Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma

Thrombosis in multiple myeloma (MM)

Thrombosis is a frequent feature in individuals with myeloma, particularly those treated with oral immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) such as thalidomide or lenalidomide concomitantly with anthracyclines or dexamethasone. Up to a third of these individuals may develop venous thrombosis if not given the benefit of prophylaxis. Interestingly, in contrast to individuals with solid tumors in whom thrombosis is a marker of poor prognosis, thrombosis does not impact overall survival in patients with myeloma. This finding suggests that the mechanisms of thrombosis in hematological neoplasms may differ from solid epithelial tumors and that thrombosis in the former may be driven by therapy and not by a procoagulant phenotype of the neoplastic plasma cells. This may also explain why thrombosis in the context of IMID-based therapy may be prevented by the use of prophylactic aspirin. In this text, we review the pathogenesis of thrombosis in myeloma, its relation to different chemotherapeutic regimens and the use of thrombo-prophylaxis.

A tale of two citizens: a State Attorney General and a hematologist facilitate translation of research into US Food and Drug Administration actions--a SONAR report

PURPOSE

Pharmaceutical safety is a public health issue. In 2005, the Connecticut Attorney General (AG) raised concerns over adverse drug reactions in off-label settings, noting that thalidomide was approved to treat a rare illness, but more than 90% of its use was off label. A hematologist had reported thalidomide with doxorubicin or dexamethasone was associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates of 25%. We review US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturer responses to a citizen petition filed to address these thalidomide safety issues.

METHODS

Case study.

RESULTS

The AG petitioned the FDA requesting thalidomide-related safety actions. Coincidentally, the manufacturer submitted a supplemental New Drug Approval (sNDA), requesting approval to treat multiple myeloma with thalidomide-dexamethasone. FDA safety officers reviewed the petition and the literature and noted that VTE risks with thalidomide were not appropriately addressed in the existing package insert. In the sNDA application, the manufacturer reported thalidomide-associated toxicities for multiple myeloma were primarily somnolence and neurotoxicity, and a proposed package insert did not focus on VTE risks. In October, the FDA informed the Oncology Drug Division that VTE risks with thalidomide were poorly addressed in the existing label. After reviewing this memorandum, an Oncology Drug Division reviewer informed the manufacturer that approval of the sNDA would be delayed until several thalidomide-associated VTE safety actions, including revisions of the package insert, were implemented. The manufacturer and FDA agreed on these actions, and the sNDA was approved.

CONCLUSION

New approaches addressing off-label safety are needed. The conditions that facilitated the successful response to this citizen petition are uncommon.

Lenalidomide for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Lenalidomide is an amino-substituted derivative of thalidomide with direct antiproliferative and cytotoxic effects on the myeloma tumor cell, as well as antiangiogenic activity and immunomodulatory effects. Together with the introduction of bortezomib and thalidomide, lenalidomide has significantly improved the survival of patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. The most common adverse events associated with lenalidomide include fatigue, skin rash, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. In addition, when lenalidomide is combined with dexamethasone or other conventional cytotoxic agents, there is an increase in the incidence of venous thromboembolic events. There is now evidence that continued treatment with lenalidomide has a significant impact on survival by improving the depth and duration of response. This highlights the value of adverse event management and appropriate dose adjustments to prevent toxicity, and of allowing continued treatment until disease progression. In this review, we will discuss the different lenalidomide-based treatment regimens for patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. This is accompanied by recommendations of how to manage and prevent adverse events associated with lenalidomide-based therapy.

Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity

Anthracycline-based chemotherapeutics have long been recognized as effective agents for treating a wide range of malignancies. However, their use is not without significant adverse cardiotoxic side effects. Strategies for prevention involve limiting free-radical production and subsequent cardiac myocyte damage. Dexrazoxane remains the most widely studied cardioprotective medication. Alternative agents may reduce cardiotoxicity but may still cause significant cardiovascular problems. The role of β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of heart failure is well proven. The role of these medications in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity is not well established.

Myeloma: diagnosis complications and supportive care

A key approach to current treatment is the rapid reduction of the myeloma clone to minimal disease levels. This approach has significantly improved outcomes but it remains critical to manage the side effects of the disease and of treatment emergent side effects. While these supportive care options are directed towards improving patient quality of life, they also have significant effect against the disease and can improve survival.

Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients - risk scores and recent randomised controlled trials

Cancer patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Guidelines recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised acutely ill cancer patients and in myeloma patients receiving combination treatments including thalidomide or lenalidomide. Currently, thromboprophylaxis is not recommended in cancer outpatients. It is the aim of this review to give an overview of studies that applied scores for the risk assessment of cancer-related VTE. We will also discuss randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients. Recently, Khorana et al. published a practical and reproducible risk assessment score that includes clinical and laboratory parameters for the stratification of cancer patients according to their propensity to develop VTE. Patients assigned to the high-risk group are likely to benefit most from primary thromboprophylaxis. This score was validated in prospective and retrospective observational studies. In the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS) the score was expanded by adding two biomarkers, and the prediction of VTE was considerably improved. In recent RCTs including cancer patients with different malignancies it was shown that thromboprophylaxis is safe and effective. However, VTE incidence rates were low. To date, no data is available from interventional studies applying thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients categorised into high-risk groups on the basis of risk assessment with scores. From the available literature we conclude that risk assessment for VTE is feasible in cancer patients; however, interventional studies to investigate the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis in a high risk cancer population have yet to be performed.

The application and biology of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in cancer

Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have been used in hematologic malignancies for the last decade. However, the mechanism of action of IMiDs is largely unknown. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of pivotal studies, recent advances in the application of IMiDs in cancer as well as their effects on hematopoietic stem cells including the risk of secondary malignancies. IMiDs have a well-established role as first-line therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Variant combinations of IMiDs with other chemotherapy reagents show promising outcomes in MM. Recent concerns on increased rate of secondary cancer in MM patients treated with maintenance lenalidomide were raised. But analysis of maintenance studies showed that the benefit of maintenance outweighs the risk of secondary cancers in MM. IMiDs also show efficacy in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and myelofibrosis (MF), but not in solid tumors. The major adverse effects are venous thromboembolism, neuropathy and cytopenias. IMiDs induce expansion and self-renewal of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitors and inhibit lineage maturation/differentiation by affecting critical transcription factors which might contribute to myelosuppression effect of IMiDs.

Evidence-based case report: multiple thrombotic episodes associated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy for multiple myeloma

Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone is a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma. Although this combination demonstrates a high level of efficacy, it further exacerbates the hypercoaguable state that exists within myeloma. Thromboprophylactic regimen require careful selection and if warfarin is chosen, assiduous monitoring is required to ensure it will be clinically effective. We report the case of one patient who experienced multiple thrombotic events despite anticoagulant or antiplatelet thromboprophylaxis and review the contributing factors.

Induction therapy and stem cell mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is considered the standard therapy for younger patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction into clinical practice of novel agents, such as the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory derivatives (IMiDs) thalidomide and lenalidomide, has significantly contributed to major advances in MM therapy and prognosis. These novel agents are incorporated into induction regimens to enhance the depth of response before ASCT and further improve post-ASCT outcomes. Between January 2000 and November 2011, 65 patients with MM were transplanted in the Department of Biomedical Science and Clinical Oncology at the University of Bari. According to Durie-Salmon, 60 patients had stage III of disease and 5 stage II. Only 7 patients were in stage B (renal failure). Induction regimens that were administered in two or more cycles were VAD (vincristine, adriamycin, and dexamethasone), Thal-Dex (thalidomide, dexamethasone), Len-Dex (lenalidomide, dexamethasone), Vel-Dex (bortezomib, dexamethasone), VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), and PAD (bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone). In mobilization procedure, the patients received cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The number of cells collected through two or more leukapheresess, response after induction, and toxicity were evaluated to define the more adequate up-front induction regimen in transplantation-eligible MM patients.

European perspective on multiple myeloma treatment strategies: update following recent congresses

The management of multiple myeloma has undergone profound changes over the recent past as a result of advances in our understanding of the disease biology as well as improvements in treatment and supportive care strategies. Notably, recent years have seen a surge in studies incorporating the novel agents thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide into treatment for different disease stages and across different patient groups. This article presents an update to a previous review of European treatment practices and is based on discussions during an expert meeting that was convened to review novel agent data published or presented at medical meetings until the end of 2011 and to assess their impact on treatment strategies.

