Similar Quality of Life with 5mg Versus 25mg Lenalidomide Maintenance after First-Line High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Results of the Lenamain Trial

Abstract

Introduction The LenaMain study is a prospective, randomized, open label, multicenter phase III trial which included 188 patients 3 months after first-line high dose treatment and autologous stem cell transplantation (NCT number:NCT00891384). Patients were equally randomized to receive either 25 (n = 94, arm A) or 5 mg (n = 94, arm B) lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression following a uniform 6 months of 25 mg lenalidomide consolidation. Final analysis after follow-up of 46.7 months was presented at ASCO 2018 (#8016) demonstrating an extended event-free survival for arm A (11.8 months, p=0.032) and an about 10% increase of grade 3/4 infections per year as main toxicity. Here we report analysis of quality of life (QoL) data as secondary endpoint of the study. Materials & Methods The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) was collected at baseline and then monthly at every new cycle. The Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QoL) scale, the utility score and seven subscales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, physical functioning, role functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment) were compared between groups using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results Baseline questionnaire compliance was excellent (95.7%) and declined over time (82%, 76%, 71%, 54%, 49% after consolidation and after year 1, 2, 3 and 4 of maintenance, respectively). At baseline, GHS/QoL (67/67) and utility (0.73/0.72) scores for arm A/B were generally high and did not differ between both arms. The median GHS/QoL change between consolidation baseline and maintenance baseline was -1%. GHS/QoL scores appear constant for both treatment arms at most time points in the first 2 years of maintenance. Relevant improvements ≥ 5 points were observed in 30% of patients while improvements ≥ 15 points were observed in 20% of patients. During the same time a similar percentage of patients had relevant ≥ 5 and ≥15 point deteriorations, with a general tendency for a slight increase at the end of year 2. Notably, a greater number of deteriorations was found in the 5 mg lenalidomide arm. Mean GHS/QoL was constant during maintenance with a slight decrease of Utility values remained constant during maintenance (change from baseline 0.003, p=0.9 at year 1; 0.02, p=0.7 at year 2) and the overall pattern in the change over time does not appear to show any clear differences between the two treatment arms. Looking at QLQ-C30 subgroup domains after two years of maintenance, we observed a significantly higher change from baseline for diarrhea in the 25 mg lenalidomide arm, which may be a long-term drug-related effect. Conversely, role functioning was also significantly better in patients treated within the 25 mg lenalidomide arm. Other subgroups did not show significant differences after the second year. Overall GHS/QOL scores were not significantly different in patients with CR vs. ≥ vgPR. Similarly, there was no statistical difference in patients on treatment for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years of maintenance or in patients suffering from grade 3/4 adverse events or not. Thus, neither disease activity, nor duration of treatment nor high-grade toxicity biased our results. Conclusion The LenaMain trial shows that maintenance treatment with 25 mg lenalidomide vs. 5 mg significantly prolongs event-free survival. QoL, as secondary objective, was not different between both treatment arms, even showing a trend for improved QoL in the 25 mg lenalidomide treatment arm. Thus, QoL was not governed by the higher rate of infectious toxicity during high-dose lenalidomide maintenance. Disclosures Boquoi:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Other: Travel grant. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy. Rummel:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Honoraria. Kroeger:Sanofi: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mai:Celgene: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Onyx: Other: travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: travel grant. Kobbe:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Fenk:Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria.