Ethnic diversity in presentation and outcome of Waldenström macroglobulinemia and IgM monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance in the United Kingdom.

Not available.

The addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma of all ages: results from 'Myeloma XI', a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III trial.

Lenalidomide is an effective maintenance agent for patients with myeloma, prolonging first remission and, in transplant eligible patients, improving overall survival (OS) compared to observation. The 'Myeloma XI' trial, for newly diagnosed patients, aimed to evaluate whether the addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat to the lenalidomide maintenance backbone could improve outcomes further. Patients included in this analysis were randomised to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle), or in combination with vorinostat (300 mg/day on day 1-7 and 15-21 of each 28-day cycle) with treatment continuing until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between those receiving lenalidomide-vorinostat or lenalidomide alone, 34 and 40 months respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.44, p = 0.109). There was also no significant difference in median OS, not estimable and 75 months respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.29, p = 0.929). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no statistically significant heterogeneity in outcomes. Combination lenalidomide-vorinostat appeared to be poorly tolerated with more dose modifications, fewer cycles of maintenance therapy delivered and higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity than lenalidomide alone. The trial did not meet its primary end-point, there was no benefit from the addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at first relapse in lenalidomide-pretreated myeloma: A subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) by age, renal function, and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse. METHODS: OPTIMISMM was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized study (NCT01734928; N = 559). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 226 patients had received one prior line of therapy. PVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in patients aged ≤65 years (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 months; P = .0258) and >65 years (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 months; P = .0369). Median PFS in patients with renal impairment (RI; creatinine clearance <60 mL/min) was 15.1 months with PVd vs 9.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34-1.34]). In patients without RI, median PFS was 22.0 vs 13.1 months (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.76]). In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 14.7 vs 9.9 months (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.13-1.17]). PVd significantly improved overall response rate vs Vd in all subgroups. The safety profile of PVd was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirmed the benefits of PVd at first relapse, including in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) as induction therapy for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients (Myeloma XI+): Interim analysis of an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. CONCLUSIONS: The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852.

Optimising the value of immunomodulatory drugs during induction and maintenance in transplant ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from Myeloma XI, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, Phase III trial.

Second-generation immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide, have a more favourable side-effect profile than the first-generation thalidomide, but their optimum combination and duration for patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible myeloma (ND-TNE-MM) has not been defined. The most appropriate delivery and dosing regimens of these therapies for patients at advanced age and frailty status is also unclear. The Myeloma XI study compared cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTDa) to cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (CRDa) as induction therapy, followed by a maintenance randomisation between ongoing therapy with lenalidomide or observation for patients with ND-TNE-MM. CRDa deepened response but did not improve progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) compared to CTDa. However, analysis by age group highlighted significant differences in tolerability in older, frailer patients that may have limited treatment delivery and impacted outcome. Deeper responses and PFS and OS benefits with CRDa over CTDs were seen in patients aged ≤70 years, with an increase in toxicity and discontinuation observed in older patients. Our results highlight the importance of considering age and frailty in the approach to therapy for patients with ND-TNE-MM, highlighting the need for prospective validation of frailty adapted therapy approaches, which may improve outcomes by tailoring treatment to the individual.

Lenalidomide before and after autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible patients of all ages in the randomized, phase III, Myeloma XI trial.

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n = 2042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before ASCT to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.96; P = 0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15) and ultra high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n = 451) or observation (n = 377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; P < 0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of ß2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9-21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66-13·73] vs 7·10 months [5·88-8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49-0·77; p<0·0001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%] of 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%] vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=1]) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=1], hepatic encephalopathy [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.

Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy have improved progression-free survival, primarily following autologous stem-cell transplantation. A beneficial effect of lenalidomide maintenance therapy on overall survival in this setting has been inconsistent between individual studies. Minimal data are available on the effect of maintenance lenalidomide in more aggressive disease states, such as patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance versus observation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including cytogenetic risk and transplantation status subgroup analyses. METHODS: The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial with three randomisation stages done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (allocation by transplantation eligibility status); intensification treatment (allocation by response to induction therapy); and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to maintenance treatment. Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol and had achieved at least a minimal response to protocol treatment, including lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 from Jan 13, 2011, to Jun 27, 2013, and 2:1 from Jun 28, 2013, to Aug 11, 2017) to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation, and stratified by allocated induction and intensification treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 11, 2017, 1917 patients were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial. 1137 patients were assigned to lenalidomide maintenance and 834 patients to observation. After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 18-50), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 36-42) with lenalidomide and 20 months (18-22) with observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·41-0·53]; p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 78·6% (95% Cl 75·6-81·6) in the lenalidomide group and 75·8% (72·4-79·2) in the observation group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·73-1·05]; p=0·15). Progression-free survival was improved with lenalidomide compared with observation across all prespecified subgroups. On prespecified subgroup analyses by transplantation status, 3-year overall survival in transplantation-eligible patients was 87·5% (95% Cl 84·3-90·7) in the lenalidomide group and 80·2% (76·0-84·4) in the observation group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·93]; p=0·014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66·8% (61·6-72·1) in the lenalidomide group and 69·8% (64·4-75·2) in the observation group (1·02 [0·80-1·29]; p=0·88). By cytogenetic risk group, in standard-risk patients, 3-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 80·0-90·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 81·3% (74·2-86·7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65·8-81·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 63·7% (52·8-72·7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62·9% (46·0-75·8) compared with 43·5% (22·2-63·1). Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking lenalidomide were haematological, including neutropenia (362 [33%] patients), thrombocytopenia (72 [7%] patients), and anaemia (42 [4%] patients). Serious adverse events were reported in 494 (45%) of 1097 patients receiving lenalidomide compared with 150 (17%) of 874 patients on observation. The most common serious adverse events were infections in both the lenalidomide group and the observation group. 460 deaths occurred during maintenance treatment, 234 (21%) in the lenalidomide group and 226 (27%) in the observation group, and no deaths in the lenalidomide group were deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma compared with observation, but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial population. The manageable safety profile of this drug and the encouraging results in subgroup analyses of patients across all cytogenetic risk groups support further investigation of maintenance lenalidomide in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, and Myeloma UK.