Cancer and coagulation

Thromboembolism, including both venous and arterial events, occurs commonly amongst patients with cancer. The occurrence of thromboembolism has significant consequences for cancer patients, including direct and indirect associations with mortality, morbidity, requirement for long-term anticoagulant therapy and consumption of healthcare resources. Recent studies have resulted in a better understanding of clinical risk factors and biomarkers of cancer-associated thrombosis, and a risk assessment model incorporating both has now been validated in multiple settings. Thromboprophylaxis with either unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) has been shown to be safe and effective in high-risk settings such as hospitalization for medical illness and the postsurgical period. Emerging new data from randomized studies have focused on outpatient prophylaxis, suggesting potential benefits in this setting as well. Treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis requires long-term anticoagulation with LMWH. Results from ongoing and planned trials of novel anticoagulants in the cancer setting are awaited.

Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Regimen for Multiple Myeloma

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Thalidomide and dexamethasone vs. bortezomib and dexamethasone for melphalan refractory myeloma: a randomized study

OBJECTIVES

Thalidomide and bortezomib have been frequently used for second-line therapy in patients with myeloma relapsing after or refractory to initial melphalan-based treatment, but no randomized trials have been published comparing these two treatment alternatives.

METHODS

Thalidomide- and bortezomib-naïve patients with melphalan refractory myeloma were randomly assigned to low-dose thalidomide + dexamethasone (Thal-Dex) or bortezomib + dexamethasone (Bort-Dex). At progression on either therapy, the patients were offered crossover to the alternative drug combination. An estimated 300 patients would be needed for the trial to detect a 50% difference in median PFS between the treatment arms.

RESULTS

After inclusion of 131 patients, the trial was prematurely closed because of low accrual. Sixty-seven patients were randomized to Thal-Dex and 64 to Bort-Dex. Progression-free survival was similar (median, 9.0 months for Thal-Dex and 7.2 for Bort-Dex). Response rate was similar (55% for Thal-Dex and 63% for Bort-Dex), but time to response was shorter (P < 0.05) and the VGPR rate higher (P < 0.01) for Bort-Dex. Time-to-other treatment after crossover was similar (median, 13.2 months for Thal-Dex and 11.2 months for Bort-Dex), as was overall survival (22.8 months for Thal-Dex and 19.0 for Bort-Dex). Venous thromboembolism was seen in seven patients and cerebrovascular events in four patients in the Thal-Dex group. Severe neuropathy, reactivation of herpes virus infections, and mental depression were more frequently observed in the Bort-Dex group. In the quality-of-life analysis, no difference was noted for physical function, pain, and global quality of life. Fatigue and sleep disturbances were significantly more prevalent in the Bort-Dex group.

CONCLUSIONS

Thalidomide (50-100 mg daily) in combination with dexamethasone seems to have an efficacy comparable with that of bortezomib and dexamethasone in melphalan refractory myeloma. However, the statistical strength of the results in this study is limited by the low number of included patients.

Highlights from the IV International Symposium of Thrombosis and Anticoagulation (ISTA), October 20-21, 2011, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

To discuss and share knowledge about advances in the care of patients with thrombotic disorders, the Fourth International Symposium of Thrombosis and Anticoagulation was held in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, from October 20-21, 2011. This scientific program was developed by clinicians for clinicians and was promoted by three major clinical research institutes: the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute, the Duke Clinical Research Institute of the Duke University School of Medicine, and Hospital do Coração Research Institute. Comprising 2 days of academic presentations and open discussion, the symposium had as its primary goal to educate, motivate, and inspire internists, cardiologists, hematologists, and other physicians by convening national and international visionaries, thought-leaders, and dedicated clinician-scientists. This paper summarizes the symposium proceedings.

When a little aspirin may be enough

In this issue of Blood, Larocca et al in a large prospective study show that thromboprophylaxis with low-dose aspirin is very effective in previously untreated myeloma patients with a low thromboembolic risk receiving lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone.

Cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients destined for autologous stem-cell transplantation: MRC Myeloma IX randomized trial results

BACKGROUND

Thalidomide is active in multiple myeloma and is associated with minimal myelosuppression, making it a good candidate for induction therapy prior to high-dose therapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Oral cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone was compared with infusional cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

RESULTS

The post-induction overall response rate (≥ partial response) for the intent-to-treat population was significantly higher with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone (n=555) versus cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (n=556); 82.5% versus 71.2%; odds ratio 1.91; 95% confidence interval 1.44-2.55; P<0.0001. The complete response rates were 13.0% with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone and 8.1% with cyclophos-phamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (P=0.0083), with this differential response being maintained in patients who received autologous stem-cell transplantation (post-transplant complete response 50.0% versus 37.2%, respectively; P=0.00052). Cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone was non-inferior to cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone for progression-free and overall survival, and there was a trend toward a late survival benefit with cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone in responders. A trend toward an overall survival advantage for cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone over cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone was also observed in a subgroup of patients with favorable interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Compared with cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone was associated with more constipation and somnolence, but a lower incidence of cytopenias.

CONCLUSIONS

The cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone regimen showed improved response rates and was not inferior in terms of survival outcomes to the standard infusional regimen of cyclophosphamide-vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone. Based on its oral administration and the reduced incidence of infection and cytopenia, cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexa-methasone may be considered an effective induction therapy option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. (ISRCTN: 68454111).

Latest advances and current challenges in the treatment of multiple myeloma

Effectively treating patients with multiple myeloma is challenging. The development of therapeutic regimens over the past decade that incorporate the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide has been the cornerstone of improving the outcome of patients with myeloma. Although these treatment regimens have improved patient survival, nearly all patients eventually relapse. Our improved understanding of the biology of the disease and the importance of the microenvironment has translated into ongoing work to help overcome the challenge of relapse. Several classes of agents including next-generation proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, selective histone-deacetylase inhibitors, antibody and antitumor immunotherapy approaches are currently undergoing preclinical and clinical evaluation. This Review provides an update on the latest advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma. In particular, we focus on novel therapies including modulating protein homeostasis, kinases inhibitors, targeting accessory cells and cytokines, and immunomodulatory agents. A discussion of the challenges associated with these therapeutic approaches is also presented.

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

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) but is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This prospective, open-label, randomized substudy of a phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with low-dose aspirin (ASA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with newly diagnosed MM, treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone induction and melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide consolidation. Overall, 342 patients who did not have clinical indications or contraindications to antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA 100 mg/d (n = 176) or LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg/d (n = 166). The incidence of VTE was 2.27% in the ASA group and 1.20% in the LMWH group. Compared with LMWH, the absolute difference in the proportion of VTE was 1.07% (95% confidence interval, −1.69-3.83; P = .452) in the ASA group. Pulmonary embolism was observed in 1.70% of patients in the ASA group and none in the LMWH group. No arterial thrombosis, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths were reported. No major hemorrhagic complications were reported. In previously untreated patients with MM receiving lenalidomide with a low thromboembolic risk, ASA could be an effective and less-expensive alternative to LMWH thromboprophylaxis. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00551928.

Multiple myeloma: 2012 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

Multiple myeloma accounts for ∼10% of all hematologic malignancies.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis requires 10% or more clonal plasma cells on bone marrow examination or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of end-organ damage felt to be related to the underlying plasma-cell disorder.

RISK STRATIFICATION

Patients with 17p deletion, t(14;16), t(14;20), or high-risk gene expression profiling signature have high-risk myeloma. Patients with t(4;14) translocation, karyotypic deletion 13, or hypodiploidy are considered to have intermediate-risk disease. All others are considered to have standard-risk myeloma.

RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY

Standard-risk patients are treated with nonalkylator-based therapy such as lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). An alternative strategy is to continue initial therapy after stem-cell collection, reserving ASCT for first relapse. Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients are treated with a bortezomib-based induction followed by ASCT and then bortezomib-based maintenance. Patients not eligible for ASCT can be treated with Rd for standard risk disease, or with a bortezomib-based regimen if intermediate-risk or high-risk features are present. To reduce toxicity, when using bortezomib, the once-weekly subcutaneous dose is preferred; similarly, when using dexamethasone, the low-dose approach (40 mg once a week) is preferred, unless there is a need for rapid disease control.

