Thalidomide-dexamethasone Arm Research Articles

Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone before and after Double Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Final Analysis of Phase 3 Gimema-MMY-3006 Study and Prognostic Score for Survival Outcomes

Introduction: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial comparing bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) provided the first demonstration of increased CR rate, the primary study endpoint, and prolonged PFS with VTD (Cavo M et al, Lancet 2010). However, updating trial results with longer follow-up than earlier reported is needed to assess the effects of treatment interventions on OS and to identify factors predicting for favorable long term outcomes. Aims: We performed a post-hoc analysis of that study to evaluate long term results and construct a prognostic index of survival. Methods: 474 patients were enrolled, 236 randomized to VTD and 238 to TD. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124 months (IQR: 117-131). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Semi-parametric Cox regression analysis was used to construct the prognostic index. To assess the evolution of prognosis over time, conditional survival CS(t|s) estimate for PFS was calculated as the probability of surviving without progression a further 2 (t) years (yrs) after having already survived s yrs. Results: Estimates of PFS and OS at 10 yrs for the VTD arm were 34% (HR=0.62; 95% CI=0.50-0.77; p Conclusions: With a follow up of 10 yrs, the final analysis of the GYMEMA MMY-3006 trial comparing VTD versus TD showed a persistent PFS benefit translating into extended OS for the VTD arm. A prognostic model based on cytogenetic, ISS stage and achievement of CR, identified three risk groups with statistically different long-term survival probabilities. Both IR and HR groups significantly benefited from VTD. A PFS time of 78 months predicted for long term survival outcomes in the LR and IR groups. Disclosures Tacchetti:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Zamagni:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy. Offidani:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Montefusco:Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Superior PFS2 with VTD Vs TD for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant Eligible, Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients: Updated Analysis of Gimema MMY-3006 Study

Background: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 study comparing bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) vs. thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) provided demonstration of superior CR/nCR rates after induction (the primary study endpoint) and across all subsequent treatment phases, a gain which translated into significantly longer PFS for patients randomized to the VTD arm (Cavo, Lancet 2010; Blood 2012). We herein report an updated analysis of the study with a focus on PFS2, time to second anti-myeloma therapy, treatment-free interval, post-relapse OS and long term outcomes.Methods: Overall, 474 patients were included in the trial. After a median follow up of 65 months, 251 patients (53%) have progressed and of these 221 (88%) had available data on salvage therapy after relapse.Results: On an intention-to-treat basis, median PFS was 57 months for patients randomized to the VTD arm as compared to 42 months for those assigned in the TD arm (HR 0.67; p=0.001). No statistically significant difference in 5-years estimates of OS was observed between VTD and TD groups (80% vs 73%). PFS2, defined as the time from initial randomization to second disease progression or death from any cause, was significantly longer for patients randomised to VTD than for those in the TD group (76% vs. 63% at 5 years, respectively; HR 0.64, p=0.009). Globally, 73% and 83% of patients in the VTD and TD arms required the start of salvage therapy due to symptomatic relapse. Median time to subsequent anti-myeloma therapy (defined as the interval between start of induction treatment and the first dose of second-line therapy) was significantly longer for patients assigned to VTD than for those who experienced relapse in the TD cohort (40 vs 31 months, p=0.014). Similarly, median treatment-free interval (defined as the time between last administration of front-line therapy and start of salvage treatment) was 26 months in VTD group vs 16 months in TD arm (p=0.016). Most of the patients received a novel agent-containing salvage therapy, while 18% was treated with conventional chemotherapy. As expected, a greater percentage of patients in the TD arm were treated with second-line bortezomib-based combinations in comparison with those relapsing in the VTD arm (72% vs 46%, respectively, p=0.001). Within the VTD group, no statistically significant difference in PFS2 was seen regarding the use of bortezomib or an IMiD as (part of) second-line therapy (64 vs 57 months, respectively). Clinical benefit from primary randomization to VTD vs TD was also observed in terms of second PFS (defined as the interval between first and second progression) (HR 0.61, p=0.032). The median OS after relapse was 36 months for both TD and VTD groups. No differences in post relapse OS were observed for patients primarily assigned to VTD or TD who received a subsequent bortezomib-based salvage therapy.Conclusion: With an extended follow-up of approximately 5 years, VTD was superior to TD in terms of extended PFS2, time to subsequent anti-MM therapy and treatment-free interval. PFS2 was significantly longer for patients randomized to VTD, with no difference regardless of the use of bortezomib or an IMiD as part of second-line therapy. This finding, along with similar post-relapse OS values across the two groups, suggest that induction and consolidation therapy with VTD did not select the emergence of bortezomib- resistant clones at the time of relapse. DisclosuresPalumbo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Cavo:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharm.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria.

Persistent Improvement In Clinical Outcomes With Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Vs Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Incorporated Into Double Autologous Transplantation For Multiple Myeloma: An Updated Analysis Of Phase 3 Gimema-MMY-3006 Study

