Subsequent primary malignancies among multiple myeloma patients treated with or without lenalidomide.

Risk of subsequent primary malignancies (SPMs) associated with lenalidomide therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, outside the context of melphalan-based therapy is not established. We assessed the risk of SPMs in lenalidomide treated MM patients (n = 1653) at Moffitt Cancer Center (2004-2012) outside the context of melphalan-based induction therapy and post-melphalan maintenance therapy, via (1) cohort analysis and (2) nested case-control study. Incident SPMs (n = 51) were matched to controls (n = 102) on age at MM diagnosis, gender, follow-up time, and date of diagnosis. Incidence of SPM differed significantly (p = 0.0038) between MM patients treated with and without lenalidomide (5-year incidence estimates of 3.2 and 6.2%, respectively), although not significant after adjustment for age and year of diagnosis (HR = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.43-1.57). Lenalidomide treatment was inversely associated with SPM in the nested case-control analysis (OR = 0.03, 95%CI = 0.002-0.34). In this large cohort of MM patients, lenalidomide treatment was not associated with an increased risk of SPM.

Effects of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment duration on survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

BACKGROUND: In two randomized phase III trials (MM-009 and MM-010), lenalidomide plus dexamethasone significantly prolonged time to progression and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with dexamethasone alone. In both trials the treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We conducted a subanalysis to determine if continuing therapy after achieving≥partial response (PR) improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected on 212 patients who were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and achieved≥PR. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared between patients on continued treatment versus patients discontinuing therapy because of adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or other reasons. Time-dependent multivariate regression analyses were used to determine the benefit of continuing treatment with lenalidomide. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients received continued treatment until disease progression or death, and 38 patients discontinued therapy without progression. There was a trend toward longer median OS in patients who continued therapy (50.9 months vs. 35.0 months; P=.0594). When controlling for the number of previous antimyeloma therapies, ß2-microglobulin levels, and Durie-Salmon stage (which adversely affected survival in these patients), continued lenalidomide treatment (HR, 0.137; 95% CI, 0.045-0.417; P=.0005) or each additional cycle of lenalidomide (HR, 0.921; 95% CI, 0.886-0.957; P<.0001) were both associated with longer survival. CONCLUSION: Continued lenalidomide treatment until disease progression after achievement of ≥PR is associated with a significant survival advantage when controlling for patient characteristics. These findings should be confirmed in a prospectively designed trial.

The efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma patients with impaired renal function.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multiple myeloma, renal impairment (RI) at the time of diagnosis is associated with poor survival. To the authors' knowledge, the current retrospective analysis presented is the first to assess the impact of various degrees of renal dysfunction on safety and efficacy outcomes in a large cohort of patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who received treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-three patients from 2 large phase 3 trials were randomized to receive lenalidomide (25 mg) plus dexamethasone (40 mg). For the purpose of this analysis, RI was defined according to the calculated creatinine clearance (CLCr) level as follows: mild or no RI (CLCr>or=60 mL/minute), moderate RI (CLCr from >or=30 mL/minute to <60 mL/minute), and severe RI (CLCr<30 mL/minute). RESULTS: The RI subgroups did not differ significantly in terms of the overall response rate (range, 50%-64%) or response quality (very good partial response or better, 27%-37%). In all RI subgroups, the time to progression and progression-free survival did not differ significantly compared with the mild or no RI group. Patients with RI experienced an increased incidence of thrombocytopenia, required more frequent lenalidomide dose reduction or interruption, and had shorter overall survival than patients with mild or no RI (P=.006). Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone led to improvement in renal function in the majority of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicated that, with careful monitoring of the CLCr level and adverse events as well as appropriate dose adjustments, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have RI.