MANAGEMENT OF REFRACTORY DISEASE

Patients with indolent relapse can be treated first with two-drug or three-drug combinations. Patients with more aggressive relapse often require therapy with a combination of multiple active agents. The most promising new agents in development are pomalidomide and carfilizomib.

Upfront Therapy for Myeloma: Tailoring Therapy across the Disease Spectrum

The treatment of multiple myeloma is evolving rapidly. Despite the number of regimens and combinations available, there is lack of data from phase III trials demonstrating superiority of one regimen over the other in terms of overall survival and/or quality of life. The only clear survival signals have come from studies that compared newer regimens with historic ones such as melphalan-prednisone (MP) or vincristine-doxorubicin hydrochloride-thalidomide (VAD). Thus, the choice of therapy at present is often made based on physician discretion, bias, and limited data from phase II studies. Further, the regimens available have considerably different profiles in terms of safety, convenience, and cost. Given the dramatic variations in expected outcome depending on the various known prognostic factors, a risk-adapted strategy is required to provide the best available therapy to each patient based on host factors as well as prognostic markers of disease aggressiveness. This article reviews the current status of myeloma therapy and risk stratification. Results from major phase III trials are reviewed, and a risk-adapted individualized approach to therapy is presented and discussed.

Hematologic malignancies and thrombosis

Patients with hematologic malignancies have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly at diagnosis and during the treatment with chemotherapy, asparaginase or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). A disease-dependent hypercoagulable condition associated with other risk factors like drugs, central venous catheter (CVC), immobility and infections are responsible for this high VTE rate. Thrombotic complications have a significant impact on morbidity and in some cases also on mortality of patients with onco-hematologic diseases, therefore thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE in this setting is needed. However, thrombocytopenia and hemorrhagic complications pone many difficulties in the management of an anticoagulant or antiaggregant treatment in these patients. Recommendations from current guidelines are limited to multiple myeloma patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide associated with dexamethasone or chemotherapy, but hematological clinical departments should implement a policy for prevention and treatment of thromboembolic complications in hematologic malignancies.

Activation of coagulation by a thalidomide-based regimen

Combining thalidomide (Thal) with chemotherapeutic agents or steroid preparations led to improved response rates in the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is one of the most serious side-effects noted with this regimen, and how a Thal-based regimen causes DVT is unclear. We investigated the procoagulant effects of Thal when combined with chemotherapeutic agents in vitro, focusing on tissue factor (TF) and phosphatidylserine. We examined the effects of the chemotherapeutic doxorubicin hydrochloride (Dox) and the steroid dexamethasone (Dex), with or without Thal. Our study used the human vascular endothelial, monocytic, and myeloma cell lines, EAhy926, THP-1, and RPMI8226, respectively. In EAhy926 and THP-1, Dex treatment increased expression of TF, which may induce procoagulant activity (PCA). Upregulation of TF mRNA correlated with activation of the Egr-1 pathway. In Thal and Dex treatments, the increase of PCA induction from phosphatidylserine exposure was modest. In contrast, Dox and Thal-Dox increased phosphatidylserine exposure in both cell types. In THP-1 cells, cell surface phosphatidylserine exposure correlated with increased PCA by Dox. Thal alone showed a modest increase in phosphatidylserine exposure in endothelial cells and monocytes. When Thal is given in combination with chemotherapies or Dex, endothelial cell and monocyte PCA may be induced through phosphatidylserine exposure, or TF expression. Induction may be protracted by Thal, which has an antiangiogenic activity. Therefore, prophylactic anticoagulant strategies should be considered in Thal-based combination regimens.

Safety and efficacy of lenalidomide in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

Lenalidomide is an oral immunomodulatory drug that has helped improve outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Combination lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len+Dex) has been shown to increase response rates and prolong survival compared with dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM). Clinical benefit may be greatest when Len+Dex is given at first relapse, and continued treatment appears to provide greater depth of response and improved survival outcomes. The most common adverse events associated with Len+Dex are cytopenias, which are predictable and manageable. Len+Dex is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, which necessitates adequate prophylaxis. The risk of second primary malignancies does not appear to be increased in patients with RRMM treated with lenalidomide-based therapy. Here we review the safety and efficacy of Len+Dex in RRMM, and provide an overview of data from Spain on the use of Len+Dex in RRMM.

