Transplant-ineligible Multiple Myeloma Research Articles

Treatment Considerations for Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma.

While significant advances have been made in the treatment of multiple myeloma, the management of the transplant-ineligible (TI) patient population remains challenging. The individuals enrolled in clinical trials for newly diagnosed TI patients, or those with no planned transplant, may not always be reflective of real-world patients, with respect to age, comorbidities, or frailty status. Likewise, results obtained from randomized relapsed/refractory studies also may not be applicable to this generally older and frailer patient population. In this review, we discuss assessment of frailty and focus on treatment options in both the newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory settings for TI patients. We describe the patient-specific considerations that factor into treatment decisions as well as provide some guidance about management.

For adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, how do different drug combinations compare?

For adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, how do different drug combinations compare?

Efficacy of Modified Vrd-Lite for Transplant Ineligible Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND: High dose chemotherapy followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation is an effective treatment for multiple myeloma. However, many patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma are transplant-ineligible because of their age and complications, result in a poorer prognosis than transplant-eligible patients. Furthermore, many of them cannot complete normal chemotherapy because of low tolerability. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of modified bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (mVRD-lite) for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational analysis was performed on patients who received mVRd-lite for the first line chemotherapy between Jan. 2016 and Mar. 2020 in our hospital. Patients who received high dose dexamethasone to reduce tumor burden, and patients who received bortezomib with dexamethasone or lenalidomide with dexamethasone as a reduction regimen of mVRd-lite were also included. We evaluated ORR, OS, PFS and adverse effect. mVRD-lite at first was administered over a 28-day cycle. Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. Lenalidomide 15 mg was given orally 18 days, omitted on days 1, 8, 15, which are the days of bortezomib administration. Dexamethasone 20 mg was given orally on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, which are the day of and day after bortezomib. We also reviewed patients background, especially complication of light-chain amyloidosis and considered the impact of cardiac amyloidosis on patient prognosis. This study was conducted with the permission of the Ethics Review Board in our hospital. RESULTS: The subjects analyzed totaled 40 transplant-ineligible patients. 11(27.5%) patients were AL amyloidosis associated with multiple myeloma and 8(20%) patients had cardiac amyloidosis. Median age at diagnosis was 73 (range 48-86) and Male:Female=1:1. Most of them were judged inadequate to transplantation due to their age, general condition, or complication. One patient was ruled unfit to transplantation, because of his refusion. The Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) were I in 5 (12.5%), II in 25 (62.5%) and III in 8 (20%). 5(25%) patients switched to maintenance therapy. 17(42.5%) patients discontinued treatment, because of adverse effect (cardiac failure 4 ; two of them combined with cardiac amyloidosis, rash 4, peripheral neuropathy 3, infection 3, etc). 2(5%) patients died during treatment by mVRd-lite, because of Grade 4 adverse effect, such as pneumonia. 11(27.5%) patients died during observation period and causes of death were primary disease and TRM. 1(2.5%) patient was died of heart failure associated with cardiac amyloidosis. The overall response rate(ORR) during treatment period of mVRd-lite was obtained in 34(85%), including sCR in 5 (12.5%), VGPR in 13 (32.5%) and PR in 14(30%). 2(5%) patients achieved MRD negative. SD were observed in 3(7.5%) patients. 3(7.5%) patients were not evaluated efficacy because of treatment interruption by adverse effect. Overall survival rate at two year is 64.3%, median OS was not reached, at a median follow-up of 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients are associated with poor prognosis. Modified RVD-lite is one of the appropriate therapeutic options, in the transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients. Twenty-five percent of patients with cardiac amyloidosis had treatment discontinued due to cardiac complications. Further study is needed for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma complicated with cardiac amyloidosis. Disclosures Ishida: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Ono pharmaceutical co: Speakers Bureau; Takeda pharmaceutical co: Speakers Bureau. Nashimoto:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Tsukada:Takeda pharmaceutical co: Speakers Bureau. Suzuki:Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda, Celgene, ONO, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie and Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Amgen: Research Funding.

Maintenance Therapy in Newly Diagnosed and Transplant Ineligible Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell disorder with more than two-thirds of the newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients being ≥65 years of age. Recent advancements in the treatment of MM with novel agents and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have significantly improved survival in those patients. However, the management of NDMM in many elderly patients remains a challenge due to frailty, multiple comorbidities, and their ineligibility for ASCT. Our aim in this study is to review and analyze the safety and efficacy of different maintenance regimes for NDMM patients who are ineligible for ASCT. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was done on four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov). A search was performed without the use of filters and using MeSH terms for multiple myeloma and maintenance therapy (MT). Studies involving transplant-ineligible NDMM patients which reported overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), or partial response (PR) along with adverse effects were included. A pooled analysis of the extracted data was performed using the "meta" package by Schwarzer et al. in the R programming language (version 4.0.2). The event rates were pooled using the inverse variance method and logit transformation. The between-studies variance was calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. The random-effects model was used for the analysis. Results: Lenalidomide based MT: Four studies involving 950 transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were included. All patients received lenalidomide (R) based MT following induction therapy. A pooled analysis of these studies showed ORR of 88% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81%-93%, p < 0.01) with 67% of the patients showing ≥VGPR (95% CI: 48%-82%, p <0.01) (Figure 1 A). The most common ≥ grade 3 hematological adverse effects (AE) included neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia while most common ≥ grade 3 non-hematological AE were infections, diarrhea, and fatigue (Table 1). Bortezomib based MT: Five clinical trials involving 1171 NDMM patients who received bortezomib (V) based MT were included and evaluated in our study (Figure 1 B). Pooled analysis showed ORR of 84% (95% CI: 74%-91%, p <0.01) with 32% patients showing CR (95% CI: 25%-41%, p <0.01). The most common ≥ grade 3 hematological and non-hematological AE's are reported in table 1. Ixazomib based MT: A total of 202 transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were evaluated for a response after receiving ixazomib (I) based MT in 5 clinical trials (Figure 1 C). A pooled analysis of these trials showed an ORR of 86% (95% CI: 69%-94%, p: <0.01) with 60% patients having ≥ VGPR (95% CI: 40%-76%, p <0.01). The most common ≥ grade 3 hematological AE included anemia (9%), neutropenia (15%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). (Table 1) Conclusion: V, R and I based MT has shown promising efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients. R based MT has shown superior ORR compared to V or I based MT. However, data from more clinical trials are needed. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

How I manage frontline transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

The Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a plasma cells hematological malignancy with a median age of 69 years at diagnosis. The autologous stem cell transplantation is the standard of care for this disease but less than half of newly diagnosed patients are assessed for this treatment due to comorbidities or complications of disease. The management of transplant ineligible MM patients is based on the balance safety and efficacy of the new available regimen and a careful assessment of the frailty status is mandatory to define the goals. In this review we discuss of the clinical dilemmas in the management and define how to manage them based on the evidence from clinical trials and “real life” experience.

Pembrolizumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in treatment-naive multiple myeloma (KEYNOTE-185): subgroup analysis in Japanese patients.

The global, randomized, open-label KEYNOTE-185 study closed early after an interim analysis showed an unfavorable benefit-risk profile with pembrolizumab plus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) versus Rd alone in treatment-naive, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. This subgroup analysis reported outcomes in the Japanese population. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab plus Rd or Rd alone, stratified by age and International Staging System. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Fifty-two Japanese patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus Rd (n = 27) or Rd (n = 25). The median follow-up was 7.2months (range, 0.4-13.8). The median PFS was not reached (NR); 6-month PFS was 91.2% versus 86.2% with pembrolizumab plus Rd versus Rd [hazard ratio (HR), 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.63]. The median overall survival (OS) was NR; 6-month OS was 96.2% versus 95.7% with pembrolizumab plus Rd versus Rd (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.03-3.72). With pembrolizumab plus Rd versus Rd, grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 70.4% versus 69.6% of patients; serious adverse events occurred in 40.7% versus 52.5%. Although in the Japanese subgroup of KEYNOTE-185 adding pembrolizumab to Rd did not show an unfavorable risk-benefit, the analysis is limited by short follow-up and small sample size, affecting generalizability of the results.

