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.

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.

The impact of cytogenetics on duration of response and overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (long-term follow-up results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

The Myeloma X trial (ISCRTN60123120) registered patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Participants were randomised between salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or weekly cyclophosphamide following re-induction therapy. Cytogenetic analysis performed at trial registration defined t(4;14), t(14;16) and del(17p) as high-risk. The effect of cytogenetics on time to progression (TTP) and overall survival was investigated. At 76 months median follow-up, ASCT improved TTP compared to cyclophosphamide (19 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 16-26) vs. 11 months (9-12), hazard ratio [HR]: 0·40, 95% CI: 0·29-0·56, P < 0·001), on which the presence of any single high-risk lesion had a detrimental impact [likelihood ratio test (LRT): P = 0·011]. ASCT also improved OS [67 months (95% CI 59-not reached) vs. 55 months (44-67), HR: 0·64, 95% CI: 0·42-0·99, P = 0·0435], with evidence of a detrimental impact with MYC rearrangement (LRT: P = 0·021). Twenty-one (24·7%) cyclophosphamide patients received an ASCT post-trial, median OS was not reached (95% CI: 39-not reached) for these participants compared to 31 months (22-39), in those who did not receive a post-trial ASCT. The analysis further supports the benefit of salvage ASCT, which may still be beneficial after second relapse in surviving patients. There is evidence that this benefit reduces in cytogenetic high-risk patients, highlighting the need for targeted study in this patient group.

Stem Cell Harvesting after Bortezomib-Based Reinduction for Myeloma Relapsing after Autologous Transplantation: Results from the British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation/United Kingdom Myeloma Forum Myeloma X (Intensive) Trial.

The phase III British Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation/United Kingdom Myeloma Forum Myeloma X trial (MMX) demonstrated prospectively, for the first time, superiority of salvage autologous stem cell transplantation over chemotherapy maintenance for multiple myeloma (MM) in first relapse after previous ASCT. However, many patients have stored insufficient stem cells (PBSC) for second ASCT and robust evidence for remobilization after first ASCT is lacking. We report the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of remobilization after bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone reinduction in MMX and outcomes of second ASCT with these cells. One hundred ten patients underwent ≥1 remobilization with 32 and 4, undergoing second and third attempts, respectively. Toxicities of remobilization were similar to those seen in first-line mobilization. After all attempts, 52% of those with insufficient previously stored PBSC had harvested a sufficient quantity to proceed to second ASCT. Median PBSC doses infused, neutrophil engraftment, and time to discharge after second ASCT were similar regardless of stem cell source, as were the toxicities of second ASCT. No significant differences between PBSC sources were noted in depth of response to ASCT or time to progression. Harvesting after bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone reinduction for MM at first relapse is safe and feasible and yields a reliable cell product for second ASCT. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00747877) and EudraCT (2006-005890-24).

Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to EQ-5D in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are often collected using disease-specific patient questionnaires while generic, patient-level utility data required for health economic modeling are often not collected. METHODS: We developed a mapping algorithm for multiple myeloma that relates HRQoL scores from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to a utility value from the European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Data were obtained from 154 multiple myeloma patients who had participated in a multicenter cohort study in the UK or Germany. All three questionnaires were administered at a single time point. Scores from all 19 domains of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 instruments were univariately tested against EQ-5D values and retained in a multivariate regression model if statistically significant. A 10-fold cross-validation model selection method was also used as an alternative testing means. Two models were developed: one based on QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-MY20 scores and one based on QLQ-C30 scores alone. Adjusted R-squared, correlation coefficients, and plots of observed versus predicted EQ-5D values were presented for both models. RESULTS: Mapping revealed that Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, Pain, and Insomnia were significant predictors of EQ-5D utility values. Similar results were observed when QLQ-MY20 scores were excluded from the model, except that Emotional Functioning and became a significant predictor and Insomnia was no longer a significant predictor. Adjusted R-squared values were of similar magnitude with or without inclusion of QLQ-MY20 scores (0.70 and 0.69, respectively), suggesting that the EORTC QLQ-MY20 adds little in terms of predicting utility values in multiple myeloma. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm successfully mapped EORTC HRQoL data onto EQ-5D utility in patients with multiple myeloma. Current mapping will aid in the analysis of cost-effectiveness of novel therapies for this indication.

Effect of general symptom level, specific adverse events, treatment patterns, and patient characteristics on health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: results of a European, multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Novel multiple myeloma (MM) therapies have increased patient longevity but are often associated with notable symptom burden. This study quantified the effect of general symptom level, specific symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) on MM patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) generic cancer questionnaire (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) and MM-specific questionnaire (QLQ-MY20) were used in this study to assess patients' HRQoL. Data were collected on sociodemographics, disease and treatment history, and the presence/severity of MM-related symptoms or treatment-related AEs from patients with MM in UK and German centers. Multiple regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 154 patients (63 % male; mean age, 66.4 years; mean time since diagnosis, 3.7 years; 52 % currently on treatment; and 43 % with ≥ 1 prior MM therapy), 25, 32, 31, and 11 % were severely symptomatic, moderately symptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and asymptomatic, respectively. Fatigue (59 %), bone pain (51 %), sleepiness (36 %), hypoesthesia or paresthesia (33 %), and muscle cramps (31 %) were most commonly reported. Moderate and severe general symptom levels, bone symptoms, depression, and mental status changes were identified as strong determinants of HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Severity, type of disease symptoms, and treatment related AEs are important HRQoL determinants in patients with MM, allowing for targeted treatment.

