Lenalidomide in the treatment of anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein neuropathy: A phase 1 study to identify the maximum tolerated dose.

BACKGROUND: Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) neuropathy is a debilitating demyelinating polyneuropathy with no approved therapies. Our primary objective was to ascertain lenalidomide safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in anti-MAG neuropathy. METHODS: This phase 1b, open-label, single-arm, dose-finding trial was conducted from 2019 through 2022. The original design included a dose-escalation/extension phase followed by a dose-expansion phase. Three doses of lenalidomide were evaluated: 10, 15, and 25 mg. The main outcome was the MTD. RESULTS: Eleven patients enrolled (10 men), with a mean age of 67.6 years (SD = 6.18, range 58-77 years) and mean disease duration of 8.5 years (SD = 10.9, range 1-40 years). The study terminated early due to higher-than-expected non-dose-limiting toxicity venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. The calculated MTD was 25 mg (posterior mean of toxicity probability was 0.01 with a 95% credible interval of 0.00, 0.06), but a recommended phase 2 dose of 15 mg was advised. For secondary exploratory outcomes, only EQ-5D (-0.95, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.09) and total IgM (-162 mg/dL, 95% CI -298 to -26) showed signs of improvement by month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide was associated with higher-than-expected VTE events in anti-MAG neuropathy patients, despite a calculated MTD of 25 mg. A recommended phase 2 dose of 15 mg was advised. Lenalidomide did not improve disability or impairment at 12 months, although this study was not powered for efficacy. The risks of long term lenalidomide may outweigh benefit for patients with anti-MAG neuropathy. Any future efficacy study should address VTE risk, as current myeloma guidelines appear inadequate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Lenalidomide in Anti-MAG Neuropathy: Phase 1b Study, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03701711, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03701711. First submitted October 10, 2018. First patient enrolled in January 2019.

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has been approved for use with standard myeloma regimens. An evaluation of subcutaneous daratumumab combined with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for the treatment of transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is needed. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 709 transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to receive either subcutaneous daratumumab combined with VRd induction and consolidation therapy and with lenalidomide maintenance therapy (D-VRd group) or VRd induction and consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy alone (VRd group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, the risk of disease progression or death in the D-VRd group was lower than the risk in the VRd group. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 48 months was 84.3% in the D-VRd group and 67.7% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.59; P<0.001); the P value crossed the prespecified stopping boundary (P = 0.0126). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was higher in the D-VRd group than in the VRd group (87.9% vs. 70.1%, P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status (75.2% vs. 47.5%, P<0.001). Death occurred in 34 patients in the D-VRd group and 44 patients in the VRd group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in most patients in both groups; the most common were neutropenia (62.1% with D-VRd and 51.0% with VRd) and thrombocytopenia (29.1% and 17.3%, respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in 57.0% of the patients in the D-VRd group and 49.3% of those in the VRd group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of subcutaneous daratumumab to VRd induction and consolidation therapy and to lenalidomide maintenance therapy conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival among transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (Funded by the European Myeloma Network in collaboration with Janssen Research and Development; PERSEUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03710603; EudraCT number, 2018-002992-16.).

Phase 1b dose-finding study of rituximab, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib (R2I) in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma that frequently becomes chemoresistant over time. The distinct mechanisms of ibrutinib and lenalidomide provided a judicious rationale to explore the combination with anti-CD20 immunotherapy. In this phase 1b study (NCT02446236), patients (n = 25) with relapsed/refractory MCL received rituximab with escalating doses of lenalidomide (days 1-21) and ibrutinib 560 mg (days 1-28) of 28-day cycles. The MTD for lenalidomide was 20 mg; most common grade ≥3 adverse events were skin rashes (32%) and neutropenic fever (24%). The best ORR was 88%, CR rate was 83%, and median duration of response (DOR) was 36.92 months (95% CI 33.77, 51.37). Responses were seen even in refractory patients or with high-risk features (e.g. blastoid variant, TP53 mutation, Ki-67 > 30%). R2I was safe and tolerable in patients with R/R MCL.