Maintenance therapy in transplant ineligible adults with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The role of maintenance therapy in transplant ineligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients following a period of fixed duration induction therapy remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining maintenance therapy compared to observation. We conducted a comprehensive search including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database up to February 28, 2020, for RCTs comparing maintenance therapy to observation in newly diagnosed transplant ineligible MM patients. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model and assessed certainty using GRADE methodology. We included five RCTs with a total of 1139 patients. Patients receiving maintenance therapy had improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to observation (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 to 0.62, high certainty); however, there was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.2, moderate certainty). Adverse events were higher in the maintenance group compared to observation (very low to moderate certainty). Maintenance therapy increases PFS in transplant ineligible MM patients following a fixed period of induction therapy; however, this must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse events.

Validation of the UK myeloma research alliance risk profile, a new clinical prediction model for outcome in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation; a population-based study from the Danish national multiple myeloma registry.

In 2019 the UK Myeloma Research Alliance introduced the Myeloma Risk Profile (MRP) for prediction of outcome in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. To validate the MRP in a population-based setting we performed a study of the entire cohort of transplant ineligible MM patients above 65 years in the Danish National MM Registry. Our data confirmed the value of the MRP. In a cohort of 1,377 patients, the MRP score separated patients into three distinct risk-groups with an observed hazard ratio of 2.91 for early death in high-risk versus low-risk patients.

The impact of first-line therapy with novel agents in multiple myeloma patients age 80 and above: A systematic review.

e20532 Background: Novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma (MM) have demonstrated significant improvements in treatment outcomes. However, data remains scarce in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients aged 80 and above as they are less represented in clinical trials. Optimal treatment of this population also proves challenging due to treatment-related adverse events. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE search concluded March 4, 2019. We included studies that evaluated first-line treatment of age ≥80 transplant-ineligible MM patients with novel agents. The primary outcomes assessed were OS and PFS. A qualitative analysis was undertaken due to the small number of included articles. Results: Of 1683 articles assessed for eligibility, 134 articles proceeded to full-text review. 6 articles with a total of 819 patients age ≥ 80 (range 80-96) were included for analysis (5 retrospective analyses and 1 phase II, non-randomized trial). Median OS were significantly shorter in age ≥80 in comparison to younger groups (reported median OS ranged from 19.5-31.9mo for age ≥80, 46-54.8mo for age 66-79, and 81-83.8mo or not reached for age ≤65). Shorter survival was associated with poorer performance status, advanced ISS stage, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, anemia and elevated serum LDH. In one study, attaining a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) was associated with improved median OS (30.4mo vs 18.8mo, p = 0.001). There was no difference between age groups for OS if ≥ VGPR was attained (53.4mo in age ≥80, vs not reached in age 66-79 or age ≤65; p = 0.184). In 1 of 3 studies that reported median PFS, a significant difference in one study was noted by age [age ≥80 = 19.1mo, age 66-79 = 26.3mo (p = 0.033), ≤65 = 54.3mo (p = 0.0009)]. Early mortality (at 2 or 6 months; in 3 studies) was significantly greater than in patients age < 80 and was primarily due to infection or renal failure, and more often in the frail. One study noted that despite reduced OS, the relative survival rate was higher in patients aged ≥85 at 2 years than in younger age groups. Conclusions: Our review excluded most RCTs as subgroup analyses of patients aged ≥80 were not available. Regardless, included articles are representative of the real-world experience. This systematic review suggests that while MM patients aged ≥80 experience shorter OS and PFS, treatment with a novel agent may offer comparable survival outcomes to younger groups in those able to attain ≥VGPR. Relative survival in elderly patients also favours active treatment in this age group, while balancing the risks of early mortality.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Multiple Myeloma Treatment Strategies for Elderly Transplant-Ineligible Patients in Serbia.

