Lenalidomide-based triplet regimens in first relapsed multiple myeloma patients: real-world evidence from a propensity score matched analysis.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based triplets, in particular carfilzomib-Rd (KRd) and daratumumab-Rd (DaraRd), represent a standard of care in lenalidomide-sensitive multiple myeloma (MM) patients in first relapse. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT), suggested better outcome with DaraRd. Trying to address this issue in clinical practice, we collected data of 430 consecutive MM patients addressed to Rd-based triplets in first relapse between January 2017 and March 2021. Overall, the most common used regimen was DaraRd, chosen in almost half of the cases (54.4%), followed by KRd (34.6%). Different triplets were used much less commonly. In an attempt to limit the imbalance of a retrospective analysis, we conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between DaraRd and KRd. After PSM, efficacy of DaraRd versus KRd was similar in terms of overall-response rate (ORR) (OR: 0.9, P=0.685) as well as of very good partial response (VGPR) or better (OR: 0.9, P=0.582). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for DaraRd (29.8 vs. 22.5 months; P=0.028). DaraRd was tolerated better, registering a lower rate of grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity (OR: 0.4, P<0.001). With the limitations of any retrospective analysis, our real-life PSM comparison between DaraRd and KRd, in first-relapse MM patients, showed better tolerability and prolonged PFS of DaraRd, although with some gaps of performance, in particular of DaraRd, with respect to RCT. Carfilzomib-containing regimens, like KRd, still remain a valid second-line option in the emerging scenario of first-line daratumumab-based therapy.

Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone versus lenalidomide, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients at first relapse.

Bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens are well-established therapies in multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite their extensive use, head-to-head comparisons have never been performed. Therefore, we compared bortezomib and lenalidomide in fixed-duration therapies. In this open-label, phase III study, we randomized MM patients at first relapse to receive either nine cycles of bortezomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (VCD) or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (RCD). The primary endpoint was achievement of a very good partial response (VGPR) or better at six weeks after nine treatment cycles. From March 2011 to February 2015, 155 patients were randomized. VGPR or better was achieved by 12 patients (15%) in the VCD arm and 14 patients (18%) in the RCD arm (P = 0·70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16·3 (95% CI: 12·1-22·4) with VCD and 18·6 months (95% CI: 14·7-25·5) with RCD, and the two-year overall survival (OS) was 75% (95% CI: 66-86%) and 74% (95% CI: 64-85%) respectively. In subgroup analyses, no differences in PFS were observed in bortezomib- and lenalidomide-naïve patients, nor in patients who received a bortezomib-based regimen in first line. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profiles of both drugs. Bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments were equally effective in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS in MM patients at first relapse.

Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial.

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: This open-label, randomized, phase 3 study compared melphalan at a dose of 200 mg per square meter of body-surface area plus autologous stem-cell transplantation with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) and compared lenalidomide maintenance therapy with no maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 273 patients 65 years of age or younger to high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation or MPR consolidation therapy after induction, and 251 patients to lenalidomide maintenance therapy or no maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 51.2 months. Both progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation than with MPR (median progression-free survival, 43.0 months vs. 22.4 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.61; P<0.001; and 4-year overall survival, 81.6% vs. 65.3%; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.93; P=0.02). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (41.9 months vs. 21.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.65; P<0.001), but 3-year overall survival was not significantly prolonged (88.0% vs. 79.2%; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.15; P=0.14). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly more frequent with high-dose melphalan than with MPR (94.3% vs. 51.5%), as were gastrointestinal adverse events (18.4% vs. 0%) and infections (16.3% vs. 0.8%); neutropenia and dermatologic toxic effects were more frequent with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (23.3% vs. 0% and 4.3% vs. 0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation therapy with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation, as compared with MPR, significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among patients with multiple myeloma who were 65 years of age or younger. Lenalidomide maintenance, as compared with no maintenance, significantly prolonged progression-free survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00551928.).

Bortezomib induction, reduced-intensity transplantation, and lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance for myeloma: updated results.

