28-day Cycles Of Lenalidomide Research Articles

Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m(2)) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1-21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1-21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831. 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4-57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6-36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2-52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60-3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8-not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5-46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. Celgene.

Maintenance Therapy With Lenalidomide Significantly Improved Survival Of Yong Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

▪ BackgroundHigh-dose chemotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplant improves outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in comparison to conventional chemotherapy. The incorporation of new drugs into induction, consolidation and maintenance therapy is changing the treatment paradigm and is questioning the role of HDT in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients <65 years. Previous finding have been presented (Boccadoro, ASCO 2013) and this analysis provides a longer follow-up. AimsTo compare in a prospective randomized trial melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) both followed by maintenance with lenalidomide or no maintenance in NDMM patients. MethodsA 2x2 factorial randomized trial was designed. The induction treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg d 1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg d 1,8,15,22) (Rd). As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/k g d 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d 1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d 1-21)] or MEL200 (N=200)[tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support]. Patients were further randomized, within each group, to receive lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg, days 1-21, N=198) or no maintenance (N=204). Primary study endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The secondary study endpoints included response rates, safety and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. ResultsFrom November 2007 to July 2009, 402 patients with NDMM <65 years of age were enrolled. All patients were stratified according to International Staging System (ISS) and age. Patient characteristics were well balanced in all groups. In the MPR group, the Very Good Partial Response (VGPR) rate was 50% with 13% of Complete Response (CR) while the VGPR rate was 52% including 19% of CR in the MEL200 group. In the MPR group the CR rate improved from 13% after consolidation to 17% after maintenance. In the MEL200 group the CR rate improved from 19% after consolidation to 25% after maintenance.After a median follow-up of 48 months, the median PFS was 24.2 months in MPR group and 38.6 months in MEL200 group ( P< 0.0001).A multivariate analysis confirms the PFS benefit associated with MEL200 across all subgroups of patients defined by stratification factors and baseline characteristics.The 5-year OS rate was similar between MPR (62%) and MEL200 (71%; P= 0.27). In a landmark analysis, lenalidomide maintenance significantly extended PFS from the start of maintenance (median 42,7 months) compared with no maintenance (median 17.5 months; P<.0001). The 4-year OS rate from the start of maintenance was higher in patients who received lenalidomide maintenance (80%) compared with patients who did not (62%; P= 0,01). No significant interaction was detected between MPR/MEL200 (P=0.704) and maintenance/observation (P=0.984) effects.During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) between MPR and MEL200 were as follow: neutropenia (50% vs. 90%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 89%), infections (1% vs. 15%) and gastrointestinal (0% vs. 18%), with complications being higher with MEL200.During the maintenance phase, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were reported in 17% of patients receiving lenalidomide (16% neutropenia). For individual group comparisons during maintenance, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were observed in 20% of patients receiving MPR plus lenalidomide maintenance compared with 15% receiving MEL200 plus lenalidomide maintenance. Second primary malignancies were observed in 11 patients (3%), and were mainly solid tumors. Four solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and one in the MPR group in the maintenance arm, while three solid tumors were observed in the MEL200 group and three in the MPR group in no maintenance arm. ConclusionThe administration of MPR was significantly inferior to MEL200 in terms of PFS. Toxicities were significantly higher in MEL200 group, but manageable. OS is similar between MPR and MEL200. Lenalidomide maintenance significantly reduced the risk of progression and of death independently from the previous treatment. Disclosures:Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Combined lenalidomide, low‐dose dexamethasone, and rituximab achieves durable responses in rituximab‐resistant indolent and mantle cell lymphomas

Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug with effects on the immune system that may enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and reverse tumor-induced immune suppression. Furthermore, single-agent lenalidomide has therapeutic activity in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. These immunologic effects potentially may enhance the action of rituximab. To test the efficacy of lenalidomide combined with rituximab, the authors conducted a phase 2 trial of lenalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and rituximab in patients who had rituximab-resistant, relapsed/refractory, indolent B-cell or mantle cell lymphomas. Patients received two 28-day treatment cycles of lenalidomide 10 mg daily and dexamethasone 8 mg once weekly (part I). During cycle 3, 4 weekly doses of rituximab 375 mg/m2 were administered with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (part II). After the part II response assessment, stable or responding patients continued to receive lenalidomide-dexamethasone. Twenty-seven patients with follicular (n=18), mantle cell (n=5), small lymphocytic (n=3), and marginal zone (n=1) lymphomas started therapy; 3 of 27 patients discontinued therapy because of adverse events and were not evaluable for response. For 24 patients, the overall response rate after part I was 29% (4 patients had a complete response [CR] or CR unconfirmed, and 3 patients had a partial response), and the overall response rate after part II was 58% (8 patients had a CR, and 6 patients had a partial response). For 27 patients, at a median follow-up of 12.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 23.7 months. The combination of lenalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and rituximab achieved high response rates with durable responses in patients with rituximab-resistant, indolent B-cell and mantle cell lymphomas. Overall response rate increased from 29% after two 28-day cycles of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone to 58% after the addition of rituximab, suggesting that lenalidomide can overcome resistance to rituximab.

Incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in multiple myeloma patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) with and without dexamethasone (DEX).

e18559 Background: LEN showed significant efficacy and was generally well tolerated when combined with DEX in two randomized, double-blind, pivotal phase 3 registration trials in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). VTEs have been associated with LEN and DEX combination (LEN+DEX) regimens in patients (pts) who may have other risk factors for VTE. Fewer VTEs have been reported among pts receiving low dose DEX. This study examined the incidence of first VTE and associated risk factors among MM pts receiving LEN and LEN+DEX. Methods: An exploratory, retrospective, claims-based study of pts diagnosed with MM and receiving LEN from Jan 2006 – June 2008 was performed using OptumInsight’s Invision Data Mart Multiplan database. Pts receiving additional MM chemotherapies were excluded. DEX dose level was defined over the first four 28-day cycles of LEN as: low (≤160 mg), medium (&gt;160 mg to &lt;480 mg), or high (≥ 480 mg). Cumulative incidence of first VTE (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within 120 days of initiating LEN treatment was calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk factors for VTE were examined using hazard ratios (HRs) from a Cox model that included demographics, prior MM therapy, comorbid conditions, DEX dose, and prophylactic use of anti-thrombotics. Results: 643 LEN-treated MM pts were identified (mean age 60 years, 60% male, 13.5% with prior VTE). Cumulative incidence of first VTE at 120 days from first LEN dose was 6.1% overall (95% CI 4.4-8.3%) and 7.2% (5.1-10.2%) in LEN+DEX. VTE risk for LEN without DEX (n=190; 66 with other steroids) was 3.4% (1.5-7.5%). VTE risk by DEX dose level was 5.9% (3.6-9.7%) for low DEX (n=286), 7.5% (3.6-15.1%) for medium DEX (n=99), and 12.3% (6.3-23.1%) for high DEX (n=66). Significant risk factors for VTE were prior VTE (HR=3.9; p&lt;0.001), recent surgery (HR=2.1; p=0.047), renal failure (HR=2.2; p=0.023), and high dose DEX (HR=2.3; p=0.045). Conclusions: Incommunity-based MM pts treated with LEN+DEX, VTE risk increases with the dose of DEX. The exact mechanism by which DEX intensity impacts VTE is not clear. In addition to high dose DEX, other known VTE risk factors were observed.

Melphalan/Prednisone/Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus High-Dose Melphalan and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients

Abstract 3069▪FN2▪This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract Background:High-dose chemotherapy with haemopoietic stem-cell improves outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of novel agents questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in MM patients. Aims:In this prospective randomized study, we compared conventional melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) in newly diagnosed MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods:All patients (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1, 8, 15, 22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) consisting of six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 MEL200 (N=200) with stem-cell support. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (stages 1 and 2 vs. stage 3) and age (<60 vs. ≥60 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results:Response rates were similar: at least very good partial response (≥VGPR) rate was 60% with MPR vs. 58% with MEL200 (p=.24); the complete response (CR) rate was 20% with MPR vs. 25% with MEL200 (p=.49). After a median follow-up of 26 months, the 2-year PFS was 54% in MPR and 73% in MEL200 (HR=0.51, p<.001). The 2-year overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups: 87% with MPR and 90% with MEL200 (HR 0.68, p=.19). In a subgroup analysis, MEL200 significantly prolonged PFS in both standard-risk patients without t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 46% in the MPR group vs. 78% in the MEL200 group, HR=0.57, p=.007) and high-risk patients with t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del17p abnormalities (2-year PFS was 27% for MPR vs. 71% for MEL200, HR=0.32, p=.004). In patients who achieved CR, the 2-year PFS was 66% for MPR vs. 87% for MEL200 (HR 0.26; p<.001); in those who achieved a partial response (PR), the 2-year PFS was 56% for MPR vs. 77% for MEL200 (HR 0.45; p<.001). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs. 89% (p<.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs. 17% (p<.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); the incidence of second tumors was 0.5% in MPR patients and 1.5% in MEL200 patients (p=.12). Deep vein thrombosis rate was 2.44% with MPR vs. 1.13% with MEL200 (p=.43). Conclusions:PFS was significantly prolonged in the MEL200 group compared to MPR. This benefit was maintained in the subgroup of patients with standard- or high-risk cytogenetic features. Toxicities were significantly higher in the MEL200 group. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with conventional therapies including novel agents. These data will be updated at the meeting.TableClinical outcome after MPR or MEL200 consolidationMPRMEL200P valueAll patientsCR20%25%.49≥VGPR60%58%.242-year PFS54%73%<.0012-year OS87%90%.19Standard-risk patients2-year PFS46%78%.007High-risk patients2-year PFS27%71%.004Patients who achieved CR2-year PFS66%87%<.001Patients who achieved PR2-year PFS56%77%<.001 Disclosures:Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:celgene: Honoraria. Ria:celgene: Consultancy. Caravita Di Toritto:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide (MPR) versus high-dose melphalan and autologous transplantation (MEL200) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients: A phase III trial.

8020 Background: The introduction of novel agents questions the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). This is the first prospective randomized study comparing conventional chemotherapy plus novel agents (MPR) with tandem high-dose melphalan (MEL200) and ASCT in newly diagnosed MM patients (Pts). Methods: All pts (N=402) received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, d1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg, d1,8,15,22) (Rd) as induction. Pts (N=202) were then randomized to MPR [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg d1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d1-4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d1-21); pts (N=200)] or MEL200 (tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support). Primary end point was PFS. Results: Response rates were similar in the two groups (MPR vs MEL200): ≥ VGPR (60% vs. 58%, p=0.24) and CR (20% vs. 25% p=0.49). After a median follow-up of 20 months, the 18-months PFS was 68% in MPR and 78% in MEL200 (HR=0.58, p=0.006). CR prolonged the 18-months PFS in the MPR (90% vs 66%) and in the MEL200 group (87% vs 76%). The 18-months OS was similar (91% vs 95%; p=0.073). In the MPR and MEL200 groups, G3-4 neutropenia was 55% vs 89% (p <.001); G3-4 infections were 0% vs 17% (p <.001); G3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 0% vs. 21% (p<.001); DVT was 2.44% vs 1.13% (p=0.43); second tumors were 0.005% in both arms. Conclusions: MEL200 was superior to MPR for PFS, although toxicities were significantly higher. This is the first report showing a PFS advantage for ASCT in comparison with combinations including novel agents. At present OS is not significantly different in the two groups.

A Phase III Study of Enoxaparin Vs Aspirin as Thromboprophylaxis for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Treated with Lenalidomide-Based Regimen.