IntroductionEvidence on long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatment sequences for multiple myeloma (MM) is sparse. We used published data and country-specific data to assess the cost effectiveness of four-line treatment sequences for elderly transplant-ineligible patients with MM in Serbia.MethodWe developed a Markov cohort model to compare long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of five sequential MM treatment alternatives from the perspective of the national healthcare provider. Effectiveness parameters on progression, mortality and adverse events were extracted from published clinical trials. Costs were based on price lists of the National Health Insurance Fund. We compared life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios among alternative courses of action. The model was analyzed over a lifelong time horizon applying a 3% annual discount rate for effectiveness outcomes and costs. Robustness of the model was tested in multiple deterministic sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe sequences were defined by the frontline treatment: MPT (melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide), MPV (melphalanprednisone-bortezomib), CTD (cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone), VCD (bortezomib-cyclophosphamidedexamethasone) and BP (bendamustine-prednisone). MPV sequence resulted in the highest remaining life expectancy (4.76 life years). Cost-effectiveness analysis resulted in three non-dominated strategies: MPT, VCD, and MPV sequences, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 35,300 per life-year gained (LYG) for VCD and EUR 47,200/LYG for MPV relative to MPT.ConclusionMPV sequence was the most effective in terms of life expectancy for elderly transplant-ineligible MM patients in Serbia. Bortezomib-based strategies would be recommended for the frontline treatment of patients with MM in Serbia if the willingness-to-pay threshold is around EUR 35,000-60,000/LYG.

Network meta-analysis of first-line treatments in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a complex disease. Lack of direct comparisons among treatments and incorporation of new alternatives make it necessary to perform studies that allow for clinical decision-making. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was developed to evaluate the comparative efficacy among different therapeutic alternatives in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible MM patients. MEDLINE® and EMBASE® were systematically searched up for these drugs: lenalidomide, thalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab. Comparative phase II-III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) was selected as efficacy outcome. The NMA was developed using Bayesian methods. Fixed- and random-effects models were assessed using deviance information criteria. The systematic search yielded 593 results. Ten RCTs were included. No differences were observed between fixed- and random-effects models. The combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone showed the best HR in PFS (reference treatment). Along with this scheme, the best PFS results were obtained by combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (HR 1.2, 95% CrI 0.64-2.4) and bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (HR 1.6, 95% CrI 0.81-3.0). Schemes with the best PFS results were daratumumab treatments and combination of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, although the latter scheme has been analyzed in heterogeneous populations.

Bortezomib and Thalidomide Treatment Results in Newly Diagnosed Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma Patients are Comparable in Long-Term Follow-Up.

Thalidomide-and bortezomib-containing regimens are widely used for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The aim of this study was to analyse the efficiency of thalidomide-or bortezomib-based regimens in long-term follow-up. From 2008 to 2012, 142 transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients were analysed retrospectively. Bortezomib was administered at the standard dosing of 1.3mg/m2 weekly, and thalidomide was administered at a daily dose of 100mg. Both drugs were combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. A total of 95 patients were treated with thalidomide and 47 with bortezomib. A median four cycles of treatment were administered in both groups. In the thalidomide group, the overall response rate was 60.6%, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.3 months (95% CI 7.4-13.2) and the median overall survival (OS) was 35.1 months (95% CI 23.9-46.3). In the bortezomib group, the overall response rate was 51.1%, the median PFS was 11.9 months (95% CI 8.8-15) and the median OS was 25.4 months (95% CI 9.3-41.6). There was a statistically significant difference in OS (p = 0.027), favouring the cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone group, but the response rates and PFS intervals were not significantly different between both groups. The median follow-up in the thalidomide group was 35.1 months (95% CI 0.2-95.9) compared to 25.1 months (95% CI 0.4-60.6) in the bortezomib group (p = 0.004). The incidence of serious adverse events was comparable in both groups. In conclusion, the results of bortezomib treatment are comparable to thalidomide treatment under conditions of short administration. According to other clinical trials, long-term bortezomib treatment provides an additional advantage for PFS and OS.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

