Maintenance lenalidomide in newly diagnosed transplant eligible and non-eligible myeloma patients; profiling second primary malignancies in 4358 patients treated in the Myeloma XI Trial.

Background: Early trials of long-term lenalidomide use reported an increased incidence of second primary malignancy (SPM), including acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Later, meta-analysis suggested the link to be secondary to lenalidomide in combination with melphalan. Methods: Myeloma XI is a large, phase III randomised trial in-which lenalidomide was used at induction and maintenance, in transplant eligible (TE) and non-eligible (TNE) newly diagnosed patients (NCT01554852). Here we present an analysis of SPM incidence and profile the SPM type to determine the impact of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and lenalidomide exposure in 4358 patients treated on study. Data collection took place from the start of the trial in May 2010, to May 2019, as per the protocol timeline. The Median follow-up following maintenance randomisation was 54.5 and 46.1 months for TE and TNE patients, respectively. Findings: In the TE pathway, the overall SPM incidence was 7.7% in lenalidomide maintenance patients compared to 3.2% in those being observed (p = 0.006). Although the TNE lenalidomide maintenance patients had the greatest SPM incidence (15.4%), this was not statistically significant when compared to the observed patients (10%, p = 0.10).The SPM incidence was higher in patients who received lenalidomide at induction and maintenance (double exposure), when compared to those treated with lenalidomide at one time point (single exposure). Again, this was most marked in TNE patients where the overall SPM incidence was 16.9% in double exposed patients, compared to 11.7% in single exposed patients, and 11.2% in patients who did not receive lenalidomide (p = 0.04). This is likely an effect of treatment duration, with the median number of cycles being 27 in the TNE double exposed patients, vs 6 in the single exposure patients.Haematological SPMs were uncommon, diagnosed in 50 patients (incidence 1.1%). The majority of cases were diagnosed in TE patients treated with lenalidomide maintenance (n = 25, incidence 2.8%), suggesting a possible link with melphalan. Non-melanoma skin cancer incidence was highest in patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance, particularly in TNE patients, where squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma were diagnosed in 5.5% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. The incidence of most solid tumour types was higher in lenalidomide maintenance patients.Mortality due to progressive myeloma was reduced in patients receiving lenalidomide maintenance, noted to be 16.6% compared 22.6% in those observed in TE patients and 32.7% compared to 41.5% in TNE patients. SPM related mortality was low, 1.8% and 6.1% in TE and TNE lenalidomide maintenance patients, respectively, compared to 0.4% and 2.8% in those being observed. Interpretation: This provides reassurance that long-term lenalidomide treatment is safe and associated with improved outcomes in TE and TNE populations, although monitoring for SPM development should be incorporated into clinic review processes. Funding: Primary financial support was from Cancer Research UK [C1298/A10410].

Clinical trial recruiters' experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed. METHODS: Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes. RESULTS: A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.