▪Over the last years, incorporation of novel agents into autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved markedly the outcomes of younger patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Superior results with experimental treatments vs previous standards of care have been frequently reported after preliminary analyses and need to be confirmed with longer follow up. The randomized phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 study was designed to compare bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) vs thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double ASCT. Data from the initial analysis, with a median follow up of 36 months, demonstrated that patients randomized to the VTD arm enjoyed superior complete/near complete response (CR/nCR) rates after both induction and consolidation therapy, and had a significantly longer PFS compared to those prospectively assigned to the TD arm. We performed an updated analysis of the study after a median follow up of 59 months and results are herein reported. A persistent TTP and PFS benefit with incorporation of VTD into ASCT was confirmed. On an intention-to-treat analysis of 236 patients randomized to the VTD arm, median TTP was 62 months and median PFS was 57 months. The median values for 238 patients randomly assigned to the TD arm were 45 months for TTP (HR=0.64, p=0.001) and 42 months for PFS (HR=0.66, p=0.001) (Fig. 1). With the longer follow up of this analysis, an initial divergence between OS curves could be appreciated after 4 years, although the difference was not yet statistically significant at 6 years (75% for VTD vs 69% for TD). Superiority of VTD over TD for TTP and PFS was retained across prespecified subgroups of patients with high risk and low risk disease. In particular, PFS benefit with VTD was seen for patients age >60 years (HR=0.62, p=0.013) and younger than 60 years (HR=0.70, p=0.026), with ISS stage 1 (HR=0.59, p=0.009) and ISS stage 2-3 (HR=0.69, p=0.018), and for those with t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR=0.43, p<0.001) and with t(4;14) alone [t(4;14) positivity but lack of del(17p)] (HR=0.41, p=0.001). In comparison with patients with t(4;14) positivity who were randomized to TD, those assigned to the VTD arm had significantly longer PFS (median: 24 vs 53 months, HR=0.41, p=0.0007) (Fig. 2) and a trend towards longer OS (4-year estimates: 66% vs 81%, p=0.052). By the opposite, similar PFS curves were seen for patients in the VTD group regardless of the presence or absence of t(4;14) (Fig. 3). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, randomization to the VTD arm was an independent factor predicting for prolonged PFS (HR=0.64, P=0.001). Additional disease- and treatment-related variables independently affecting PFS included attainment of CR/nCR after both induction (HR=0.64, p=0.010) and consolidation therapy (HR=0.57, p<0.001), β2-m >3.5 mg/L (HR=1.7, p<0.001) and presence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR=2.0, p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, β2-m, cytogenetic abnormalities and attainment of CR/nCR after consolidation therapy were independently associated with OS. With an updated median follow-up of 49 months from the landmark of starting consolidation therapy, median PFS was 50 months for patients receiving VTD consolidation and 38 months for those treated with TD (HR= 0.69, P=0.015) (Fig. 4). Superior PFS with VTD vs TD consolidation therapy was observed for patients who failed CR/nCR after the second ASCT (HR=0.48, P=0.003) and was retained in both low risk and high risk subgroups. Finally, duration of OS from relapse or progression was similar between the two treatment groups (median, 42 for VTD vs 35 months for TD, p=0.47), even when bortezomib was incorporated into salvage therapy. In conclusion, this updated analysis of the GIMEMA-MMY-3006 study demonstrated: 1) a persistent PFS benefit with VTD vs TD in the overall population, as well as in subgroups of patients with high risk and low risk MM; 2) the ability of VTD, but not of TD, incorporated into double ASCT to overcome the adverse prognosis related to t(4;14); 3) the significant contribution of VTD consolidation to improved outcomes seen for patients randomized to the VTD arm; 4) the lack of more resistant relapse after exposure to VTD as induction and consolidation therapy compared to TD. A longer follow up is required to assess the OS benefit, if any, with VTD plus double ASCT. [Display omitted] [Display omitted] [Display omitted] [Display omitted] Disclosures:Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tacchetti:Janssen and Celgene: Honoraria. Zamagni:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Brioli:Celgene: Honoraria.

Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Incorporated Into Autotransplantation Is Associated with More Favorable Outcomes After Relapse in Comparison with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Plus Autotransplantation in Multiple Myeloma

AbstractAbstract ▪4210▪This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstractIn a previous analysis performed with a median follow-up of 36 months (mos), superior CR/nCR rates and extended PFS were demonstrated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) vs thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autotransplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Here we report an updated analysis of that study, including a detailed analysis of outcomes after relapse or progression (R/P), an important issue for patients (pts) who received up-front a triplet novel agent-based therapy incorporated into ASCT. After a median follow-up of 52 mos, continued TTP and PFS benefits with VTD vs TD were demonstrated, while no difference in OS was seen between the two arms. Median PFS for pts randomized to the VTD arm was 56 mos vs 42 mos for those assigned to TD (HR=0.64, p=0.001). Similarly to PFS, median TTP for pts in the VTD group was longer than in the TD group (57 vs 45 mos, HR=0.63, p=0.0006), reflecting a 37% reduction in the risk of R/P with VTD. The probabilities of R/P in the VTD and TD arms were 41% vs 55% (p=0.002). In comparison with the VTD-treated group, a higher percentage of pts in the TD arm required the immediate start of salvage therapy after symptomatic R/P was documented (67% vs 82.5%). By the opposite, the fraction of pts with asymptomatic R/P that did not require any antimyeloma therapy until the cut-off date for the analysis was higher in the VTD arm compared with the TD-treated group (33% vs 17.5%, p=0.016). In these pts, the median interval from the date of R/P to the cut-off date for the analysis was 7 mos for the TD-treated group vs 17 mos for the VTD-treated group. Median time to subsequent antimyelomatherapy (defined as the interval between start of induction therapy and administration of the first dose of second-line therapy) was significantly longer for pts who experienced R/P in the VTD arm in comparison with pts who progressed in the TD arm (35 vs 29 mos, p=0.018). The associated interval between last administration of front-line therapy (e.g. consolidation for pts who received the entire treatment program or every other treatment before consolidation for those who discontinued earlier) and first administration of second-line therapy (salvage therapy-free interval) was 22.5 mos for the VTD-treated group vs 15 mos for the TD-treated group (p=0.009). Both bortezomib and lenalidomide were the most frequently used agents at the time of R/P (82% of all cases), while only 18% of pts were treated with conventional cytotoxic drugs. As expected, the majority of pts in the TD arm received a second-line therapy that included bortezomib (70%), while lenalidomide-dexamethasone was received by 10% of pts. By the opposite, in the VTD arm both bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based salvage therapies were equally distributed (41% vs 39%). The probability to achieve at least a partial response after second-line therapy including bortezomib was 60% for pts with prior exposure to VTD vs 63% for those randomized to TD. No difference in post-R/P OS was demonstrated between VTD-treated and TD-treated subgroups of pts who received bortezomib-based salvage therapy after R/P (2-yr estimates: 48% vs 53%, p=0.59). In the overall population, post-R/P OS was significantly shorter for pts who received salvage therapy with conventional cytotoxic drugs (2-yr estimate: 41%) in comparison with pts treated with novel agents, including bortezomib or lenalidomide (2-yr estimates: 52% and 53%, respectively) (p=0.0001). In conclusion, front-line therapy with VTD incorporated into ASCT was superior in comparison with TD plus ASCT in terms of extended TTP, PFS, time to subsequent antimyeloma therapy and salvage therapy-free interval. VTD-treated pts had a higher probability than TD-treated pts to experience long-lasting asymptomatic R/P not requiring second-line therapy. VTD-treated and TD-treated pts who subsequently received bortezomib-based salvage therapies had similar rates of response and post-R/P OS. This finding suggests that short-term exposure to VTD, as planned in our study, did not favor the selection of bortezomib-resistant clones, thus allowing to rechallenge bortezomib as (part of) second-line therapy after symptomatic R/P. Disclosures:Cavo:Janssen, Celgene, Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Offidani:Janssen, Celgene: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Genzyme: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Bortezomib- and Thalidomide-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (PN) in Multiple Myeloma (MM): Clinical and Molecular Analysis of 474 Patients Treated with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) or Bortezomib-TD (VTD)