Validation of a New Clinical Prediction Model for Outcome in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Not Eligible for Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation; A Population-Based Study from the Danish National Multiple Myeloma Registry

Background : The UK Myeloma Research Alliance recently introduced a new clinical prediction model for outcome in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients not eligible for autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) (Lancet Haematology 2019; 6: e154-66). The score or Myeloma Risk Profile, MRP, includes WHO performance status (PS), the International Staging System (ISS), age, and C-reactive protein (CRP) as prognostic variables. First a score is calculated by the formula: Score = (PS - 2) * 0.199 + (age - 74.4) * 0.0165 + (ISS - 2) * 0.212 + (log(CRP + 1) - 2.08) * 0.0315, where PS and ISS are defined as numbers between 0-4 and 1-3, respectively, and CRP is in mg/L. Next, three risk groups are defined as 1) low risk: score < -0.256, 2) medium risk: -0.256 ≤ score ≤ -0.0283, or 3) high risk: score > -0.0283. The MRP score was generated based on two prospective clinical trial cohorts, the NRCI-Myeloma XI study (ISRCTN49407852) as training set or internal validation, and the NRCI-Myeloma IX study (Blood 2011; 118, 1231-38) as test set or external validation. Both trials investigated conventional oral alkylating agents, cyclophosphamide or melphalan, in combination with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and/or bortezomib; thus including drugs typically used in treatment of elderly MM patients. Establishment of the model included 1852 patients in the training set, and 520 patients in the test set. All patients were recruited as part of clinical trials and therefore fulfilled defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. To validate the MRP score in a population-based setting we performed a study of the entire cohort of transplant ineligible MM patients in the Danish National MM Registry. Methods : The Danish MM registry started 01 January 2005. It includes registration of all diagnosed MM patients in Denmark and given first- and second-line treatment. A data validation study has been performed (J Clin Epidemiology, 2016; 8: 583-587). At 31 December 2014, 2,926 newly diagnosed treatment demanding MM patients were registered, hereof 1,803 patients were above 65 years and found ineligible for ASCT, and constituted the patient population for this study. Results: Of 1,803 transplant in-eligible but treatment demanding newly diagnosed MM patients above 65 years 426 patients had one or more missing values for calculation of the MRP score, most often this was caused by missing ISS. Thus, 1,377 patients were evaluable with a median follow-up of 40.9 months. Patients were treated according to standard of care in Denmark during the 10-years registration period which included upfront conventional alkylating agent, mostly melphalan in 37.7%, thalidomide-based in 25.6%, bortezomib-based in 26.1%, lenalidomide based in 2.7%, and only palliative, mostly steroid-based in 7.9%. The distribution of the risk groups according to MRP was as follows: low risk 28.5%, medium-risk 25.1%, and high-risk 46.4%. Ccompared to the UK datasets we had a higher proportion of high-risk patients which undoubtedly reflects that our cohort is population based. Median survivals for the 3 risk groups are presented in Table 1 and overall survival curves illustrated in Figure 1. The model performed well in separating the patients into subgroups with different survival risks. In conclusion, our real life population-based data confirm that the MRP score is a robust and valuable risk assessment tool for elderly newly diagnosed MM patients older than 65 and not eligible for ASCT. An important advantage of the MRP score is that it is calculated from simple parameters that should be part of everyday diagnostic work-up. Disclosures Vangsted: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria. Plesner:Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Frederiksen:Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Abildgaard:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Updated Results of a Phase 2 Study of Modified Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVd-lite) in Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE: This updated analysis examined survival outcomes after 60 months of follow-up in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with the 3-drug regimen of modified lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD lite) in this population. METHODS: RVD lite was administered over a 35-day cycle. Lenalidomide 15 mg was given orally days 1-21; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 once weekly subcutaneously (SC) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; dexamethasone 20 mg orally day of and after bortezomib for 9 cycles followed by 6 cycles of consolidation. Eligibility requirements included ECOG performance status ≤ 2 and acceptable hepatic, renal, and hematologic function. Primary objective was to evaluate overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included evaluation of safety, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of intravenous (IV) and SC bortezomib. RESULTS: Fifty-three eligible patients enrolled between 4/17/13 and 7/25/15; 50 received at least one dose of therapy. As previously reported, the median age at study entry was 72 years (range 65-91). ISS stage was I in 19 (38%), II in 17 (34%), and III in 14 (28%) pts. Fatigue was the most commonly reported toxicity occurring in 37 (74%) and was mostly grade 1 or 2 in 29 (58%). Other grade 3 or greater toxicities included hypophosphatemia in 17 (34%), neutropenia in 7 (14%), and rash in 5 (10%) pts. Low grade peripheral neuropathy was reported in 31 (62%) patients with only 1 patient experiencing grade 3 symptoms. There were statistically significant improvements in scores of physical functioning (p=0.013), future perspective (p=0.023) and disease symptoms (p=0.001). Patients reported fewer symptoms across all symptom domains with the exception of diarrhea. The ORR was 86% and 66% of patients achieved a very good partial response (VGPR) or better. The median time to response was 1.1 months. At a follow-up of 61 months, median PFS was 41.9 months (95% CI, 31.2 - ∞) and median OS not reached. The 5-year overall survival was 61.3%. Sixty-six percent of patients received lenalidomide maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: RVD lite is a well-tolerated and highly effective regimen in the transplant-ineligible population with robust PFS and OS. Our data demonstrate that the benefits of more effective combination strategies observed in younger, fitter, transplant-eligible patients can be effectively used in older, transplant-ineligible patients with modifications in dose and schedule, without compromising efficacy. Disclosures O'Donnell: Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Yee:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Huff:Karyopharm, Sanofi, MiDiagnostics: Consultancy; Member of Safety Monitoring Board for Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schlossman:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Munshi:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy. Anderson:Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board; OncoPep: Other: Scientific founder ; C4 Therapeutics: Other: Scientific founder . Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Raje:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Correlation between Changes in Granzyme B Expression and Time to Progression in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Therapy

【Background】Triplet and quadruplet regimens of novel agents have improved the survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and elicited deeper responses to treatment. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity is now used as a surrogate marker for longer progression-free survival. However, triplet and quadruplet regimens can cause severe toxicity especially for elderly frail patients and financial toxicity is now an issue. On the other hand, long duration of response is sometimes experienced to low-dose lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) therapy. However, the predictors of long duration of response is unknown. Sustained response without severe toxicity even if not achieving the MRD negativity is beneficial in the treatment choice for some populations like frail elderly patients. Therefore, predicting the long-duration of response could lead to individualized therapy, reducing overtreatment. Here, we hypothesized that the immunomodulatory effects of lenalidomide correlates with a long duration of response. 【Methods】We have previously conducted a prospective trial of Ld therapy in 40 patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible MM. Among them, the time to progression (TTP) was evaluated in 29 patients, excluding patients who discontinued Ld therapy before disease progression. In this study, we evaluated the correlation between immune profile changes and TTP in this study set. Immune profile was evaluated by flow cytometry using peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained before and during the first or second cycles of Ld therapy. We evaluated the T cell subset (CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, regulatory T cells) and NK cells and NKT cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Exhaustion markers of PD-1, Tim-3, CTLA-4 and the activation markers of 4-1BB in each lymphocyte subset and memory subset of T cells were evaluated. The cytokine production of granzyme B, IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-2, was detected by intracellular cytokine staining after 6-h stimulation with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (25 ng/mL) and ionomycin (1 μg/mL) in the presence of the protein transport inhibitor, Golgi stop (BD Bioscience). 【Results】The median age was 75 years old (range, 61-86) at the initiation of Ld therapy. Median TTP was 34 months (range, 1-70). We divided the cases into two groups using the median TTP as a cut-off point (Figure 1). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, male to female ratio, performance status, M-protein subtype, creatinine clearance, international staging system (ISS), and high risk cytogenetic profiles between these two subgroups, except for age (median age was 77 years old in subgroups with TTP < 34 months compared to 72 years old, p=0.04). Median initial dosage of lenalidomide was not statistically different (10 mg/day and 15 mg/day in subgroups with TTP < 34months and TTP > 34months, respectively) and dexamethasone dosage was 20 mg/day in both groups. The achievement of best response more than partial response was also comparable in both subgroups (71% and 93% in subgroups of TTP < 34months and TTP > 34months). We compared the immune profile changes in these subgroups. Consequently, we found that mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) ratio of granzyme B expression in NK and NKT cells (before and after Ld therapy) and ΔMFI of granzyme B expression in CD8+ T cells were significantly higher (p<0.05) in longer TTP subgroups (Figure 2). 【Conclusions】Our data suggest that early immune responses during the first or second cycle of Ld therapy could serve as the predictive marker of longer TTP following Ld therapy in patients with NDMM. This could benefit some patients, particularly frail elderly patients by helping them avoid unnecessary intensification of treatment. Disclosures Ikeda: Nippon Shinyaku Research Grant: Research Funding. Nishikawa:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Zennyaku: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Taihou Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sysmex: Research Funding; Asahikasei Pharma: Research Funding. Takahashi:Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Asahi Kasei Pharma: Research Funding; Chug Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Eisai Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Improved Treatment Outcome of Transplant Ineligible Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: Experience from Tertiary Care Centre in North India