Copy number evolution and its relationship with patient outcome-an analysis of 178 matched presentation-relapse tumor pairs from the Myeloma XI trial.

Structural chromosomal changes including copy number aberrations (CNAs) are a major feature of multiple myeloma (MM), however their evolution in context of modern biological therapy is not well characterized. To investigate acquisition of CNAs and their prognostic relevance in context of first-line therapy, we profiled tumor diagnosis-relapse pairs from 178 NCRI Myeloma XI (ISRCTN49407852) trial patients using digital multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. CNA profiles acquired at relapse differed substantially between MM subtypes: hyperdiploid (HRD) tumors evolved predominantly in branching pattern vs. linear pattern in t(4;14) vs. stable pattern in t(11;14). CNA acquisition also differed between subtypes based on CCND expression, with a marked enrichment of acquired del(17p) in CCND2 over CCND1 tumors. Acquired CNAs were not influenced by high-dose melphalan or lenalidomide maintenance randomization. A branching evolution pattern was significantly associated with inferior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio (HR) 2.61, P = 0.0048). As an individual lesion, acquisition of gain(1q) at relapse was associated with shorter OS, independent of other risk markers or time of relapse (HR = 2.00; P = 0.021). There is an increasing need for rational therapy sequencing in MM. Our data supports the value of repeat molecular profiling to characterize disease evolution and inform management of MM relapse.

Response-adapted intensification with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus no intensification in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma has been shown to have substantial clonal heterogeneity, suggesting that agents with different mechanisms of action might be required to induce deep responses and improve outcomes. Such agents could be given in combination or in sequence on the basis of previous response. We aimed to assess the clinical value of maximising responses by using therapeutic agents with different modes of action, the use of which is directed by the response to the initial combination therapy. We aimed to assess response-adapted intensification treatment with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CVD) versus no intensification treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had a suboptimal response to initial immunomodulatory triplet treatment which was standard of care in the UK at the time of trial design. METHODS: The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment, intensification treatment, and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to intensification treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol (cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone) and achieved a partial or minimal response. For the intensification treatment, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to cyclophosphamide (500 mg daily orally on days 1, 8, and 15), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), and dexamethasone (20 mg daily orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) up to a maximum of eight cycles of 21 days or no treatment. Patients were stratified by allocated induction treatment, response to induction treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, assessed from intensification randomisation to data cutoff, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2010, and July 28, 2016, 583 patients were enrolled to the intensification randomisation, representing 48% of the 1217 patients who achieved partial or minimal response after initial induction therapy. 289 patients were assigned to CVD treatment and 294 patients to no treatment. After a median follow-up of 29·7 months (IQR 17·0-43·5), median progression-free survival was 30 months (95% CI 25-36) with CVD and 20 months (15-28) with no CVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·75, p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 77·3% (95% Cl 71·0-83·5) in the CVD group and 78·5% (72·3-84·6) in the no CVD group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67-1·43, p=0·93). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking CVD were haematological, including neutropenia (18 [7%] patients), thrombocytopenia (19 [7%] patients), and anaemia (8 [3%] patients). No deaths in the CVD group were deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Intensification treatment with CVD significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and a suboptimal response to immunomodulatory induction therapy compared with no intensification treatment, but did not improve overall survival. The manageable safety profile of this combination and the encouraging results support further investigation of response-adapted approaches in this setting. The substantial number of patients not entering this trial randomisation following induction therapy, however, might support the use of combination therapies upfront to maximise response and improve outcomes as is now the standard of care in the UK. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, Myeloma UK.

Replacing urine protein electrophoresis with serum free light chain analysis as a first-line test for detecting plasma cell disorders offers increased diagnostic accuracy and potential health benefit to patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically effective diagnostic testing strategy for plasma cell disorders in the clinical laboratory. METHODS: Serum and urine samples from 2,799 patients with suspected plasma cell dyscrasias were tested by alternative diagnostic testing strategies consisting of serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) with either urine protein electrophoresis (UPE) or serum free light chain (sFLC) analysis. RESULTS: The combination of sFLC analysis and SPE had the greatest sensitivity (100%), detecting abnormalities in all 124 patients diagnosed with plasma cell disorders. Routine sFLC testing would have had much potential health benefit for two patients in the study population. First, a patient who had a markedly abnormal sFLC result was diagnosed with light chain deposition disease by renal biopsy, but no abnormality was detected by SPE or UPE. Second, a patient diagnosed with multiple plasmacytomas following biopsy of a lung tumor had a grossly abnormal sFLC result but an equivocal weak-positive SPE result, and no urine sample was received by the laboratory for the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the combination of SPE and sFLC analysis is the most clinically effective first-line diagnostic testing strategy for detecting plasma cell disorders in the clinical laboratory.