Lenalidomide maintenance—perils of a premature denouement

Impact of maintenance therapy post autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in early and delayed transplant

Based on phase 3 trials, maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has become the standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM). We examined the trends in maintenance therapy in a large group of patients (2530) transplanted at a single institution over two decades. Majority (n = 1958; 77%) had an ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis (early ASCT). Maintenance was employed in 39% of the patients; 42% among early ASCT and 30.5% among delayed ASCT. Most common maintenance approach was an IMiD (61%), followed by a PI (31%), or a PI + IMiD (4%). Patients with high-risk FISH received PI-based maintenance more frequently. The PFS was superior with maintenance (36 vs. 22 months, p < 0.001); 37 vs. 25 months for early ASCT (p < 0.001) and 29 vs. 17 months for delayed ASCT (p = 0.0008). OS from ASCT was higher with maintenance for the whole cohort at 93 vs. 73 months (p < 0.001). OS from diagnosis was also better for the whole cohort with maintenance therapy, 112 vs. 93 months (p < 0.001). The improvement in PFS and OS was seen in high-risk and standard risk disease. The experience with maintenance therapy post ASCT for myeloma in a non-clinical trial setting confirms the findings from the phase 3 trials.

Multiple myeloma: 2016 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies.The diagnosis requires ≥10% clonal bone marrow plasma cells or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of one or more multiple myeloma defining events (MDE): CRAB (hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or lytic bone lesions) features felt related to the plasma cell disorder, bone marrow clonal plasmacytosis ≥60%, serum involved/uninvolved free light chain (FLC) ratio ≥100 (provided involved FLC is ≥100 mg/L), or >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with del(17p), t(14;16), and t(14;20) have high-risk multiple myeloma. Patients with t(4;14) translocation and gain(1q) have intermediate-risk. All others are considered standard-risk. Initial treatment consists of bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (VRD). In high-risk patients, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) is an alternative to VRD. In eligible patients, initial therapy is given for approximately 3-4 months followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Standard risk patients can opt for delayed ASCT at first relapse. Patients not candidates for transplant are treated with Rd until progression, or alternatively, a triplet regimen such as VRD for approximately 12-18 months. After ASCT, lenalidomide maintenance is considered for standard risk patients especially in those who are not in very good partial response or better, while maintenance with a bortezomib-based regimen is needed for patients with intermediate or high-risk disease. Patients with indolent relapse can be treated with 2-drug or 3-drug combinations. Patients with more aggressive relapse require a triplet regimen or a combination of multiple active agents. Am. J. Hematol. 91:720-734, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Myeloma today: Disease definitions and treatment advances

There have been major advances in the diagnosis, staging, risk-stratification, and management of multiple myeloma (MM). In addition to established CRAB (hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, and lytic bone lesions) features, new diagnostic criteria include three new biomarkers to diagnose the disease: bone marrow clonal plasmacytosis ≥60%, serum involved/uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥100, and >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. MM can be classified into several subtypes based on baseline cytogenetics, and prognosis varies according to underlying cytogenetic abnormalities. A Revised International Staging System has been developed which combines markers of tumor burden (albumin, beta-2 microglobulin) with markers of aggressive disease biology (high-risk cytogenetics and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase). Although the approach to therapy remains largely the same, the treatment options at every stage of the disease have changed. Carfilzomib, pomalidomide, panobinostat, daratumumab, elotuzumab, and ixazomib have been approved for the treatment of the disease. These drugs combined with older agents such as cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide dramatically increase the repertoire of regimens available for the treatment of MM. This review provides a concise overview of recent advances in MM, including updates to diagnostic criteria, staging, risk-stratification, and management.

Multiple Myeloma: Diagnosis and Treatment

The diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma has changed dramatically in the past decade. The disease definition has been updated to include highly specific biomarkers in addition to established markers of end-organ damage. The staging system has been revised to combine both measures of tumor burden and disease biology. Advances in therapy have resulted in a marked improvement in overall survival. New drugs introduced in the past few years include carfilzomib, pomalidomide, panobinostat, ixazomib, elotuzumab, and daratumumab. In this review, we outline the current approach to the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of multiple myeloma.

Multiple myeloma: 2014 Update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis requires 10% or more clonal plasma cells on bone marrow examination or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of associated end-organ damage. If end-organ damage is not present, the presence of 60% or more clonal plasma cells in the marrow is also considered as myeloma.

RISK STRATIFICATION

In the absence of concurrent trisomies, patients with 17p deletion, t(14;16), and t(14;20) are considered to have high-risk myeloma. Patients with t(4;14) translocation are considered intermediate-risk. All others are considered as standard-risk. Risk-adapted initial therapy: Standard-risk patients can be treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd), or a bortezomib-containing triplet such as bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone (VCD). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients require a bortezomib-based triplet regimen. In eligible patients, initial therapy is given for approximately 4 months followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Standard risk patients can opt for delayed ASCT if stem cells can be cryopreserved. In patients who are not candidates for transplant, initial therapy is given for approximately 12 to 18 months. Maintenance therapy: After initial therapy, lenalidomide maintenance is considered for standard risk patients who are not in very good partial response or better, while maintenance with a bortezomib-based regimen should be considered in patients with intermediate or high risk myeloma. Management of refractory disease: Patients with indolent relapse can be treated first with 2-drug or 3-drug combinations. Patients with more aggressive relapse often require therapy with a combination of multiple active agents.

Therapeutic advancements in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma survival has significantly improved in the latest years due to a broad spectrum of novel agents available for treatment. The introduction of thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide together with autologous stem-cell transplantation has considerably increased complete remission rate and progression-free survival resulting ultimately in prolonged survival in myeloma patients. Moreover, novel strategies of treatment such as consolidation and maintenance are being used to further implement responses. Finally, a number of new drugs such as carfilzomib and pomalidomide are already in clinical practice, making the future of myeloma patients brighter.

New challenges for comparative effectiveness in oncology: choice of primary end points for randomized clinical trials

Recent advances have led to a steady improvement in cancer treatments. The increasing number of therapeutic options and the corresponding improvement in outcomes pose a number of challenges for comparative effectiveness research in oncology. This review is focused on the choice of primary end points and their interpretation in randomized clinical trials that are designed to inform patients and clinicians on the relative benefits of cancer therapies. We discuss end points that directly measure clinical benefit as well as end points that are thought to be surrogates for clinical benefit. Particular attention is given to the issues associated with the use of overall survival as the primary end point in randomized clinical trials.

Treatment trade-offs in myeloma: A survey of consecutive patients about contemporary maintenance strategies

BACKGROUND

Two randomized trials have demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) with lenalidomide maintenance after autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Overall survival (OS) results are conflicting, and quality-of-life (QOL) data are lacking. The authors conducted a systematic survey of patients with MM regarding what constitutes a meaningful benefit that would make burdens of maintenance treatments (toxicity and cost) acceptable.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was mailed to 1159 consecutive, living patients who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic. The survey provided background information on the standard of care for MM and data on maintenance. Patients were asked to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit that would be acceptable for various degrees of toxicity and cost.

RESULTS

Of 1159 surveys sent, 886 patients (83.2%) responded, and 736 patients returned a completed survey (66% raw response rate). The most worrisome potential toxicity was identified as peripheral neuropathy by 27% of patients, cytopenias by 24%, deep vein thrombosis by 20%, fatigue by 15%, nausea by 8%, and diarrhea/constipation by 7%. If treatment was free, had no toxicity, and the OS benefit was ≤1 year, then 49% of patients indicated that they would choose maintenance; with moderate toxicity, this proportion decreased to 42%. Adding a treatment cost of $25 per month decreased the proportion that would choose maintenance to 39% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that willingness to receive maintenance treatment declined when actual benefits were provided in concrete numeric terms compared with a general statement of PFS benefit. The authors also observed that the magnitude of benefit required to consider maintenance was affected by cost and toxicity.

Minimal residual disease in acute myeloid leukaemia

Technological advances in the laboratory have led to substantial improvements in clinical decision making through the introduction of pretreatment prognostic risk stratification factors in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Unfortunately, similar progress has not been made in treatment response criteria, with the definition of 'complete remission' in AML largely unchanged for over half a century. Several clinical trials have demonstrated that high-sensitivity measurements of residual disease burden during or after treatment can be performed, that results are predictive for clinical outcome and can be used to improve outcomes by guiding additional therapeutic intervention to patients in clinical complete remission, but at increased relapse risk. We review these recent trials, the characteristics and challenges of the modalities currently used to detect minimal residual disease (MRD), and outline opportunities to both refine detection and improve clinical use of MRD measurements. MRD measurement is already the standard of care in other myeloid malignancies, such as chronic myelogenous leukaemia and acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL). It is our belief that response criteria for non-APL AML should be updated to include assessment for molecular complete remission and recommendations for post-consolidation surveillance should include regular monitoring for molecular relapse as standard of care.

Multiple myeloma: 2013 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

Multiple myeloma accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies.

DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis requires 10% or more clonal plasma cells on bone marrow examination or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma plus evidence of associated end-organ damage. In addition, the presence of 60% or more clonal plasma cells in the marrow is also considered as myeloma regardless of the presence or absence of end-organ damage.

RISK STRATIFICATION

In the absence of concurrent trisomies, patients with 17p deletion, t(14;16), and t(14;20) are considered to have high-risk myeloma. Patients with t(4;14) translocation are considered intermediate-risk. All others are considered as standard-risk. RISK-ADAPTED INITIAL THERAPY: Standard-risk patients can be treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd), or a bortezomib-containing triplet such as bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone (VCD). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients require a bortezomib-based triplet regimen. In eligible patients, initial therapy is given for approximately 4 months followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Standard-risk patients can opt for delayed ASCT if stem cells can be cryopreserved. In patients are not candidates for transplant, initial therapy is given for approximately 12-18 months.

MAINTENANCE THERAPY

After initial therapy, lenalidomide maintenance is considered for standard-risk patients who are not in very good partial response or better, while maintenance with a bortezomib-based regimen should be considered in pateints with intermediate or high-risk myeloma.

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.