The outcome for multiple myeloma (MM) transplant ineligible patients who are conventionally treated with melphalan based regimens is dismal. Novel agents' viz. the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD) like thalidomide and lenalidomide have significantly improved the outcome in transplant eligible patients. However, the data on these agents in transplant ineligible patients is conflicting, because of the increased incidence of treatment toxicity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of novel agents (bortezomib and IMiD based regimens) in transplant ineligible > 65 years of age MM patients.

Upfront treatment for newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 14,533 patients over 29 randomized clinical trials.

Choice of treatment for newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma poses a difficult task due to an ever-increasing plethora of different regimens. Attempting to clarify this subject, we performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of 29 randomized clinical trials, enrolling 14,533 patients, and comparing 25 different treatment regimens regarding overall survival(OS), progression-free survival(PFS), complete response(CR), overall response rate(ORR) and toxicity. Head-to-head comparisons for all regimens and ranking of best treatments are reported. OS analysis showed superiority of lenalidomide(R) and bortezomib(V) containing regimens over thalidomide(T) protocols (e.g. Rd/CTD-HR:0.7;95%CrI:0.53-0.93, VMP/TD-HR:95%0.45;CrI:0.29-0.69). Concerning PFS, daratumumab(D) plus V (Dara-VMP) showed superior results over R (e.g. Dara-VMP/MPR-HR:0.52;95%CrI:0.34-0.77), V plus T (Dara-VMP/VTd-HR:0.56;95%CrI:0.37-0.65) and T (Dara-VMP/CTD-HR:0.34;95%CrI:0.23-0.49) containing regimens. Also, VRd and VMPT-VT performed well over other regimens. Dara-VMP showed superior response rates over R (ORR Dara-VMP/MPR-RR:6.27;95%CrI:2.18-18.95, CR Dara-VMP/MPR-RR:1.53;95%CrI:1.21-1.96) and T (ORR Dara-VMP/MPT-T-RR:4.05;95%CrI:1.19-13.26, CR Dara-VMP/MPT-T-RR:1.42;95%CrI:1.09-1.85; ORR Dara-VMP/CTD-RR:2.72;95%CrI:1.2-6.31, CR Dara-VMP/CTD-RR:1.2;95%CrI:1.05-1.36) including a higher rate of complete remission even when compared to VRd (RR:1.29;95%CrI:1.01-1.66). A higher rate of grade 3-4 adverse events was found for RD and CPR (thrombotic); VTd, VTP and VMPT-VT (neurological); RD and VAD (infectious); MPR-R and VAD (hematological); Vd and VTd (gastrointestinal); VAD, VMPCc and RD (cardiovascular). These results confirm obsolescence of classical regimens (such as VAD and MP) while pointing out benefits in efficacy resulting from incorporation of quadruplets and triplets combining new agents (Dara-VMP, VRd and VMPT-VT) and supports current rational of treatment until progression or prohibitive toxicity, especially when including lenalidomide. Based on this data, we would recommended incorporation of strategies combining novel agents (monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory imide drugs and proteasome inhibitors) in triplets or quadruplets and/or those comprising long term use of lenalidomide as standard frontline treatments. Moreover, this study settles daratumumab's place as an attractive alternative for upfront treatment.