Thalidomide versus dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: results from OPTIMUM, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Thalidomide has potent antimyeloma activity, but no prospective, randomized controlled trial has evaluated thalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an international, randomized, open-label, four-arm, phase III trial to compare three different doses of thalidomide (100, 200, or 400 mg/day) with standard dexamethasone in patients who had received one to three prior therapies. The primary end-point was time to progression.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population (N=499), the median time to progression was 6.1, 7.0, 7.6, and 9.1 months in patients treated with dexamethasone, and thalidomide 100, 200, and 400 mg/day, respectively; the difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant. In the per-protocol population (n=465), the median time to progression was 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 9.1 months, respectively. In patients who had received two or three prior therapies, thalidomide significantly prolonged the time to progression at all dose levels compared to the result achieved with dexamethasone. Response rates and median survival were similar in all treatment groups, but the median duration of response was significantly longer in all thalidomide groups than in the dexamethasone group. Adverse events reported in the thalidomide groups, such as fatigue, constipation and neuropathy, confirmed the known safety profile of thalidomide.

CONCLUSIONS

Although thalidomide was not superior to dexamethasone in this randomized trial, thalidomide monotherapy may be considered an effective salvage therapy option for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, particularly those with a good prognosis and those who have received two or three prior therapies. The recommended starting dose of thalidomide monotherapy is 400 mg/day, which can be rapidly reduced for patients who do not tolerate this treatment. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00452569).

Light chain (AL) amyloidosis: update on diagnosis and management

Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell dyscrasia characterized by the pathologic production of fibrillar proteins comprised of monoclonal light chains which deposit in tissues and cause organ dysfunction. The diagnosis can be challenging, requiring a biopsy and often specialized testing to confirm the subtype of systemic disease. The goal of treatment is eradication of the monoclonal plasma cell population and suppression of the pathologic light chains which can result in organ improvement and extend patient survival. Standard treatment approaches include high dose melphalan (HDM) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) or oral melphalan with dexamethasone (MDex). The use of novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib) alone and in combination with steroids and alkylating agents has shown efficacy and continues to be explored. A risk adapted approach to SCT followed by novel agents as consolidation reduces treatment related mortality with promising outcomes. Immunotherapeutic approaches targeting pathologic plasma cells and amyloid precursor proteins or fibrils are being developed. Referral of patients to specialized centers focusing on AL amyloidosis and conducting clinical trials is essential to improving patient outcomes.

Risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several factors, including procoagulant agents secreted by tumor cells, immobilization, surgery, indwelling catheters, and systemic treatment (including chemotherapy), contribute to an increased risk of VTE in cancer patients. There is growing interest in instituting primary prophylaxis in high-risk patients to prevent incident (first-time) VTE events. The identification of patients at sufficiently high risk of VTE to warrant primary thromboprophylaxis is essential, as anticoagulation may be associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Current guidelines recommend the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in postoperative and hospitalized cancer patients, as well as ambulatory cancer patients receiving thalidomide or lenalidomide in combination with high-dose dexamethasone or chemotherapy, in the absence of contraindications to anticoagulation. However, the majority of cancer patients are ambulatory, and currently primary thromboprophylaxis is not recommended for these patients, even those considered at very high risk. In this concise review, the authors discuss risk stratification models that have been specifically developed to identify cancer patients at high risk for VTE, and thus might be useful in future studies designed to determine the potential benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis.

The clinical safety of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Lenalidomide is an IMiDs® oral immunomodulatory compound developed for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Long-term continuous treatment with lenalidomide beyond first response may be important to optimize responses and delay relapse.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the lenalidomide mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, key clinical studies with a focus on safety and post-marketing surveillance data. The necessity for early adverse-event management, including dose modifications for neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, where applicable, in order to maintain patients on treatment and achieve optimal efficacy, is discussed. Secondary primary malignancies in MM and progression to acute myeloid leukemia in MDS patients in the context of lenalidomide treatment are also discussed. Finally, as lenalidomide is renally excreted, the requirement for dose adjustment according to creatinine clearance is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Lenalidomide is highly effective and generally well tolerated. Most adverse events occur early during the course of treatment and are manageable. Lenalidomide is not associated with peripheral neuropathy and has a lack of cumulative toxicity, making it an effective treatment option for long-term use in the management of MM and low/intermediate-1-risk MDS, specifically with chromosome 5q deletion with or without other cytogenetic abnormalities.