Abstract 1821 Introduction: PN is an important complication of MM and its incidence has been further increased after the introduction of the novel agents thalidomide and bortezomib. In a phase 3 trial comparing TD with VTD as induction therapy prior to and consolidation therapy after double autologous stem-cell transplantation for previously untreated MM patients, the VTD arm was significantly superior over TD in terms of improved rates of complete or near-complete response (CR/nCR) (the primary study endpoint) and progression free survival (PFS). Toxicity of VTD and TD regimens, including PN, was a secondary study endpoint. Methods: We performed a subanalysis of the study to assess the frequency, reversibility, risk factors and molecular markers associated with treatment-emergent PN. PN was graded by use of National Cancer Institute9s Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTCAE) version 3.0. Since grade 1 PN could be misinterpreted and does not interfere with the daily activities, only patients who developed PN of at least grade 2 were evaluated. A total of 474 patients (of whom, 236 randomized to the VTD arm and 238 to TD) were stratified according to the development or not of grade ≥2 neurological adverse events (NAEs). Gene expression profiles (GEP) of pre-treatment CD138+ bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) were analyzed in a subset of 127 VTD-treated patients for whom biological samples taken at diagnosis were adequate for genomic analysis. GEP experiments were performed using the Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 platform and class comparison of groups of array was done with one-way ANOVA Partek Genomic Suite (version 6.4). Results: Occurrence of PN throughout the entire treatment program was significantly higher in the VTD arm compared with TD. In particular, the rate of grade ≥2 PN was 35% vs 10% (p Conclusions: Although VTD incorporated into double ASCT was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥2 PN compared with TD, the probability of complete resolution or improvement to at least grade 1 was comparable in both VTD- and TD-treated groups. Importantly, NAEs did not adversely affect the rate of CR/nCR, and TTP and PFS. No relationship between development of PN and both patient demographics and disease characteristics was observed. Conversely, GEP analysis of BMPCs from patients with VTD-induced PN showed the significant deregulated expression of genes involved in the nervous system function. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Bortezomib and Thalidomide as induction therapy prior to and consolidation therapy after double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Tosi:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Baccarani:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Mayers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria. Cavo:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem-Cell (PBSC) Collection Is Not Impaired by Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (VTD) Induction Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM)