Once Monthly Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Observation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Elotuzumab and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd) is a standard salvage chemotherapy for multiple myeloma, and elotuzumab is commonly administered every 2 weeks after cycle 3 (conventional ERd). Alternatively, elotuzumab may often be used every 4 weeks (monthly ERd) in real-world practice. The purpose of this multicenter observational study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy and tolerability between conventional and monthly ERd regimens for the myeloma patients in six institutes retrospectively. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in this study. The median patient age was 68 years. The median number of prior chemotherapies was two (1-5). The number of patients with prior lenalidomide exposure was 57 (76.0%). The numbers of progressive disease (PD) and non-PD before ERd were 23 (30.7%) and 52 (69.3%), respectively. The frequency of PD before ERd was significantly lower in the monthly ERd group than in the conventional ERd group. In 26.9 months of median follow-up period, the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate in the monthly ERd group was significantly longer than that in the conventional ERd group (95.0% and 62.0%, hazard ratio 0.082, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference in PFS between these two ERd groups was found using multivariate analysis. The complete response rates were similar between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (55.0% and 32.7%, p = 0.109). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the monthly and conventional ERd groups (35.0% and 54.5%, p = 0.192). There was no significant difference in the kinetics of the mean absolute lymphocyte count, CD4, CD8, CD16, CD56, and CD57 positive lymphocyte counts, and CD4 to CD8 ratio between the monthly and conventional ERd groups. DISCUSSION: The efficacy and tolerability of monthly ERd were similar to those of conventional ERd. Thus, monthly ERd might be a reasonable option, considering the quality of life of patients and convenience.

Improved Efficacy of Tafasitamab plus Lenalidomide versus Systemic Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL: RE-MIND2, an Observational Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: In RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), patient-level outcomes from the L-MIND study (NCT02399085) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide were retrospectively compared with patient-level matched observational cohorts treated with National Cancer Care Network (NCCN)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-listed systemic therapies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from health records of eligible patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients from L-MIND were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for nine covariates. The primary analysis compared tafasitamab plus lenalidomide with patients who received any systemic therapy for R/R DLBCL (pooled in one cohort) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) or rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx; as two distinct cohorts). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and time-to-event outcomes. RESULTS: In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Strictly matched pairs of patients consisted of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic therapies pooled (n = 76 pairs), versus BR (n = 75 pairs), and versus R-GemOx (n = 74 pairs). Significantly prolonged OS was reported with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic pooled therapies [hazard ratios (HR): 0.55; P = 0.0068], BR (HR: 0.42; P < 0.0001), and R-GemOx (HR: 0.47; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: RE-MIND2, a retrospective observational study, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating prolonged OS with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus BR and R-GemOx. See related commentary by Cherng and Westin, p. 3908.

Triplet Therapy, Transplantation, and Maintenance until Progression in Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, the effect of adding autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [RVD]), followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy until disease progression, is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, adults (18 to 65 years of age) with symptomatic myeloma received one cycle of RVD. We randomly assigned these patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization, followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Both groups received lenalidomide until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Among 357 patients in the RVD-alone group and 365 in the transplantation group, at a median follow-up of 76.0 months, 328 events of disease progression or death occurred; the risk was 53% higher in the RVD-alone group than in the transplantation group (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 1.91; P<0.001); median progression-free survival was 46.2 months and 67.5 months. The percentage of patients with a partial response or better was 95.0% in the RVD-alone group and 97.5% in the transplantation group (P = 0.55); 42.0% and 46.8%, respectively, had a complete response or better (P = 0.99). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 78.2% and 94.2%, respectively; 5-year survival was 79.2% and 80.7% (hazard ratio for death, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD plus ASCT was associated with longer progression-free survival than RVD alone. No overall survival benefit was observed. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; DETERMINATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01208662.).

Ibrutinib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: Phase I trial results.