Management of myeloma: an Italian perspective

Multiple myeloma remains a fatal plasma cell malignancy. However, new insights into the disease biology and immunology have identified molecular mechanisms, underling functional interactions between plasma cells and the bone marrow microenvironment that have become molecular targets of so-called "new drugs" such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, and bortezomib. Recently, the combinations of new drugs with melphalan and prednisone in elderly patients, and with autologous stem cell transplantation in induction and/or maintenance schedules in younger patients have significantly prolonged overall survival. Optimal combinations and timing are a matter of debate. Moreover, management of side effects is a key clinical target to improve long-term quality of life. Many randomized phase III studies are currently in progress to address these issues. Whether these new advancements in myeloma treatment will eventually translate into a long chronic phase or a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance-like status for the majority of patients remains, however, still unanswered.

Treatment strategies in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a focus on drug sequencing and 'retreatment' approaches in the era of novel agents

Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved over the last decade, most notably with the introduction of highly effective novel agents. It is now possible to aim for deep disease responses in a greater number of patients in an attempt to prolong remission duration and survival. Initially introduced in the relapsed setting, the novel agents, namely thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide, are now being increasingly incorporated into upfront treatment strategies, raising questions about the feasibility of 'retreatment' with such agents. Also, in a disease that is characterized by multiple relapses, the 'sequencing' of the different effective options is an important question. In the frontline setting, the first remission is likely to be the period during which patients will enjoy the best quality of life. Thus, the goal should be to achieve a first remission that is the longest possible by using the most effective treatment upfront. At relapse, the challenge is to select the optimal treatment for each patient while balancing efficacy and toxicity. The decision will depend on both disease- and patient-related factors. This review aimed to assess the available research data addressing 'retreatment' approaches, drug 'sequencing' and the long-term impact of upfront therapy with novel drugs.

Inflammation, TNFα and endothelial dysfunction link lenalidomide to venous thrombosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Patients receiving lenalidomide are at an increased risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Here, we prospectively investigated the DVT risk in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with lenalidomide (n = 32). Five patients developed six incidents of DVT over 1 year for an annual incidence of 16%. Three of these were considered drug-related. Median time to DVT was 105 days (range 56-259 days). No pulmonary embolism was detected. Hypercoagulability screen before study entry was negative in all patients who subsequently developed DVTs. Compared to normal volunteers CLL patients had increased baseline levels of D-dimer, thrombin-antithrombin, soluble vascular endothelial adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1), and thrombomodulin (p < 0.001). After 1 week on lenalidomide D-dimer, thrombomodulin, sVCAM-1, factor VIII, TNFα, and C-reactive protein were significantly increased while protein C was decreased (p < 0.001). In patients with lenalidomide-related DVTs, TNFα, and sVCAM-1 were more strongly upregulated than in all other patients (p < 0.05) and TNFα and sVCAM-1 levels were significantly correlated (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). These data link lenalidomide associated DVTs with TNFα upregulation and endothelial cell dysfunction and suggest that aspirin may have a role for DVT prophylaxis in these patients.

Effects of lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment duration on survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

In two randomized phase III trials (MM-009 and MM-010), lenalidomide plus dexamethasone significantly prolonged time to progression and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma compared with dexamethasone alone. In both trials the treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We conducted a subanalysis to determine if continuing therapy after achieving≥partial response (PR) improved survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were collected on 212 patients who were treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone and achieved≥PR. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared between patients on continued treatment versus patients discontinuing therapy because of adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or other reasons. Time-dependent multivariate regression analyses were used to determine the benefit of continuing treatment with lenalidomide.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients received continued treatment until disease progression or death, and 38 patients discontinued therapy without progression. There was a trend toward longer median OS in patients who continued therapy (50.9 months vs. 35.0 months; P=.0594). When controlling for the number of previous antimyeloma therapies, β2-microglobulin levels, and Durie-Salmon stage (which adversely affected survival in these patients), continued lenalidomide treatment (HR, 0.137; 95% CI, 0.045-0.417; P=.0005) or each additional cycle of lenalidomide (HR, 0.921; 95% CI, 0.886-0.957; P<.0001) were both associated with longer survival.