Abstract 317 Introduction: The novel agents bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide have been successfully incorporated into autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) as up-front therapy for newly diagnosed MM. However, several reports have raised concerns about the impact of novel agent-based induction regimens on PBSC collection. Furthermore, the ability to successfully collect PBSCs following initial therapy with two of these newer drugs needs to be confirmed in large phase III clinical trials. Methods: The GIMEMA Italian Myeloma Network designed a phase III study to compare VTD with thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy prior to double ASCT. Primary study endpoint was the rate of complete or near complete response to each of these two induction regimens, while their toxicity profile – including the impact on PBSC mobilization and collection - was a secondary study endpoint. To address this latter issue, we performed a post-hoc analysis to compare the effect of the triplet VTD induction regimen versus the doublet TD combination on CD34+ cell collection. After three 21-day cycles of VTD or TD induction therapy, patients received intermediate dose cyclophosphamide (CTX 4 g/m2) followed by G-CSF (10 mcg/Kg/die) to mobilize and collect PBSCs. The target threshold to safely perform double ASCT was 4 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg. Results: Patients evaluable for PBSC collection were 435 out of the 474 who received induction therapy. Of these, 223 were initially randomized to VTD and 212 to TD induction therapy. The median number of collected CD34+ cells was 9.7 × 106/Kg in the VTD arm and 10.7 × 106/Kg in the TD arm (p= n.s.). The planned yield of 4 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg was achieved with a single harvest in more than 90% of patients in both treatment groups (96% in VTD and 92% in TD, p= n.s.). A yield of CD34+ cells >10 × 106 /Kg was reported in 51% and 56% of patients treated with VTD and TD, respectively (p= n.s.). Only 5 patients (2%) in VTD group and 2 patients (1%) in the TD arm failed to collect more than 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg (p= n.s.). The majority of patients (86% in VTD and 82% in TD, p=n.s.) received CTX as an in-patient procedure, the median time of hospitalization being 4 days. Less than 5% of patients developed grade 3–4 infectious complications (2% in the VTD group vs 3% in TD, p=n.s.) which required hospitalization in only 2 patients. Following ASCT, no significant difference was observed between the two treatment arms in terms of hematologic recovery and non hematological toxicity. Kaplan-Meier curves of TTP and PFS were almost superimposable for patients with a CD34+ yield >10 × 106/Kg and in the range between 4 and 10 × 106/Kg (group 1). These curves were very similar also for patients who collected between 2 and 4 × 106/Kg CD34+ cells or 10 × 106/Kg CD34+ cells was in the 90% range, a value significantly better than what was seen in the remaining subgroups. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, yields of CD34+ cells >10 × 106/Kg and in the range of 4 to 10 × 106/Kg were independently associated with prolonged PFS (p=0.001 and =0.027, respectively), while CD34+ cells >10 × 106/Kg predicted for extended OS (p=0.002). Absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17q), and ISS stage 1 or 2 were additional favorable prognostic factors for both PFS and OS, while randomization to VTD independently predicted for longer PFS. Conclusions: Results of the present analysis showed that both TD and VTD shared the advantage of no adverse impact on PBSC collection and the engraftment potential of collected PBSCs. The target for CD34+ cell collection (>4 × 106/Kg) was achieved with a single harvest in more than 90% of patients in both treated groups and a collection failure was reported in 1% to 2% of patients. These favorable results are due to early PBSC collection, which was performed after 3 cycles of TD and VTD, and use of CTX plus G-CSF which allows better stem cell collection and less likelihood of a collection failure. Of particular note, both VTD and TD were associated with a 50% to 59% probability to collect >10 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg, a variable independently associated with extended PFS and OS. Disclosures: Off Label Use: bortezomib and thalidomide used as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Baccarani: Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria.

Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Compared with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Induction and Consolidation Therapy Before and After Double Autologous Transplantation In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Study

AbstractAbstract 42We prospectively compared thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Three 21-d cycles of either VTD (V, 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly; T, 200 mg/d through d 1 to 63; D, 320 mg/cycle) or TD were given as induction therapy. Consolidation therapy comprised two 35-d cycles of VTD (V, 1.3 mg/m2 once-weekly; T, 100 mg/d through d 1 to 70; D, 320 mg/cycle) or TD. 474 patients randomized to the VTD (n=236) or TD (n=238) arm were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis for response rate, PFS and OS. Centrally reassessed CR/nCR rate was significantly higher in the VTD compared with the TD arm after all treatment phases, including induction therapy (30% vs 10%, p<0.0001), double autotransplantation (54% vs 42%, p=0.008) and consolidation therapy (60% vs 44%, p=0.001). Best confirmed overall CR/nCR rate was 71% in the VTD arm compared with 52% in the TD arm (p<0.0001); the corresponding values for VGPR or better were 89% vs 72%, respectively (p<0.0001). To evaluate the role of consolidation therapy we performed a per-protocol analysis of 323 patients, 161 treated with VTD and 162 with TD. Overall, upgraded responses with VTD and TD as consolidation therapy were observed in 55% vs 37% of patients, respectively (p=0.01; OR:1.15-3.77). Furthermore, the probability to improve responses from less than CR before consolidation to CR after consolidation was 28% with VTD vs 15% with TD (p=0.02; OR:1.07-4.57) (p=0.003 using the Mc Nemar's test). Post-consolidation molecular detection of minimal residual disease was the objective of a substudy; detailed results are reported in a separate abstract. Briefly, both qualitative and quantitative analyses confirmed the statistically significant superiority of VTD over TD in effecting higher rates of molecular remissions and reducing the burden of residual myeloma cells after ASCT. Any grade 3–4 non-hematologic adverse events were 10% with VTD (peripheral neuropathy: 1.3%, skin rash: 0.6%) vs 12% with TD. With a median follow-up of 31 months, median PFS was 42 months in the TD arm and was not yet reached in the VTD arm (44-month projected rate: 61%) (HR: 0.62 [CI: 0.45–0.87], p=0.006). Superior PFS in the VTD vs TD arm was retained across patient subgroups with poor prognosis, including those with t(4;14) and/or del(17p). Randomization to VTD overcome the adverse influence of t(4;14) on PFS (40-month projected rates: 69% vs 67% according to the presence or absence of this abnormality, respectively; p=0.6). By the opposite, in the TD arm corresponding median PFS values were 24.5 vs 41.5 months, respectively (p=0.01). The small numbers of patients with del(17p) in both arms of the study precluded a statistical comparison with del(17p)-negative group. In a multivariate analysis, variables favorably influencing PFS were beta2-m lower than 3.5 mg/L (HR:0.47; p=0.000), absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR:0.52; p=0.000), randomization to VTD arm (HR:0.57; p=0.002), attainment of at least VGPR (HR:0.50; p=0.009) and CR (HR:0.8; p=0.01). No statistically significant difference between the overall treatment protocols was seen in terms of OS, although curves seemed to initially diverge after 40 months (44-month projected rates: 84% vs 74% for VTD and TD arms, respectively). A multivariate analysis showed the independent role of absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (HR:0.42; p=0.003), ISS stage1-2 (HR:0.49; p=0.02) and randomization to VTD (HR:0.53; p=0.04) in prolonging OS. When time-dependent CR entered the model, absence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) and less advanced ISS stage retained their positive prognostic value; attainment of CR (strictly related to VTD randomization) was an additional favorable variable. In conclusion, in comparison with the TD arm of the study, 1) VTD induction emerges as a new standard of care for maximizing the degree and speedy of tumor reduction in preparation for ASCT; 2) VTD consolidation effected significantly higher rates of upgraded responses, including CR, and of molecular remissions; 3) double ASCT incorporating VTD as induction and consolidation therapy resulted in significantly longer PFS, a benefit confirmed in a multivariate regression analysis and maintained in the subgroup of patients with adverse cytogenetic abnormalities. Disclosures:Cavo:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Use of bortezomib and thalidomide as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, autologous transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Baccarani:NOVARTIS: Honoraria; BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB: Honoraria.