AbstractAbstract 1092 Background:Newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide-based regimens have a high risk of thromboembolic events. Preliminary studies on MM patients receiving a combination of lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone have shown an increased incidence of thrombosis as well, with a calculated odds ratio of about 3.5 of developing thrombosis. Aims:In a prospective, multicenter phase III trial (RV-MM-PI-209) newly diagnosed patients were treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) induction and subsequently randomized to receive consolidation with lenalidomide + melphalan + prednisone (MPR) or high dose melphalan (MEL200). In this sub-study we evaluated the safety and the efficacy of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin (ASA) as anticoagulant prophylaxis during Rd induction and MPR consolidation. End-points were incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute cardiovascular events, sudden death, major and minor bleeding. Methods:402 newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled in the randomized trial RV-MM-PI-209. Treatment schedule included four 28 day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to receive six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg days 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg days 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg days 1–21) (MPR, N=202) or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support (MEL200, N=200). All eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive LMWH (Enoxaparin 40 mg/d, N=166) or ASA (Aspirin 100 mg/d, N=176) for the duration of the induction therapy and for consolidation therapy in the MPR group; 60 patients were excluded from this sub-study because of indication for anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy or high-risk of bleeding. Results:Patient characteristics and distribution of major risk factors were similar in the two groups. At the time of the present analysis 381 and 130 patients are evaluable during Rd induction and consolidation respectively. During the induction phase, the overall incidence of any grade 3–4 thrombotic events was 1% in the LMWH group, 2,4% in the ASA group (p=.45). VTE, mostly of the lower limbs were equally distributed in the two groups (1%; p not significant), while pulmonary embolism was observed only in the ASA group (2%; p not significant). Median time to onset of thrombotic events for patients who received LMWH or ASA were 2.1 and 1 months, respectively. No acute cardiovascular events were observed and only minor bleeding was detected in the LMWH group (1%). During consolidation no thrombotic events were observed in the MPR group, only one central venous catheter thrombosis was observed in the MEL200 group. Conclusion:The overall incidence of thrombotic events was less than 5% in all groups and confirmed the safety of low dose dexamethasone in association with Lenalidomide. No significant benefit was seen with LMWH over ASA in this patient population. LMWH and ASA are likely to be effective thromboprophylactic regimens in lenalidomide treated patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The analysis will be updated for the meeting.Table 1Incidence of thrombotic events, acute cardiovascular events, sudden death and bleeding events.EventsLMWH (N =166)ASA (N =176)Grade 3–4 thrombotic events, (%)12Acute cardiovascular events, (%)00Sudden deaths, (%)00Major and minor bleeding, (%)10Total events, (%)22 Disclosures:Cavallo:CELGENE: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria. Boccadoro:CELGENE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; JANSSEN-CILAG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Phase III Study to Compare Melphalan, Prednisone, Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus Melphalan 200 Mg/m2 and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

AbstractAbstract 3573 Background:In this randomized study we question the role of HDT, when new drugs are incorporated in the conventional treatment or in the autologous transplant setting in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Aims:To compare melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) in MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods:The induction treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg d 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg d 1,8,15,22) (Rd). Cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF was used to mobilize stem cells. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/k g d 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d 1–21))] or MEL200 (N=200)[tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support]. All patients were also randomized to receive either aspirin or low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) as thromboprophylaxis during Rd and MPR. Primary study endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results:From november 2007 to july 2009, 402 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM younger than 65 years of age were recruited and randomized. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (ISS) (stages 1 and 2 vs stage 3) and age (<60 vs ≥60 years). Results:On an intention to treat basis, best responses after Rd induction, were: partial response (PR) rate was 87%, very good partial response (VGPR) rate was 52%, including 13% complete responses (CR). The median yields of stem cells harvested was 8.7 ×106 CD34+ cells/Kg; 91% of patients collected the minimum dose of 4×106/kg CD34+ cells. As of August 10th, 257 patients are evaluable for response after at least 3 cycles of MPR (124) and after the first MEL200 (133); best responses to consolidation: in the MPR group, the VGPR rate was 60% including 20% CR; in the MEL200 group the VGPR rate was 58% including 25% CRs. No differences in responses were reported according to chromosomal abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p. After a median follow-up of 14 months, the projected 2-year PFS and OS were similar in the two groups (table). The achievement of at least VGPR after consolidation was a predictive factor of longer PFS in both groups: in the MEL200 group, the 2-year PFS was 92% for patients with at least VGPR vs 70% for those with PR (p<.0001); in the MPR group 86% vs 61% respectively (p<.0001). MPR and MEL200 were equally effective in patients with chromosomal abnormalities (2-year PFS was 71% vs 77%; p=.39) or ISS 3 (2-year PFS was 58% vs 66%; p=.48). Induction with Rd was well tolerated: the most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (8%), anemia (7%), infections (4%) and skin rash (5%). The incidence of thromboembolic events was similar in patients randomized to aspirin (2%) or low molecular weight heparin (1%) as thromboprophylaxis (p=.45). During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia (97% vs 32%;p <.001), thrombocytopenia (59% vs 5%; p<.001), infections (10% vs 1%, p<.001) and gastrointestinal (15% vs 1%, p<.001) complications was higher in MEL200 patients.TableClinical outcome after MPR or MEL200 consolidationMPRMEL200P valueCR20%25%0.49≥VGPR60%58%0.242-year PFS73%78%0.482-year OS95%97%0.18 Conclusion:Our study confirms the efficacy and safety of Rd induction. Both MPR and MEL200 improved the quality of response, achieved by Rd induction. At present, PFS and OS are not significantly different in the two groups, but longer follow-up is needed. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures:Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria. Patriarca:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita:Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Bortezomib As Induction Before Autologous Transplantation, Followed by Lenalidomide As Consolidation-Maintenance in Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients

PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of bortezomib as induction therapy before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in myeloma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients age 65 to 75 years were eligible. Induction (bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone [PAD]) included four 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m(2) on day 4), and dexamethasone (40 mg/d; cycle 1: days 1 to 4, 8 to 11, and 15 to 18; cycles 2 to 4: days 1 to 4). Autologous transplantation was tandem melphalan 100 mg/m(2) (MEL100) and stem-cell support. Consolidation included four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d on days 1 to 21 every 28 days) plus prednisone (50 mg every other day), followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (LP-L; 10 mg/d on days 1 to 21) until relapse. Primary end points were safety (incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (response rate). Results A total of 102 patients were enrolled. In a per-protocol analysis, after PAD, 58% of patients had very good partial response (VGPR) or better, including 13% with complete response (CR); after MEL100, 82% of patients had at least VGPR and 38% had CR; and after LP-L, 86% of patients had at least VGPR and 66% had CR. After median follow-up time of 21 months, the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 69%, and the 2-year overall survival rate was 86%. During induction, treatment-related mortality was 3%; grade 3 to 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (10%), peripheral neuropathy (16%), and pneumonia (10%). During consolidation-maintenance, grade 3 to 4 AEs were neutropenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (6%), pneumonia (5%), and cutaneous rash (4%). CONCLUSION Bortezomib as induction before autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance, is an effective regimen.

A Prospective, Randomized Study of Melphalan, Prednisone, Lenalidomide (MPR) versus Melphalan (200 Mg/M2) and Autologous Transplantation (Mel200) in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients: An Interim Analysis.

Abstract 350▪▪This icon denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant. Background.The incorporation of new drugs as induction therapy before autologous transplantation appears to produce a high proportion of complete responses, slightly superior to those achieved by conventional chemotherapy with new drugs. Randomized trials are needed to directly compare current best chemotherapeutic approach with best autologous transplantation strategy. Aims.To compare melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) in patients younger than 65 years. Methods.As induction, all (N=402) patients received four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg days 1-21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40mg days 1,8,15,22) (Rd). Cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2) plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was used to mobilize stem cells. As consolidation, patients (N=202) randomized to MPR received six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg days 1-4) and lenalidomide (10mg days 1-21); patients (N=200) randomized to MEL200 received tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support. All patients were also randomized to receive either aspirin or low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) as thromboprophylaxis. Primary end point was progression-free survival; data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results.Patient characteristics were similar in both groups, median age was 58 years. After Rd induction, at least partial response (PR) rate was 84%, at least very good partial response (VGPR) was 32% including 5% complete response (CR). The median yields of CD34+ cells harvested was 10 ×106 CD34+ cells/Kg; 94% of patients collected the minimum dose of 2×106/kg CD34+ cells. After 3 cycles of MPR, at least VGPR rate was 51% and CR 11%. After the first MEL200, at least VGPR rate was 56% and CR 14%. No difference in responses were reported according to cytogenetic abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14) and t(14;16). After a median follow-up of 12 months, 1-year progression-free survival was 96% for MPR and 94% for MEL200 (p=.92) 1-year overall survival was 98% for MPR and 99% for MEL200 (p=.94). During Rd induction, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (9%), anemia (8%), infections (4%), skin rash (4%), fatigue (2%) and thromboembolic events (1%). During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (97% vs 34%, p <.001) thrombocytopenia (97% vs 16%, p<.001), infections (21% vs 3%, p<.001) and gastrointestinal (17% vs 1%, p<.001) complications was higher in MEL200 patients The incidence of thromboembolic events was similar in patients randomized to receive aspirin (2%) or enoxaparin (1%) as thromboprophylaxis (p=.42). Conclusion.Rd is an effective and safe induction regimen. Both MPR andMEL200 improved the quality of response, achieved by Rd induction. At present, progression-free and overall survival are not significantly different in the two groups, but longer follow-up is needed. Both aspirin and enoxaparin were equally effective as thromboprophylaxis. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures:Palumbo:CELGENE: Honoraria. Cavallo:CELGENE: Honoraria. Patriarca:CELGENE: Honoraria. Caravita:CELGENE: CONSULTANCY. Boccadoro:CELGENE: CONSULTANCY, ADVISORY COMMITTEES, Research Funding.