CONCLUSION

Continued lenalidomide treatment until disease progression after achievement of ≥PR is associated with a significant survival advantage when controlling for patient characteristics. These findings should be confirmed in a prospectively designed trial.

Sequential vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone (VAD) followed by bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone (VTD) as induction, followed by high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplant and consolidation therapy with bortezomib for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of a phase II trial

Incorporation of novel agents has resulted in an improved response rate and reduced side effects in multiple myeloma. This has prompted combining novel agents in induction chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Our patients received 2 cycles of vincristine, adriamycin, dexamethasone (VAD) and then 2 cycles of bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone (VTD) chemotherapy as an induction treatment. Subsequently, autologous stem cell transplantation was performed, and bortezomib was administered as a consolidation therapy. Seventy-one patients were enrolled, and 65 were evaluable for response. After 2 cycles of VAD, the overall response rate was 69%. After VTD, the response rate improved to 97% with a complete response (CR) and near CR rate of 27%. Importantly, patients with cytogenetics, having poor prognostic features, all responded after VTD. Autologous stem cells were successfully collected in all 58 patients with a median CD34+ cell count of 7.12 × 10(6)/kg (range, 1.94-44.7 × 10(6)/kg), except in 1 patient (2%). After ASCT, 36 patients completed bortezomib maintenance with a combined CR and near CR rate approaching 75%. Median time to response was rapid (1.6 months). With a median follow-up duration of 52.7 months, the median TTP was 29.4 months and median OS was not reached. Toxicities proved manageable. In conclusion, sequential VAD and VTD induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma was active with manageable toxicity and excellent stem cell yields. The incorporation of bortezomib as a consolidation therapy improved the clinical outcome with the expense of rather frequent development of peripheral neuropathy.

Treatment options for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Treatment options for patients with relapsed myeloma have benefited from the development of new targeted agents. The use of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide have dramatically changed outcomes for patients with relapsed myeloma. New agents are also in development, on the basis of preclinical rationale, as well as combinations of conventional and novel agents. Together each of these treatment approaches are being tested in phase I, II, and III clinical trials, with the goal of prolonged duration of remission and, ultimately, improved overall survival.

The use of estramustine phosphate in the modern management of advanced prostate cancer

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Estramustine phosphate has anti-tumour properties and it improves patient outcomes if combined with other chemotherapy agents such as docetaxel. The efficacy of estramustine phosphate in selected patients and its safety profile, provided used with any low-molecular-weight heparin support its use as a second-line treatment in hormone-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

•  Estramustine phosphate is a nitrogen mustard derivative of estradiol-17β-phosphate and has anti-tumour properties. •  Interest in estramustine has been renewed because of the results of clinical studies showing improved patient outcomes if estramustine is combined with other chemotherapy agents such as docetaxel.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

•  Relevant clinical studies using chemotherapy combinations including estramustine are discussed. •  Efficacy and safety outcomes are summarized.

RESULTS

•  Combination therapy with estramustine and docetaxel can increase PSA response rates, improve quality of life and increase median patient survival compared with chemotherapy regimens that do not include estramustine. •  Although the overall tolerability of estramustine is favourable, its use can be associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events.

CONCLUSIONS

•  The identification of suitable patient groups and the effective management of the risk of thromboembolism with the adjunct of low-molecular-weight heparins support the use of estramustine as an effective second-line treatment strategy in hormone-resistant prostate cancer. •  These promising findings warrant further investigation in a randomized clinical trial.

Management of hematological malignancies in patients affected by renal failure

The management of hematological malignancies (HM) in renally impaired patients may be a difficult task. Indeed, the kidney represents a major elimination pathway for many chemotherapeutic agents and their metabolites, whose serum levels are not usually measured in daily clinical practice. In addition, many antineoplastic drugs have a narrow therapeutic index for which they require dose adjustment when administered to patients with renal failure. Only limited data regarding the use of chemotherapy in patients with renal impairment and in those on dialysis are available. Indeed, renal patients with HM are often excluded from most clinical trials. Thus far, in order to provide recommendations, we have reviewed the pertinent literature, gathering information from published guidelines regarding chemotherapy in patients with kidney dysfunction and from articles describing the use of individual agents in renal patients with HM.