Molecular Remission After Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Compared with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone as Consolidation Therapy Following Double Autologous Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

AbstractAbstract 861The high rate of complete response (CR) effected by novel agents as induction and consolidation/maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) has renewed interest in the evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD) after these combined treatment strategies. For this purpose, a useful molecular marker is represented by the immunoglobulin heavy-chain (IgH) rearrangement which can be carefully detected by means of polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We designed a molecular sub-study to the phase 3 GIMEMA trial of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) vs. thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) incorporated into double autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed MM. By study design, patients randomized at diagnosis to VTD or TD as induction therapy before ASCT received two 35-day cycles of consolidation therapy with VTD or TD starting 3 months after ASCT(s), independently from prior response. Doses of study drugs were the following: V, 1.3 mg/m2 once weekly; T, 100 mg/d through d 1 to 70; D, 320 mg/cycle. Aim of the molecular study was to compare the activity of VTD consolidation with that of TD by qualitative and quantitative PCR analysis. Patients who were planned to receive consolidation with either VTD or TD and who were in confirmed CR or near CR before the start of consolidation therapy were eligible for entry into the molecular study. A qualitative and quantitative PCR analysis with patient-specific primers was performed on bone marrow samples collected at day 0 and at day +70 after the two preplanned cycles of either VTD or TD. At this time, 84 patients were included in the study; of these, 67 patients were analyzed for MRD detection based on the availability of: 1) a molecular marker (e.g. IgH rearrangement) assessed at diagnosis; 2) both pre- and post-consolidation bone marrow samples. According to randomization at diagnosis, 35 out of 67 patients received VTD consolidation, while TD consolidation was given to 32 patients. Qualitative PCR analysis performed on bone marrow samples collected at day 0 showed that MRD before the start of VTD consolidation therapy was undetectable in 15 out of 35 patients, or 43%; the corresponding value before the start of TD consolidation was 37.5% (or 12 out of 32 patients). In comparison with the pre-consolidation status, analysis of bone marrow samples collected at day +70 revealed an upgrade in PCR-negativity from 37.5% to 52% with TD consolidation and from 43% to 67% with VTD consolidation (p=0.05, according to McNemar's test). By using the Fisher's exact test, the proportion of patients with post-consolidation PCR-negativity was significantly higher with VTD vs. TD consolidation (p=0.05). These data were furtherly extended by a Real-time quantitative PCR analysis, which could be performed in 45 out of the 67 patients initially included in the study (22 in the TD arm and 23 in VTD). In comparison with residual tumor mass at day 0, quantitative PCR analysis of bone marrow samples collected at day +70 revealed a median 1 log reduction in tumor burden with TD consolidation vs. a median 5 log reduction with VTD consolidation. By using the Wilcoxon test, the overall reduction in residual tumor burden effected by VTD consolidation therapy was statistically significant (p=0.05). In conclusion, in comparison with TD consolidation, two 35-day cycles of consolidation therapy with VTD following double ASCT significantly increased the rate of molecular remissions and significantly reduced the burden of residual myeloma cells persisting after ASCT. Superior activity of VTD over TD consolidation was retained although prior exposure to the same regimen given as induction therapy in preparation for ASCT. Additional data on molecular follow-up analyses of bone marrow samples collected after day +70 and comparisons of the prognostic relevance of PCR-negativity with PCR-positivity, as well as of PCR-negativity induced by VTD with that induced by TD will be presented during the meeting.Supported by: Progetto di Ricerca Finalizzata Orientata (to M.C), BolognAIL, Fondazione del Monte di Bologna e Ravenna. Disclosures:Baccarani:NOVARTIS: Honoraria; BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB: Honoraria. Cavo:jansen-cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, no; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, no; novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, no.

Bortezomib(Velcade®)-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (VTD) Is Superior to Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) In Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) Progressing or Relapsing After Autologous Transplantation