Sequential Approach with Bortezomib as Induction Before Autologous Transplantation, Followed by Lenalidomide as Consolidation-Maintenance in Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients.

Abstract 3419Poster Board III-307 BackgroundBortezomib induction before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown its efficacy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, both in association with dexamethasone alone (Harousseau JL, et al. Blood 110, 2007, abstr 450) and in combination with doxorubicin and dexamethasone (Popat R, et al. Br J Haematol 141:512-516, 2008). Lenalidomide, a less toxic and more potent thalidomide-derivative, lacks the neurotoxic effects of the parent drug and represents an optimal agent to include in maintenance regimens. AimsThese observations provided the rationale for investigating a sequential approach including bortezomib as induction and lenalidomide as consolidation-maintenance in MM patients undergoing ASCT. MethodsA hundred and two newly diagnosed patients aged 65–75 years were enrolled in 17 Italian centers. Induction (PAD) included four 21-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 days 1,4,8,11), pegylated-liposomal-doxorubicin (30 mg/m2 day 4), and dexamethasone (40 mg/day: cycle 1, days 1–4, 8–11, 15–18; cycles 2–4, days 1–4). Autologous transplantation was tandem melphalan 100 mg/m2 (MEL100) followed by stem-cell support. After ASCT, patients received consolidation with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/day days 1–21 every 28 days) plus prednisone (50 mg every other day) (LP), followed by maintenance (L) with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day days 1–21 every 28 days) until relapse. Primary endpoints were safety (incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (response rate). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Time-to-event estimates analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. ResultsVery good partial response (VGPR) or better was 58% after PAD induction and increased to 82% after MEL100 and to 86% during LP-L. Complete response (CR) rate was 13% after PAD induction, increased to 38% after MEL100 and to 66% during LP-L. After a median follow-up of 2 years, the 2-year PFS was 69%, the 2-year time-to-progression was 75% and the 2-year OS was 86%. During PAD induction, main grade 3–4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (10%), peripheral neuropathy (16%), and pneumonia (10%); treatment-related mortality was 3%. During consolidation-maintenance grade 3–4 AEs included neutropenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (6%), pneumonia (5%), and cutaneous rash (4%). Consolidation-maintenance treatment was well tolerated: only 4% of patients required Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor support and no patient required platelet transfusion; dermatological toxicity was easily manageable with dose-reduction and supportive therapy; no treatment-related deaths were reported. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. ConclusionThis is the first phase II study in newly diagnosed MM patients to date, where a sequential approach including bortezomib as induction, and lenalidomide as post ASCT consolidation-maintenance was explored. Treatment was correlated with an increase in response rate and in the depth of response (CR rate) and was generally well tolerated. These data suggest that this is a safe and effective regimen for newly diagnosed MM patients. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these results. DisclosuresPatriarca:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Janssen Cilag : Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Pharmion: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria.