is an investigator-initiated, observational multicenter cohort study in 20 hospitals retrospectively including patients diagnosed with CRPC between 2010 and 2016. High-intensity care was defined as the initiation of life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) in the last month, continuation of LPD in last 14 days, >1 admission, admission duration ≥14 days, and/or intensive care admission in last three months of life. Descriptive and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: High-intensity care was experienced by 41% of 2429 patients in the EOL period. Multivariable analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99), performance status (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.97), time from CRPC to EOL (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), referral to a medical oncologist (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.55-2.55), prior LPD treatment (>1 line OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.31-2.28), and opioid use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08-1.95) were significantly associated with high-intensity care. Conclusions: High-intensity care in EOL is not easily justifiable due to high economic cost and little effect on life span, but further research is awaited to give insight in the effect on patients' and their caregivers' quality of life.

Second-Line Cabazitaxel Treatment in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Compared to Standard of Care in CAPRI: Observational Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients after docetaxel in the TROPIC trial. However, trial populations may not reflect the real-world population. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes of cabazitaxel within and outside trials (standard of care, SOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients treated with cabazitaxel directly after docetaxel therapy before 2017 were retrospectively identified and followed to 2018. Patients were grouped on the basis of treatment within a trial or SOC. Outcomes included OS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS: From 3616 patients in the CAPRI registry, we identified 356 patients treated with cabazitaxel, with 173 patients treated in the second line. Trial patients had favorable prognostic factors: fewer symptoms, less visceral disease, lower lactate dehydrogenase, higher hemoglobin, more docetaxel cycles, and longer treatment-free interval since docetaxel therapy. PSA response (≥ 50% decline) was 28 versus 12%, respectively (P = .209). Median OS was 13.6 versus 9.6 months for trial and SOC subgroups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.73, P = .067). After correction for prognostic factors, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio = 1.00, P = .999). Longer duration of androgen deprivation therapy treatment, lower lactate dehydrogenase, and lower PSA were associated with longer OS; visceral disease had a trend for shorter OS. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with cabazitaxel in trials were fitter and showed outcomes comparable to registration trials. Conversely, those treated in daily practice showed features of more aggressive disease and worse outcome. This underlines the importance of adequate estimation of trial eligibility and health status of mCRPC patients in daily practice to ensure optimal outcomes.

A randomised phase II trial of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus carboplatin in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who have progressed after response to prior docetaxel chemotherapy: The RECARDO trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate carcinoma (mCRPC). Docetaxel re-challenge has never been tested in a prospective randomised controlled study. As some studies support the addition of carboplatin to docetaxel, we performed a phase II trial investigating the combination of docetaxel plus carboplatin versus docetaxel re-treatment in docetaxel pre-treated mCRPC patients. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC with a progression-free interval of ≥3 months after initial docetaxel treatment were randomised between docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or docetaxel 60 mg/m2 plus carboplatin AUC4. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS; PSA/RECIST). RESULTS: Owing to insufficient recruitment, the study was discontinued early after inclusion of 75 patients (targeted 150) PFS and overall survival (OS) were comparable between both groups (median PFS 12.7 months (95% CI 9.9-17.5 months) with docetaxel monotherapy and 11.7 months (95% CI 8.5-21.0 months) with combination therapy (p = 0.98); OS 18.5 months (95% CI 11.8-24.5 months) versus 18.9 months (95% CI 16.0-23.7 months) (p = 0.79). An interim analysis (SEQTEST) showed that the null hypothesis could already be excepted, and no significant difference between both study arms was expected if inclusion would be completed. The incidence of grade 3-4 infections and gastrointestinal side-effects was numerical higher in the carboplatin arm (p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: This early terminated study suggests no benefit from the addition of carboplatin to docetaxel re-treatment in patients with mCRPC, whereas the combination resulted in more toxicity. Re-treatment with docetaxel monotherapy appears to be feasible, save and effective for patients with mCRPC and an initial good response to docetaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3070.