AbstractAbstract 3043 Introduction:The Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) regimen has provided encouraging results in relapsed MM. To improve results, bortezomib (Velcade) has been added to the combination in previous phase II studies, the so called VTD regimen. In January 2006, the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) initiated a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III, multicenter study, comparing VTD (arm A) with TD (arm B) for MM patients progressing or relapsing after autologous transplantation. Patients and Methods:Inclusion criteria: patients in first progression or relapse after at least one autologous transplantation, including those who had received bortezomib or thalidomide before transplant. Exclusion criteria: subjects with neuropathy above grade 1 or non secretory MM. Primary study end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included safety, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment was scheduled as follows: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 was given as an i.v bolus on Days 1, 4, 8 and 11 followed by a 10-Day rest period (days 12 to 21) for 8 cycles (6 months) and then on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 followed by a 20-Day rest period (days 23 to 42) for 4 cycles (6 months). In both arms, thalidomide was scheduled at 200 mg/Day orally for one year and dexamethasone 40 mg/Day orally four days every three weeks for one year. Patients reaching remission could proceed to a new stem cell harvest. However, transplantation, either autologous or allogeneic, could only be performed in patients who completed the planned one year treatment period. Response was assessed by EBMT criteria, with additional category of near complete remission (nCR). Adverse events were graded by the NCI-CTCAE, Version 3.0.The trial was based on a group sequential design, with 4 planned interim analyses and one final analysis that allowed stopping for efficacy as well as futility. The overall alpha and power were set equal to 0.025 and 0.90 respectively. The test for decision making was based on the comparison in terms of the ratio of the cause-specific hazards of relapse/progression, estimated in a Cox model stratified on the number of previous autologous transplantations. Relapse/progression cumulative incidence was estimated using the proper nonparametric estimator, the comparison was done by the Gray test. PFS and OS probabilities were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier curves, the comparison was performed by the Log-Rank test. An interim safety analysis was performed when the first hundred patients had been included. The safety committee recommended to continue the trial. Results:As of 1st July 2010, 269 patients had been enrolled in the study, 139 in France (IFM 2005-04 study), 21 in Italy, 38 in Germany, 19 in Switzerland (a SAKK study), 23 in Belgium, 8 in Austria, 8 in the Czech republic, 11 in Hungary, 1 in the UK and 1 in Israel. One hundred and sixty nine patients were males and 100 females; the median age was 61 yrs (range 29–76). One hundred and thirty six patients were randomized to receive VTD and 133 to receive TD. The current analysis is based on 246 patients (124 in arm A, 122 in arm B) included in the second interim analysis, carried out when 134 events were observed. Following this analysis, the trial was stopped because of significant superiority of VTD over TD. The remaining patients were too premature to contribute to the analysis. The number of previous autologous transplants was one in 63 vs 60 and two or more in 61 vs 62 patients in arm A vs B respectively. The median follow-up was 25 months. The median TTP was 20 months vs 15 months respectively in arm A and B, with cumulative incidence of relapse/progression at 2 years equal to 52% (95% CI: 42%-64%) vs 70% (95% CI: 61%-81%) (p=0.0004, Gray test). The same superiority of arm A was also observed when stratifying on the number of previous autologous transplantations. At 2 years, PFS was 39% (95% CI: 30%-51%) vs 23% (95% CI: 16%-34%) (A vs B, p=0.0006, Log-Rank test). OS in the first two years was comparable in the two groups. Conclusion:VTD resulted in significantly longer TTP and PFS in patients relapsing after ASCT. Analysis of response and safety data are on going and results will be presented at the meeting. Protocol EU-DRACT number: 2005-001628-35. Disclosures:Niederwieser:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau.

A Phase III Study of Double Autotransplantation Incorporating Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (VTD) or Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) for Multiple Myeloma: Superior Clinical Outcomes with VTD Compared to TD.

Abstract 351▪▪This icon denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant. IntroductionA phase III study of melphalan (200 mg/m2)-based double autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) incorporating thalidomide (T) and dexamethasone (D) with or without the addition of bortezomib (V) as first-line therapy for younger (≤65 years) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) is currently being conducted by the Italian Myeloma Network GIMEMA. Patients and MethodsBy study design, pts were random assigned to receive three 21-d cycles of either bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) (V, 1.3 mg/m2 twice-weekly; T, 200 mg/d through d 1 to 63; D, 320 mg/cycle) or thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) (both drugs at the same dose and schedule than in VTD) as induction therapy in preparation for ASCTs. Two 35-d cycles of either VTD or TD were given as consolidation therapy following ASCTs (V, 1.3 mg/m2 once-weekly; T, 100 mg/d through d 1 to 70; D, 320 mg/cycle). Primary study end point was the rate of high-quality responses [immunofixation negative complete response (CR) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR)] to induction therapy. Secondary study end points included response to, and toxicity of, subsequent treatment phases (including first and second ASCTs, and consolidation therapy), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Analyses were intent to treat. All the 474 pts were evaluated for response to, and toxicity of, induction therapy. Responses reported by study investigators were centrally reassessed to confirm CR and VGPR; pts reported as complete responders but in whom bone marrow aspirate was not evaluable or not performed were reassessed as in VGPR. The VGPR category included the subcategories of near CR and VGPR. ResultsThe study was closed to pts accrual after a total of 480 pts were enrolled; of these, 6 failed inclusion criteria and the remaining 474 were randomized to the VTD (n=236) or TD (n=238) arm. The mean total dose of V received in induction therapy was 14.7 mg (or 94% of that planned). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) and skin rash (SR) were reported more frequently with VTD induction therapy than with TD (PN: 9.7% vs 2.1%, respectively; P<0.001) (SR: 10% vs 1.7%, respectively; P<0.001). In the VTD arm, resolution or reduction to at least grade 2 of PN was observed within a median of 26 days. Remarkably, once-weekly standard dose administration of V and reduction of T dose in VTD as consolidation therapy resulted in a dramatic decrease in the frequency of grade ≥3 PN (2%) and SR (1%). Reported rates of herpes zoster infection with VTD as both induction and consolidation therapy were 0.4% and 1%, respectively. Overall, the CR (≥VGPR) rate with VTD induction therapy was 19% (62%) vs 5% (31%) with TD (P<0.001 for both CR and ≥VGPR comparisons); no pt had disease progression while on VTD, as compared to 5% of pts treated with TD (P<0.001) who discontinued therapy and went off study. Progression through the subsequent treatment phases was associated with an increase in the frequency of CR and ≥VGPR up to a final value of 44% and 80%, respectively, in the VTD arm; the corresponding rates in the TD arm were 32% (p=0.02) and 65% (p=0.001), respectively. On an intention to treat basis, best responses in the VTD vs TD arm were the following: CR, 55% vs 38%, respectively (P<0.001); ≥VGPR: 87% vs 69%, respectively (P<0.001). Superiority of the VTD vs TD arm in terms of CR rate was confirmed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, as defined by the presence of t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (58% vs 33%, respectively; p=0.004). Two year-projected PFS was 85% in the VTD arm as compared to 75% in TD (p=0.008). Improved PFS with VTD vs TD, both added to double ASCT, was consistent across subgroup analyses of pts with poor prognosis, including those with high-risk cytogenetic profiles (p=0.03; HR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.96). PFS curves for pts in the VTD arm who carried or not high-risk cytogenetics were similar (p=0.19). No difference in OS was seen between the two treatment groups, but longer follow up is required. ConclusionsIncorporation of VTD into double ASCT for newly diagnosed MM resulted in a significant improvement in clinical outcomes (CR, ≥VGPR, PFS) in comparison with TD and double autotransplantation. Superior benefit with VTD and double ASCT in comparison with the control group was maintained in pts at high risk of progression or death, including those with t(4;14) and/or del(17p). Disclosures:Cavo:Celgene: Honoraria; Ortho Biotech, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria.