First-line therapy with either bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

PS1405 USE OF POMALIDOMIDE-BASED REGIMENS IN RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES – FINDINGS FROM PREAMBLE

Background: Approval of new standards of treatment in cancer is preceded by phase III clinical trials that provide information on safety and efficacy. Nevertheless, excessive rigidity eligibility criteria may compromise extrapolation of results to the target population (external validity). Klausen et al (Leukemia 18), report that over 60% of patients diagnosed of multiple myeloma (MM) would not fulfill eligibility criteria for clinical trials. So, safety and efficacy data may differ from clinical trials to real life. Aims: The aim of our study is to assess the correlation between patient comorbidities by Cumulative Illness rating score (CIRS) score and eligibility in clinical trials. Methods: Eligibility criteria of 3 commercial (VISTA, FIRST, ALCIONE) and 2 academic clinical trials (GEM05MAS65 and GEM10MAS65) were verified for all patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (TIMM) at Hospital Universitario de Araba (Spain). CIRS score was calculated for all de patients. Results: From February 2010 to December 2017, 143 MM patients were diagnosed. Of them, 92 patients (64%) were transplant-ineligible and were treated with a bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone scheme. For TIMM patients median age was 77 years old, higher than published trials (median age VISTA: 71, FIRST: 73, ALCIONE: 71, GEM05: 73, GEM10: 75). CIRS score identify different prognostic groups in overall survival: CIRS <4: 52.3 months; CIRS 4 to 8: 57 months and CIRS> 8: 13.5 months (p: 0.017) (figure 1). Applying eligibility criteria, clinical trials result in high exclusion rates: VISTA: 75% FIRST: 70%; ALCIONE 75%; GEM05: 75%; GEM10: 77%. Considering only external validity criteria, exclusion rate was slightly lower: VISTA: 59%; FIRST: 46%; ALCIONE 59%; GEM05: 58%; GEM10: 62%. Regarding comorbidities, no correlation among CIRS score and possibility to be included in clinical trials was observed, although high exclusion was observed for patients with CIRS score >8 vs ≤8 (VISTA 77% vs. 54%; FIRST: 50% vs. 44%; ALCIONE 67% vs. 56%; GEM05: 72% vs. 54%; GEM10: 83% vs. 57%, respectively) (table 1). The presence of grade 3 or 4 comorbidities was not associated with higher exclusion rates.Summary/Conclusion: Eligibility criteria in multiple myeloma clinical trials are excessively restrictive, and do not reflect comorbidities of the patients. Safety and efficacy of recently approved drugs and combinations schemes for treatment of newly diagnosed TIMM in real life may differ from those reported on clinical trials. Selection criteria of clinical trials must be updated and adapted to reality.