Therapeutic strategies that target novel pathways are urgently needed for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Ibrutinib is an oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, which is overexpressed in MM cells. This phase 1 dose-escalation study examined various doses of ibrutinib in combination with standard doses of lenalidomide (25 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg) using a standard 3 + 3 design in RRMM patients. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ibrutinib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Patients (n = 15) had received a median of 4 prior regimens, 53% were triple-class exposed, 33% were penta-exposed, and 54% were lenalidomide-refractory. The MTD of ibrutinib was 840 mg (n = 6) and only 1 dose-limiting toxicity; a grade 3 rash possibly related to ibrutinib was noted. The most common ≥ grade 3 adverse events were rash in 2 (13%), lymphopenia in 2 (13%), leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia all occurring in 3 (20%) patients each. One patient achieved a partial response for an overall response rate of 7%. The clinical benefit rate was 80%. The median time to progression was 3.8 months. Ibrutinib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone appears to be a safe and well-tolerated regimen with reasonable efficacy in heavily pretreated RRMM patients.

Follicular Lymphoma: a Focus on Current and Emerging Therapies

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent lymphoma and is characterized by a relapsing and remitting course. In addition to significant biologic heterogeneity, the clinical trajectory for patients is variable, with some being observed for many years, and others having aggressive disease requiring multiple treatment courses. Unfortunately, FL remains incurable, and continues to cause early mortality. Improved understanding of the genetic and immune biology of FL has led to several FDA-approved therapies in the relapsed and refractory setting, including PI3K inhibitors; immunomodulatory agents; the EZH2 inhibitor, tazemetostat; and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel. This review outlines the current approach to the diagnosis and treatment of FL with a focus on emerging investigational therapies, including targeted protein inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and novel combination strategies.

Evaluation of the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the new frailty-based outcome prediction model (Myeloma Risk Profile-MRP) in a UK real-world cohort of elderly newly diagnosed Myeloma patients.

The management of myeloma in the elderly is shifting its focus towards reducing the risk of under-treating fit patients and the risk of over-treating frail patients. Frailty assessment is required in this patient group in order to individualise treatment decisions. In addition to the proven prognostic values of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score and the revised Myeloma Co-morbidity Index (R-MCI), a new easy-to-use frailty-based risk profile score (high-risk (i.e. frail), medium risk (i.e. intermediate-fitness) and low-risk (i.e. fit)) named Myeloma Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to be predictive of survival in the clinical trial setting. In this retrospective real-world study, we set out to evaluate the frailty characteristics and clinical outcomes according to the different MRP scoring algorithm categories (frail vs. intermediate vs fit), in a high risk cohort of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with the fixed-duration triplet therapy VCD (bortezomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone). Clinical outcomes included: reason for treatment discontinuation, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Out of 100 patients, 62 were frail, 27 were intermediate and 11 were fit, according to MRP scores. To enable meaningful comparisons between comparable numbers, subgroups analyses for ORR, OS, PFS, and AEs focused on frail (n = 62) versus intermediate or fit (n = 38) patients. The proportion of patients in each subgroup who were able to complete the planned course of treatment was (frail: 43.5% vs. intermediate or fit: 55.3%). A higher proportion in the frail subgroup discontinued therapy due to progressive disease (19.4% vs. 2.6%). Discontinuation due to toxicity was comparable across subgroups (14.5% vs. 15.8%), ORR in the total cohort was 75%, and this was comparable between subgroups (frail: 74.2% vs. intermediate or fit: 76.3%). There was a trend for a shorter median OS in the frail subgroup but without a statistical significance: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (46 months vs. not reached, HR: 1.94, 95% CI 0.89-4.2, p = 0.094). There was no difference in median PFS between subgroups: (frail vs. intermediate or fit): (11.8 vs. 9.9 months, HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.61-1.61, P = 0.982). This cohort demonstrated a higher incidence rate of AEs in frail patients compared to those in the intermediate or fit group: patients with at least one any grade toxicity (85.5% vs. 71.1%), patients with at least one ≥G3 AE (37.1% vs. 21.1%). In conclusion, our study is to the first to evaluate clinical outcomes according to MRP in a high risk real-world cohort of patients treated exclusively with the proteasome inhibitor-based VCD therapy. Our study demonstrated a trend for worse OS in addition to worse AE outcomes in the frail group, but no difference in PFS with this fixed-duration therapy. MRP is an easy-to-use tool in clinical practice; its prognostic value was validated in the real-world in a large cohort of patients from the Danish Registry. Further evaluation of MRP in the real-world when continuous therapies are used, can further support the generalisability of its prognostic value in elderly myeloma patients.