A sequential approach including bortezomib induction, intermediate-dose melphalan, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), followed by lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance, has been evaluated. Efficacy and safety data have been analyzed on intention-to-treat and results updated. Newly diagnosed myeloma patients 65 to 75 years of age (n = 102) received 4 cycles of bortezomib-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-dexamethasone, tandem melphalan (100 mg/m(2)) followed by ASCT (MEL100-ASCT), 4 cycles of lenalidomide-prednisone consolidation (LP), and lenalidomide maintenance (L) until disease progression. The complete response (CR) rate was 33% after MEL100-ASCT, 48% after LP and 53% after L maintenance. After a median follow-up of 66 months, median time-to-progression (TTP) was 55 months and median progression-free survival 48 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, 5-year OS was 63%. In CR patients, median TTP was 70 months and 5-year OS was 83%. Median survival from relapse was 28 months. Death related to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 8/102 patients during induction or transplantation. Rate of death related to AEs was higher in patients ≥70 years compared with younger (5/26 vs 3/76, P = .024). Bortezomib-induction followed by ASCT and lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance is a valuable option for elderly myeloma patients, with the greatest benefit in those younger than 70 years of age.

Aspirin or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) but is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This prospective, open-label, randomized substudy of a phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with low-dose aspirin (ASA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with newly diagnosed MM, treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone induction and melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide consolidation. Overall, 342 patients who did not have clinical indications or contraindications to antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA 100 mg/d (n = 176) or LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg/d (n = 166). The incidence of VTE was 2.27% in the ASA group and 1.20% in the LMWH group. Compared with LMWH, the absolute difference in the proportion of VTE was 1.07% (95% confidence interval, -1.69-3.83; P = .452) in the ASA group. Pulmonary embolism was observed in 1.70% of patients in the ASA group and none in the LMWH group. No arterial thrombosis, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths were reported. No major hemorrhagic complications were reported. In previously untreated patients with MM receiving lenalidomide with a low thromboembolic risk, ASA could be an effective and less-expensive alternative to LMWH thromboprophylaxis.

Anti-BCMA CAR-T cell-based therapies and bispecific antibodies in the immunotherapy era: are we ready for this?

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic strategies against multiple myeloma (MM) have evolved dramatically in recent decades, with unprecedent results in the treatment landscape, culminating in the recent incorporation of novel agents in the anti-myeloma armamentarium. AREAS COVERED: BCMA represents one of the most promising targets in MM and currently available immune approaches, either approved or under active investigation, are clearly showing their greater potential over standard regimens. In this context, immunotherapies based on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-engineered T-cells and bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have taken center stage, being the ones that are yielding the most promising results in clinical trials. This review focuses on the current landscape of BsAbs and CAR-T, summarizing the latest advances and possible future developments. EXPERT OPINION: CAR-T and BsAbs anti-BCMA strategies represent breakthrough therapies against MM. However, their inclusion in clinical practice is almost feared, due to the associated limitations, some of which have been addressed here. Meanwhile, all the efforts should be focused on individualizing and choosing the most suitable candidates for each treatment and to understand how to combine, or sequence, these therapies to improve efficacy and minimize toxicity, especially for those patients with limited available treatment options.

Safety of thalidomide in newly diagnosed elderly myeloma patients: a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in six randomized trials.

Treatment with melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide improves the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma and is now considered a standard of care for patients not eligible for transplantation. However, this treatment is a major source of morbidity. A meta-analysis of data from individual patients (n=1680) in six randomized trials was performed, comparing the effects of melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide versus melphalan-prednisone. The main objective was to estimate the risk of serious adverse events and their impact on outcome. The primary endpoints were the 2-year cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities. At least 75% of the grade 3-4 toxicities occurred during the first 6 months of treatment in both treatment groups. The cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities was higher in the melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide group than in the melphalan-prednisone group (28% versus 22%; HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) as was the cumulative incidence of non-hematologic toxicities (39% versus 17%, HR 2.78, 95% CI 2.21-3.50). Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities were significantly increased in patients with poor Performance Status. Occurrence of grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities had a negative impact on both progression-free survival (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.45) and overall survival, (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.47). Besides toxicities, progression-free and overall survival were also negatively affected by advanced International Staging System stage, high creatinine levels and poor Performance Status. Age had a negative impact on survival as well. Although melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide improved outcome, it increased toxicities, especially non-hematologic ones. Serious non-hematologic toxicities, older age, poor Performance Status, and high creatinine levels negatively affected survival.