Better quality of response to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective pooled analysis of two phase III trials (MM-009/MM-010) compared clinical outcomes of patients who achieved a complete response or very good partial response to treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone with the outcomes of those who only achieved a partial response. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n=353) received lenalidomide (25 mg/day for 21 days of each 28-day cycle) plus dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 for four cycles, and only on days 1-4 after the first four cycles). Time to response, duration of response, time-to-progression, overall survival, and adverse events were investigated for patients who had a complete or very good partial response and compared with those of patients who had a partial response. RESULTS: At the time of unblinding, 32% of patients had achieved a complete or very good partial response and 28% had a partial response. Half (50.5%) of the patients who had a partial response as their initial response achieved a complete or very good partial response with further treatment. The probability of achieving a complete or very good partial response with continued lenalidomide treatment decreased with delayed achievement of a partial response (by cycle 4 versus later); however, it remained clinically significant. With an extended follow-up of 48 months, the median response duration, time-to-progression, and overall survival were longer in patients with a complete or very good partial response than in those with a partial response (24.0 versus 8.3 months, P<0.001; 27.7 versus 12.0 months, P<0.001; not reached versus 44.2 months, P=0.021, respectively). The benefit of a complete or very good partial response was independent of when it was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone to achieve best response, in the absence of disease progression and toxicity, provided deeper remissions and greater clinical benefit over time for patients in this study.

Safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM); however, toxicities from dexamethasone can be dose limiting. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Patients (N = 222) received lenalidomide 30 mg/day once daily (days 1-21 every 28 days) until disease progression or intolerance. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed. Overall, 67% of patients had received 3 or more prior treatment regimens. Partial response or better was reported in 26% of patients, with minimal response 18%. There was no difference between patients who had received 2 or fewer versus 3 or more prior treatment regimens (45% vs 44%, respectively). Median values for TTP, PFS, and OS were 5.2, 4.9, and 23.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (39%), and anemia (20%), which proved manageable with dose reduction. Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients. Lenalidomide monotherapy is active in relapsed and refractory MM with acceptable toxicities. These data support treatment with single-agent lenalidomide, as well as its use in steroid-sparing combination approaches. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00065351.

Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone at first relapse in comparison with its use as later salvage therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

This subset analysis of data from two phase III studies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) evaluated the benefit of initiating lenalidomide plus dexamethasone at first relapse. Multivariate analysis showed that fewer prior therapies, along with beta(2)-microglobulin (< or = 2.5 mg/L), predicted a better time to progression (TTP; study end-point) with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone treatment. Patients with one prior therapy showed a significant improvement in benefit after first relapse compared with those who received two or more therapies. Patients with one prior therapy had significantly prolonged median TTP (17.1 vs. 10.6 months; P = 0.026) and progression-free survival (14.1 vs. 9.5 months, P = 0.047) compared with patients treated in later lines. Overall response rates were higher (66.9% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.06), and the complete response plus very good partial response rate was significantly higher in first relapse (39.8% vs. 27.7%, P = 0.025). Importantly, overall survival was significantly prolonged for patients treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone with one prior therapy, compared with patients treated later in salvage (median of 42.0 vs. 35.8 months, P = 0.041), with no differences in toxicity, dose reductions, or discontinuations despite longer treatment. Therefore, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is both effective and tolerable for second-line MM therapy and the data suggest that the greatest benefit occurs with earlier use.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior thalidomide exposure.

This analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with thalidomide. Of 704 patients, 39% were thalidomide exposed. Thalidomide-exposed patients had more prior lines of therapy and longer duration of myeloma than thalidomide-naive patients. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone led to higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + dexamethasone despite prior thalidomide exposure. Among lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients, ORR was higher in thalidomide-naive versus thalidomide-exposed patients (P = .04), with longer median TTP (P = .04) and PFS (P = .02). Likewise for dexamethasone alone-treated patients (P = .03 for ORR, P = .03 for TTP, P = .06 for PFS). Prior thalidomide did not affect survival in lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients (36.1 vs 33.3 months, P > .05). Thalidomide-naive and thalidomide-exposed patients had similar toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone resulted in higher rates of venous thromboembolism, myelosuppression, and infections versus placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Lenalido-mide + dexamethasone was superior to placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Although prior thalidomide may have contributed to inferior TTP and PFS compared with thalidomide-naive patients, these parameters remained superior compared with placebo + dexamethasone; similar benefits compared with placebo + dexamethasone were not evident for thalidomide-exposed patients in terms of overall survival. Studies were registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00056160 and NCT00424047.