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.

Combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with refractory, newly diagnosed or relapsed myeloma.

We evaluated the combination of thalidomide, pulsed dexamethasone and weekly cyclophosphamide (CTD) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, relapsed or VAD-refractory multiple myeloma. We found that this combination was highly effective in inducing responses in all treatment groups with an overall response rate of 83.8%. CTD was well tolerated and did not impair stem cell mobilization.

The effect of salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation on overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (final results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Myeloma X trial previously reported improved durability of response (time to disease progression) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma with salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) compared with oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after a first ASCT. We report the final overall survival results of the trial. METHODS: BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 51 centres in the UK. Eligible patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after a previous ASCT were re-induced with intravenous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, 11), intravenous doxorubicin (9 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-4), and oral dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 during cycle 1 and days 1-4 during cycles 2-4), with supportive care as per local institutional protocols before randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to either high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and salvage ASCT or weekly oral cyclophosphamide (400 mg/m(2) per week for 12 weeks). Randomisation was by permuted blocks stratified by length of first remission and response to re-induction treatment. The primary endpoint was time to disease progression; the study was also powered to detect a difference in the secondary endpoint, overall survival. Further secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving an objective response, progression-free survival, overall survival, toxic effects and safety, pain, and quality of life. Prespecified exploratory endpoints included time to second objective disease progression (PFS2). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00747877, and the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2006-005890-24, and is now in long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2008, and Nov 19, 2012, 297 patients were registered into the study and 174 were randomly assigned to receive either high-dose melphalan and salvage ASCT (n=89) or oral weekly cyclophosphamide (n=85). 173 (58%) of 297 patients relapsed after more than 24 months from first ASCT. 75 (43%) of 174 randomised patients had died at follow-up: salvage ASCT (n=31 [35%]) versus oral weekly cyclophosphamide (n=44 [52%]). Updated time to disease progression shows continued advantage in the salvage ASCT group compared with the weekly cyclophosphamide group (19 months [95% CI 16-26] vs 11 months [9-12]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·31-0·64] log-rank p<0·0001). Median overall survival was superior in the salvage ASCT group compared with weekly cyclophosphamide group (67 months [95% CI 55-not estimable] vs 52 months [42-60]; log-rank p=0·022; HR 0·56 [0·35-0·90], p=0·0169). Time to second objective disease progression was superior in the salvage ASCT group compared with the weekly cyclophosphamide group (67 months [52-not estimable] vs 35 months [31-43]; HR 0·37 [0·24-0·57], log-rank p<0·0001). During extended follow-up, no further treatment-related or treatment-unrelated adverse events were reported. 15 second primary malignancies were reported in 12 patients (salvage ASCT [n=7] vs oral weekly cyclophosphamide [n=5]). The cumulative incidence of second primary malignancies at 60 months after trial entry was 5·2% (2·1-8·2). INTERPRETATION: Salvage ASCT increases overall survival during consolidation of re-induction treatment in patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse after a first ASCT. The delay of salvage ASCT to third-line treatment or later might not confer the same degree of advantage as seen with salvage ASCT at first relapse. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK.

Ofatumumab as single-agent CD20 immunotherapy in fludarabine-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

PURPOSE: New treatments are needed for patients with fludarabine- and alemtuzumab-refractory (FA-ref) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or patients with fludarabine-refractory CLL with bulky (> 5 cm) lymphadenopathy (BF-ref) who are less suitable for alemtuzumab treatment; these groups have poor outcomes with available salvage regimens. Ofatumumab (HuMax-CD20) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting a distinct small-loop epitope on the CD20 molecule. We conducted an international clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ofatumumab in patients with FA-ref and BF-ref CLL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received eight weekly infusions of ofatumumab followed by four monthly infusions during a 24-week period (dose 1 = 300 mg; doses 2 to 12 = 2,000 mg); response by an independent review committee (1996 National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria) was assessed every 4 weeks until week 24 and then every 3 months until month 24. RESULTS: This planned interim analysis included 138 treated patients with FA-ref (n = 59) and BF-ref (n = 79) CLL. The overall response rates (primary end point) were 58% [corrected] and 47% in the FA-ref and BF-ref groups, respectively. Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% and 48% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 5.7 and 13.7 months in the FA-ref group, respectively, and 5.9 and 15.4 months in the BF-ref group, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. Hematologic events during treatment included anemia and neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Ofatumumab is an active, well-tolerated treatment providing clear clinical improvements for fludarabine-refractory patients with very poor-prognosis CLL.