Superior Rate of Complete Response with up-Front Velcade-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide-Dexamethasone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Is Not Affected by Adverse Prognostic Factors, Including High-Risk Cytogenetic Abnormalities.

Complete response (CR) is an important objective of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). In comparison with conventional induction treatments, newer combinations of novel agents may effect increased rates of CR and near CR (nCR), a benefit potentially translating into even higher frequencies of CR/nCR after ASCT and improved clinical outcome. We designed a phase III study to detect an increase in CR+nCR rates from 10–15% with conventional Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) to 20–30% with Velcade added to TD (VTD) in newly diagnosed MM. Both TD and VTD were given as three 21-day cycles in preparation for double ASCT. In the present analysis, CR+nCR rates by the two induction treatments were examined in relationship to baseline prognostic variables in 399 evaluable pts aged ≤65 years, of whom 199 randomized to VTD and 200 to TD. All analyses were intent to treat. In comparison with TD, VTD effected higher rates of CR+nCR (12% vs 33%, P<0.001) and of ≥very good partial response (VGPR) (30% vs 61%, P<0.001). By univariate analysis, superiority of VTD to TD was maintained across all sub-group analyses according to standard prognostic factors, including β2-m, albumin, stage (ISS), Hb, PLTs, bone marrow PC, M protein isotype, LDH, CRP. In particular, the rates of CR+nCR with VTD vs TD in pts with standard poor prognostic factors were as follows: ISS stage 3 (23.5% vs 6%, P=0.03), Hb<10 g/dL (24% vs 4%, P=0.002), PLTs<150.000/μL (35% vs 4%, P=0.009), bone marrow PC ≥50% (31% vs 13%, P<0.001), IgA isotype (63% vs 15%, P<0.001), LDH >190 U/L (33% vs 9%, P<0.001), CRP ≥8 mg/L (29% vs 10%, P=0.004). We next examined CR+nCRs by treatment arms in relationship to cytogenetics (FISH data available in 93% to 99% of all pts). Superior CR+nCR rates were effected by VTD vs TD in the presence of high-risk cytogenetics, including del(13) (39% vs 10%, P<0.001), t(4;14) (39.5% vs 10%, P=0.002), combined t(4;14) and del(13) (32% vs 0%, P=0.001), and del(17p) (28.5% vs 0%, P=0.03). Remarkably, when examined in the context of the VTD arm, high-quality response rates were significantly higher for pts carrying del(13) and t(4;14) vs those who lacked these abnormalities [del(13): CR+nCR:39% vs 24%, P=0.03; ≥VGPR: 71% vs 48%, P=0.001] [t(4;14): ≥VGPR:79% vs 55%, P=0.007)]. An opposite trend was noted for pts in the TD arm, whose probability to attain ≥VGPR was adversely affected by the presence of del(13) (P=0.07) and del(17p) (P=0.03). Variables associated with achievement of CR+nCR in the two arms that retained statistical significance when assessed by multivariate Cox regression analysis included randomization to VTD (P<0.001), light chain only subtype (P<0.001), IgA isotype (P<0.001) and Hb>10 g/dL (P=0.01). In the VTD arm, a positive correlation was observed with del(13) (P=0.006) and t(4;14) (P=0.02). Response to first ASCT with melphalan 200 mg/m2 could be evaluated in 297 pts, of whom 145 randomized to VTD and 152 to TD. Randomization to VTD was closely associated with increased CR+nCR rates (54% vs 29% with TD, P<0.001) and remained statistically significant (P<0.001) also in the multivariate analysis. Additional factors predicting for superior post-ASCT CR+nCR rates in the multivariate setting included light chain only subtype (P<0.001) and IgA isotype (P=0.005). We conclude that randomization to up-front VTD was the strongest and independent factor associated with increased rates of CR+nCR before ASCT. Superiority of VTD to TD pertained in both low-risk and high-risk sub-groups, including the traditionally unfavorable sub-groups carrying del(13), t(4,14) and del(17p). Remarkably, in the VTD arm improved postinduction CR+nCR rates were significantly associated with the presence of del(13) and t(4;14) in the multivariate analysis. Benefit from VTD vs TD as primary induction therapy translated into significantly improved CR+nCR rates after the first ASCT and remained statistically significant when assessed by multivariate analysis.

Bortezomib (Velcade®)-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (VTD) vs Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) in Preparation for Autologous Stem-Cell (SC) Transplantation (ASCT) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM).