A 65-Year-Old Man With Weight Loss, Peripheral Neuropathy, and Lower Extremity Swelling.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 65-year-old man with no past medical history sought treatment at the hospital with lower extremity swelling, pain, tingling in a stocking-glove distribution, and syncope. He reported a 23-pound unintentional weight loss. He felt unsteady walking with a couple of falls, and his exercise tolerance was limited to several hundred feet. He did not report vision changes, dysphagia, bowel or bladder problems, tremor, orthopnea, lightheadedness, or chest pain. He did not report any history of substance misuse, high-risk sexual behavior, or concerning exposures. The patient was admitted for further workup.

Oral ixazomib-dexamethasone vs oral pomalidomide-dexamethasone for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed multiple myeloma: a randomized Phase 2 trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) patients typically receive several lines of combination therapy and first-line treatment commonly includes lenalidomide. As patients age, they become less tolerant to treatment, requiring convenient/tolerable/lenalidomide-free options. Carfilzomib and/or bortezomib-exposed/intolerant, lenalidomide-refractory MM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib-dexamethasone (ixa-dex) (n = 73) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (pom-dex) (n = 49) until progression/toxicity. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 months with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (HR 0.847, 95% CI 0.535-1.341, P = 0.477; median follow-up: 15.3 vs 17.3 months); there was no statistically significant difference between arms. In patients with 2 and ≥3 prior lines of therapy, respectively, mPFS was 11.0 vs 5.7 months (HR 1.083, 95% CI 0.547-2.144) and 5.7 vs 3.7 months (HR 0.686, 95% CI 0.368-1.279). Among ixa-dex vs pom-dex patients, 69% vs 81% had Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), 51% vs 53% had serious TEAEs, 39% vs 36% had TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had TEAEs leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Quality of life was similar between arms and maintained during treatment. Ixa-dex represents an important lenalidomide-free, oral option for this heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed population.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03170882.

Pre-treatment health-related quality of life parameters have prognostic impact in patients >65 years with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma: The Nordic Lymphoma Group MCL4 (LENA-BERIT) experience.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, often aggressive type of B-cell lymphoma with poor survival and no cure. Cancer and cancer treatment has a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) both during active disease and in the long term, and improvement of HRQOL is a crucial objective of cancer therapy in older patients and no curative intent. Baseline HRQOL has in other lymphoma populations been shown to be predictive of outcome. Here, we explored HRQOL, and its association with survival, by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, before, during and after chemotherapy in a patient cohort with MCL, treated within the NLG-MCL4 trial, designed to evaluate the addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to rituximab-bendamustine (R-B) as first-line treatment. Fifty-one patients were enrolled, median age was 71 years (range 62-84), 37 were men (73%). Pre-treatment HRQOL was similar to scores from the reference population with healthy individuals. During treatment, HRQOL deteriorated, but reverted to the same level as the reference population after treatment. There was a correlation between physical function (p = 0.001) and role function (p = 0.006) at baseline and WHO performance status, but not with other clinical or genetic prognostic factors. None of the baseline factors were predictive for treatment related to HRQOL in this cohort. Pre-treatment physical (p = 0.011) and role function (p = 0.032) were independent factors associated with overall survival, and physical function (p = 0.002) was also associated with progression free survival. These findings may possibly be used to design support during treatment and improve rehabilitation. Further investigations are needed for assessment of long-term HRQOL.

A randomized phase 3 study of ixazomib-dexamethasone versus physician's choice in relapsed or refractory AL amyloidosis.

In the first phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis (TOURMALINE-AL1 NCT01659658), 168 patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis after 1-2 prior lines were randomized to ixazomib (4 mg, days 1, 8, 15) plus dexamethasone (20 mg, days 1, 8, 15, 22; n = 85) or physician's choice (dexamethasone ± melphalan, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, or lenalidomide; n = 83) in 28-day cycles until progression or toxicity. Primary endpoints were hematologic response rate and 2-year vital organ deterioration or mortality rate. Only the first primary endpoint was formally tested at this interim analysis. Best hematologic response rate was 53% with ixazomib-dexamethasone vs 51% with physician's choice (p = 0.76). Complete response rate was 26 vs 18% (p = 0.22). Median time to vital organ deterioration or mortality was 34.8 vs 26.1 months (hazard ratio 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.87; p = 0.01). Median treatment duration was 11.7 vs 5.0 months. Adverse events of clinical importance included diarrhea (34 vs 30%), rash (33 vs 20%), cardiac arrhythmias (26 vs 15%), nausea (24 vs 14%). Despite not meeting the first primary endpoint, all time-to-event data favored ixazomib-dexamethasone. These results are clinically relevant to this relapsed/refractory patient population with no approved treatment options.

Prognostic impact of resistance to bortezomib and/or lenalidomide in carfilzomib-based therapies for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: The Kyoto Clinical Hematology Study Group, multicenter, pilot, prospective, observational study in Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: Combinatory strategies with carfilzomib (CFZ), a second-generation proteasome inhibitor, plus dexamethasone (DEX) with or without lenalidomide (LEN) have shown promising efficacy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in pivotal clinical trials. However, their effects on patients who were resistance to bortezomib (BTZ) and/or LEN have not been fully evaluated in a daily practice setting. AIMS: To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of CFZ-based treatments; that is, CFZ with LEN plus DEX (KRD therapy) and CFZ with DEX (KD therapy), in Asian patients, we conducted a multicenter pilot prospective observational study in the Kyoto Clinical Hematology Study Group. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 50 patients with RRMM enrolled in this study were treated with CFZ-based treatments between 2017 and 2019. KRD and KD were administered to 31 and 19 patients, respectively. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 80.6% with KRD and 73.7% with KD. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 58.5% and 79.7% with KRD, and 23.1% and 52.6% with KD. By multivariate analysis, refractoriness to BTZ and to LEN were identified as independent unfavorable factors for both PFS and OS. The common non-hematologic AEs included hypertension (42.0%), fever (24.0%), fatigue (24.0%), and infection (16.0%). No serious heart failure was observed. This study is registered as UMIN000025108. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the need of the development of novel CFZ-containing strategy which can overcome the refractoriness to BTZ and/or LEN, while both KRD and KD were shown to be mostly feasible in Asian patients in a daily practice setting.

Comparison of venous thromboembolism incidence in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD) or carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) with aspirin or rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies across different regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Limited data exist on the use of direct oral anticoagulants as thromboprophylaxis in the setting of haematologic malignancies, specifically multiple myeloma. In this retrospective study of 305 NDMM patients, VTE rates in those treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) + aspirin (ASA), bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD) + ASA, and KRD + rivaroxaban were statistically significant, 16·1%, 4·8%, and 4·8%, respectively. The findings confirm a higher incidence of VTE when using KRD induction compared to RVD induction and reveal that the use of low-dose rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis can mitigate this risk without an observable increase in bleeding rates.

Sequencing of Novel Therapies for Mantle Cell Lymphoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: There is no standard approach to sequencing novel therapies in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). For initial treatment, intensive induction chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance remains our preferred approach in young, fit patients. We consider bendamustine plus rituximab or lenalidomide plus rituximab in patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy-based approaches. Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors are our preferred class of agents to use in the second-line setting. When patients inevitably relapse on one of these agents, we proceed with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy in eligible patients, often with the use of bridging therapy with corticosteroids, lenalidomide, or venetoclax. We treat patients who are ineligible for CAR T or clinic trial with venetoclax, lenalidomide, or proteosome inhibitor-based regimens, although efficacy is expected to be limited in this setting with a shortened duration of response to each subsequent line of therapy. Allogeneic stem cell transplant remains an option for carefully selected patients who progress after autologous stem cell transplant and CAR T. Clinical trials involving combinations of novel agents in early lines of therapy are ongoing, and new compounds with unique mechanisms of action are in development. The results of ongoing clinical trials with novel agents will further change the treatment landscape for patients with MCL in the coming years.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. FUNDING: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone followed by tandem- autologous stem cell transplantation is an effective treatment modality for multi-hit multiple myeloma.