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: The long-term impact of thalidomide plus dexamethasone (thal/dex) as primary therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown. The goal of this study was to compare thalidomide plus dexamethasone versus placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo/dex)as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with untreated symptomatic MM were randomized to thal/dex (arm A) or to placebo plus dexamethasone (dex) (arm B). Patients in arm A received oral thalidomide 50 mg daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2 (28-day cycles). Oral dex 40 mg was administered on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 during cycles 1 through 4 and on days 1 through 4 only from cycle 5 onwards. Patients in arm B received placebo and dex, administered as in arm A. The primary end point of the study was time to progression. This study is registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00057564). RESULTS: A total of 470 patients were enrolled (235 randomly assigned to thal/dex and 235 to placebo/dex). The overall response rate was significantly higher with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (63% v 46%), P < .001. Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (median, 22.6 v 6.5 months, P < .001). Grade 4 adverse events were more frequent with thal/dex than with placebo/dex (30.3% v 22.8%). CONCLUSION: Thal/dex results in significantly higher response rates and significantly prolongs TTP compared with dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide is a structural analogue of thalidomide with similar but more potent biologic activity. This phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: Of 351 patients who had received at least one previous antimyeloma therapy, 176 were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of oral lenalidomide and 175 to receive placebo on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, all patients received 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 for the first four cycles and subsequently, after the fourth cycle, only on days 1 to 4. Patients continued in the study until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was time to progression. RESULTS: The time to progression was significantly longer in the patients who received lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (lenalidomide group) than in those who received placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo group) (median, 11.3 months vs. 4.7 months; P<0.001). A complete or partial response occurred in 106 patients in the lenalidomide group (60.2%) and in 42 patients in the placebo group (24.0%, P<0.001), with a complete response in 15.9% and 3.4% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in the lenalidomide group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; P=0.03). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients in the lenalidomide group were neutropenia (29.5%, vs. 2.3% in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs. 5.7%), and venous thromboembolism (11.4% vs. 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than high-dose dexamethasone alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00424047 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide, an oral immunomodulatory drug that is similar to thalidomide but has a different safety profile, has clinical activity in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: Patients in the United States and Canada who had received at least one previous therapy for multiple myeloma but who required additional treatment were randomly assigned to receive either 25 mg of lenalidomide or placebo on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. Both groups also received 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 for the first four cycles. After the fourth cycle, 40 mg of dexamethasone was administered only on days 1 to 4. Safety, clinical response, time to progression, and overall survival were assessed. RESULTS: We assigned 177 patients to the lenalidomide group and 176 to the placebo group. Complete, near-complete, or partial responses occurred in 108 patients (61.0%) in the lenalidomide group and in 35 patients (19.9%) in the placebo group (P<0.001); complete responses occurred in 14.1% and 0.6%, respectively (P<0.001). The median time to progression was 11.1 months in the lenalidomide group and 4.7 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Median overall survival times in the two groups were 29.6 months and 20.2 months, respectively (P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 85.3% of the lenalidomide group and in 73.1% of the placebo group; these events resulted in study discontinuation in 19.8% and 10.2%, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and venous thromboembolism were more common in the lenalidomide group than in the placebo group (41.2% vs. 4.6% and 14.7% vs. 3.4%, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is superior to placebo plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00056160 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

A randomized phase 2 study of lenalidomide therapy for patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study evaluated 2 dose regimens of lenalidomide for relapsed, refractory myeloma. Seventy patients were randomized to receive either 30 mg once-daily or 15 mg twice-daily oral lenalidomide for 21 days of every 28-day cycle. Patients with progressive or stable disease after 2 cycles received dexamethasone. Analysis of the first 70 patients showed increased grade 3/4 myelo-suppression in patients receiving 15 mg twice daily (41% versus 13%, P = .03). An additional 32 patients received 30 mg once daily. Responses were evaluated according to European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. Overall response rate (complete, partial, or minor) to lenalidomide alone was 25% (24% for once-daily and 29% for twice-daily lenalidomide). Median overall survival in 30-mg once-daily and twice-daily groups was 28 and 27 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.7 months on once-daily versus 3.9 months on twice-daily lenalidomide (P = .2). Dexamethasone was added in 68 patients and 29% responded. Time to first occurrence of clinically significant grade 3/4 myelosuppression was shorter in the twice-daily group (1.8 vs 5.5 months, P = .05). Significant peripheral neuropathy and deep vein thrombosis each occurred in only 3%. Lenalidomide is active and well tolerated in relapsed, refractory myeloma, with the 30-mg once-daily regimen providing the basis for future studies as monotherapy and with dexamethasone.