In May 2006, the Italian Myeloma Network GIMEMA initiated a multicenter, randomized phase III study comparing VTD (arm A) with TD (arm B) incorporated into ASCT for newly diagnosed MM. Both VTD and TD were planned to be administered before (induction) and after (consolidation) double ASCT with melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL-200). In both arms, induction therapy consisted of three 21-d courses [63 days (d)]. The VTD regimen included Vel, 1.3 mg/m2 on d 1, 4, 8, and 11, plus Dex, 40 mg on each day of and after Vel administration; Thal was given at 200 mg/d from d 1 to 63. Patients randomized to TD received Thal as in arm A and Dex 40 mg/d on d 1–4 and 9–12 of every 21-d cycle. Primary study end point was complete response [either immunofixation negative (CR) or immunofixation positive (nCR)] to induction therapy. Secondary study end points included CR+nCR to consolidation therapy, time to progression, event-free survival, overall survival and toxicity. An interim analysis was planned to be performed after one year from study initiation to assess efficacy and toxicity of induction therapy. As of May 30, 2007, 234 patients entered the study and 187 were evaluated for response to induction therapy and adverse events (AEs). Of these patients, 92 were randomly assigned to receive VTD and 95 to receive TD. Efficacy and toxicity analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The rate of CR+nCR to VTD was 38% vs 7% to TD (P<0.001); 60% of patients in VTD arm and 25% of patients in the control group attained at least a very good partial response (P<0.001). Patients who failed at least a partial response to VTD were significantly less than those who failed on TD (7% vs 21%, respectively; P=0.004). Grade ≥ 2 and grade ≥ 3 AEs were similar in both arms, with the exception of grade ≥ 3 skin rash (6.5% in VTD arm vs 1% in TD arm; P=0.04). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was reported in 8% of patients randomly assigned to VTD and in 2% of patients treated with TD (P=0.07). All patients received acyclovir prophylaxis against reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV). VZV infection occurred in 2% of patients in VTD arm and in 1% of patients in the control group. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was required in a single patient in each of the two treatment arms. No patient died for any cause during the induction phase. In a subgroup of patients with longer follow-up response to first ASCT was also evaluated. The rate of CR or CR+nCR to MEL-200 was significantly higher in VTD arm than in the control group (P=0.02 for CR comparison and P=0.05 for CR+nCR comparison between the two treatment arms). Preliminary analysis of this study provides demonstration that VTD is a highly active and well tolerated induction regimen, resulting in a significantly higher CR or CR+nCR rate compared to TD both before ASCT and after the first autologous transplantation with MEL-200.

Thalidomide-Dexamethasone vs. Melphalan-Prednisone as First Line Treatment and Thalidomide-Interferon vs. Interferon Maintenance Therapy in Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) is an active regimen both in patients (pts) with relapsing/refractory and in untreated pts with multiple myeloma (MM). Here we compare TD with standard Melphalan-Prednisone (MP) in previously untreated elderly pts with MM. 274 pts have been enrolled (median age: 72 yrs, stage I: 9 (3%), stage II: 84 (31%), stage III: 179 (65%). Pts were randomized to T 200mg/day and D 40mg, days 1–4 and 15–18 (on odd cycles) and days 1–4 (on even cycles) or M 0.25mg/kg days 1–4 and P2mg/kg days 1–4, q 4–6 weeks. T should be dosed up to 400mg/day, if feasible. Pts achieving response or SD were randomized to maintenance therapy either with T (≤200mg/day)-Interferon-a2b (IFN, 3Mega U, TIW) or IFN (3Mega U/TIW). Zoledronic acid (4mg) was administered monthly to all pts during the entire treatment period. Response is defined according Blade's criteria, plus nCR defined as IF positive or >90%↓ in PP and VGPR defined as >75% ↓reduction in PP. 231 pts are evaluable per protocol. Best response to TD: CR (14%) nCR 17%, VGPR 17%, PR 21%, yielding an ORR (CR-PR) of 68%. Best response to MP: CR 7%, nCR 8%, VGPR 14%, PR 22%; ORR 51% (ORR in TD vs. MP p=.0044). Time to response and time to best response were shorter in the TD (6, 16 weeks, respectively) compared to the MP group (16, 25 weeks, respectively; p<.001, p<.002, respectively).There was a tendency for more early treatment discontinuations in the TD arm (15 vs. 11, p=.416) and a higher mortality during the first treatment year (31 vs. 17, p=.026). Pts treated with MP showed a tendency for longer EFS (median: 43 vs. 25mos; p<.07) and had sign. longer OS compared to those on TD (median: 58 vs. 45mos;p=.029). A retrospective comparison of pts ≤ aged 72 showed no difference in OS (median: 57.9 vs. 50 mos, p<.186) but OS was longer in pts >72 yrs treated with MP (median: 46.5.9 vs. 25.4, p<.0625). Maintenance treatment in the 108 pts randomized to either T-IFN, or IFN only, did not result in a sign. difference in OS (from start of maintenance: not reached vs. 41.1 mos, p<.95). Pts on MP had a higher incidence of G 3–4 leucopenia (14% vs. 3%; p< .0001), while for thrombocytopenia only a tendency for a higher frequency was noted. Pts on TD had more G 2–3 neuropathy (28% vs. 10%, p<.001), constipation (30% vs. 10%, p<.001), psychological toxicity (18% vs. 6%, p<.0006), and a tendency for a higher rate of skin toxicity (9% vs. 5%, p=.069), and infections (23% vs. 16%, p<.12) compared to those on MP. The cumulative incidence of DVTs was 15% in pts on TD and 6% in those on MP (p=.089). In conclusion, TD treatment resulted in sign. higher rate of CR/nCR and ORR, a sign. shorter time to response and to best response. Pts on TD had similar EFS but sign. shorter OS. This was particularly true in pts aged >72 years but not in those aged ≤72 who showed similar OS with TD and MP. Pts on TD had more neuropathy, DVT, psychological toxicity, and a higher rate of early treatment discontinuations, while haematological toxicity was higher in pts treated with MP.