In order to investigate the efficacy of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (VRD) induction chemotherapy regimen combined with tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in treating multi-hit multiple myeloma (MM), we analyzed 252 cases of newly diagnosed MM treated with the bortezomib-containing induction chemotherapy from June 2016 to June 2019. According to the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results on diagnosis, the patients were divided into multi-hit MM group (47 cases), single-hit MM group (81 cases), and standard-risk group (124 cases). Our analysis showed that R-ISS stageⅢ in transplantation group and R-ISS stageⅢ, multi-hit and VGPR or above was not achieved at the fourth cycle of chemotherapy in non-transplantation group were independent factors for poor prognosis by univariate and multivariate analyses. Moreover, the overall response rate (ORR) of VRD induction chemotherapy group was significantly higher than that of the non-VRD group in the single-hit and multi-hit groups (P = 0.021, P = 0.032); In terms of ASCT, tandem-ASCT can significantly improve the 2-year PFS (77.8 ± 3.9 %) and OS (83.3 ± 5.6 %) of multi-hit MM (P = 0.024, P = 0.037), while single-ASCT only has a limited effect on PFS (61.5 ± 3.0 %) and OS (71.9 ± 4.5 %) (P = 0.115, P = 0.155).

Consolidation and Maintenance in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: To address the role of consolidation treatment for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma in a controlled clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EMN02/HOVON95 trial compared consolidation treatment with two cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) or no consolidation after induction and intensification therapy, followed by continuous lenalidomide maintenance. Primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-eight eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive VRD consolidation (451 patients) or no consolidation (427 patients). At a median follow-up of 74.8 months, median PFS with adjustment for pretreatment was prolonged in patients randomly assigned to VRD consolidation (59.3 v 42.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96; P = .016). The PFS benefit was observed across most predefined subgroups, including revised International Staging System (ISS) stage, cytogenetics, and prior treatment. Revised ISS3 stage (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) and ampl1q (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.04) were significant adverse prognostic factors. The median duration of maintenance was 33 months (interquartile range 13-86 months). Response ≥ complete response (CR) after consolidation versus no consolidation before start of maintenance was 34% versus 18%, respectively (P < .001). Response ≥ CR on protocol including maintenance was 59% with consolidation and 46% without (P < .001). Minimal residual disease analysis by flow cytometry in a subgroup of 226 patients with CR or stringent complete response or very good partial response before start of maintenance demonstrated a 74% minimal residual disease-negativity rate in VRD-treated patients. Toxicity from VRD was acceptable and manageable. CONCLUSION: Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS and depth of response in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma as compared to maintenance alone.

Rituximab-Lenalidomide-Ibrutinib Combination for Relapsed/Refractory Primary CNS Lymphoma: A Case Series of the LOC Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of the association rituximab-lenalidomide-ibrutinib (R2I) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL). METHODS: R/R PCNSL patients treated with R2I were retrospectively selected and analyzed from the French LOC database. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (median age: 63 years, median Karnofsky Performance Status: 75%) received R2I, administered after a median of 2 previous lines of chemotherapy, including autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 5 cases. The best response was complete response in 4/14 patients and partial response in 4/14 patients, achieved in a median of 2.5 months. Three responder patients received consolidation treatment (WBRT: N = 2, ASCT: N = 1) after R2I, and R2I served as a bridge before CAR-T cell therapy for one patient. R2I was discontinued due to toxicity in 3/14 patients. There were no toxicity-related deaths. DISCUSSION: The R2I combination resulted in a high rate of response of rapid-onset in heavily pretreated patients with poor prognosis, with manageable toxicity, and allowed 3 patients to proceed to consolidation. Although preliminary, these results support the use of R2I for R/R PCNSL failing conventional chemotherapies. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that combination of rituximab-lenalidomide-ibrutinib induces a high rate of response in heavily pretreated R/R PCNSL.