Continuous therapy in standard- and high-risk newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adapted therapy is a common strategy in curable hematologic malignancies: standard-risk patients receive less intensive treatment, whereas high-risk patients require a more intensive approach. This model cannot be applied in multiple myeloma (MM), which is still incurable. Continuous treatment (CT) is a key strategy for MM treatment, since it improves duration of remission. However, the role of CT according to standard- or high-risk baseline prognosis remains an open question. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials (GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and RV-MM-PI-209) that randomized patients to CT vs fixed-duration therapy (FDT). RESULTS: In the overall patient population (n = 550), CT improved progression-free survival1 (PFS1) (HR 0.54), PFS2 (HR 0.61) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.71) vs FDT. CT improved PFS1 both in R-ISS I (HR 0.49) and R-ISS II/III patients (HR 0.55). Four-year PFS1 was 38% in R-ISS II/III patients receiving CT and 25% in R-ISS I patients receiving FDT, with similar trends for PFS2 and OS. High-risk patients benefited more from proteasome-inhibitor plus immunomodulatory-based CT than immunomodulatory alone. CONCLUSION: Good prognosis patients receiving FDT lose their prognostic advantage over high-risk patients receiving CT and high-risk patients may benefit from more intensive maintenance including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators.

Implemented myeloma management with whole-body low-dose CT scan: a real life experience.

A total of 318 consecutive myeloma patients underwent whole-body low-dose CT scan (WBLDCT) at baseline and during follow-up as a radiological assessment of lytic lesions in place of skeletal X-ray survey. After WBLDCT baseline assessment, 60% had bone involvement. The presence of lytic lesions represented the only met CRAB (hyperCalcaemia, Renal insufficiency, Anaemia, Bone lesions) criteria in 29% of patients. Patients presenting with extramedullary masses were 10%. Radiological progression was documented in 9% of the population with available follow-up. Additional pathological incidental findings were detected in 28 patients (14.5%), most located in the chest region (68%). In conclusion, our real-life data shows that WBLDCT scan represents a reliable imaging tool for decision-making process for multiple myeloma management in different disease phases, providing significant additional information on the presence of soft tissues plasmacytomas detection as well as the presence of pathological incidental findings.

Peripheral blood lymphocyte/monocyte ratio predicts outcome in follicular lymphoma and in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in the rituximab era.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is an aggressive lymphoma and a large number of studies have therefore focused on the search for prognostic factors. The same interest concerns FL, for which identification of patients candidates for watch and wait (W&W) strategy is still an option. Studies about the number and type of lymphocytes and monocytes detectable in patients with Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas indicate they might affect the pathogenesis and prognosis of these diseases. LMR is recently under investigation as a new prognostic parameter in DLBCL; the role of this ratio in FL in the rituximab era is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 137 DLBCL and 132 FL patients referred to our institution; among FL pts, a W&W approach was performed at diagnosis for 42 patients. The remaining patients were treated with rituximab-containing therapy. We analyzed different LMR cutoff values at diagnosis and we wanted to investigate the prognostic effect among DLBCL and FL. RESULTS: We found that the most discriminative LMR was 2.4 for DLBCL and 2 for FL. Among DLBCL patients, an LMR value < 2.4 was associated with a worse 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), and we observed no difference in overall survival and complete response rate. Considering FL patients, LMR > 2 was associated with a longer time to treatment start compared with the LMR < 2 group (P = .0096). Among the 92 patients treated with rituximab chemotherapy, 2-year PFS was superior in the LMR > 2 group. CONCLUSION: LMR at diagnosis is a simple tool to better define long-term outcome of DLBCL and FL patients. The use of this tool might better define selection in FL of ideal candidates for W&W strategy.

Continuous Therapy Versus Fixed Duration of Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Continuous therapy (CT) prolongs progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death), but chemotherapy-resistant relapse may negatively impact overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death) may represent an additional tool to estimate outcome. This study evaluates the benefit of novel agent-based CT versus fixed duration of therapy (FDT) in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. METHODS: We included patients enrolled onto three phase III trials that randomly assigned patients to novel agent-based CT versus FDT. Primary analyses were restricted to the intent-to-treat population eligible for CT (patients progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment). Primary end points were PFS1, PFS2, and OS. All hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were adjusted for several potential confounders using Cox models. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of the three trials, 604 patients were randomly assigned to CT and 614 were assigned to FDT. Median follow-up was 52 months. In the intent-to-treat CT population, CT (n = 417), compared with FDT (n = 410), significantly improved PFS1 (median, 32 v 16 months, respectively; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.56; P < .001), PFS2 (median, 55 v 40 months, respectively; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.75; P < .001), and OS (4-year OS, 69% v 60%, respectively; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; P = .003). CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis, CT significantly improved PFS1, PFS2, and OS. The improvement in PFS2 suggests that the benefit reported during first remission is not cancelled by a shorter second remission. PFS2 is a valuable end point to estimate long-term clinical benefit and should be included in future trials.