ALBERT

Description: Abstract 1949 Introduction: There is extensive evidence from numerous studies in the transplant setting that achievement of complete response (CR) or at least very good partial response (VGPR) is significantly associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In elderly myeloma patients CR was a rare event since new drugs has been added to standard melphalan-prednisone (MP). After the introduction of novel agents, CR represents an achievable goal, also outside of the transplant setting. Aims: to assess the impact of response to treatment on time-to-event parameters (PFS and OS) in elderly myeloma patients. Methods: We retrospectively analysed newly diagnosed myeloma patients, older than 65 years old, or younger but not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy and transplant. Patients were enrolled in 3 multicentre randomized European trials of the GIMEMA and Hovon groups, and were treated with MP (n=332), MP plus thalidomide (MPT, n=332), MP plus bortezomib (VMP, n=257) or MP plus bortezomib-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT, n=254). PFS, OS and duration of CR were analysed by the Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the two arms by the Wald test and calculating 95% confidence interval (CI). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the following variables: age at diagnosis (〉75 vs. ≤75 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) stages, type of chemotherapy and best response achieved. Best response was treated as a time-dependent variable. Results: A total of 1,175 patients, enrolled from November, 2001 to January, 2009, were retrospectively analysed. The best response to treatment was available in 1,136 patients: CR was reported in 195, VGPR in 212, PR in 397. Baseline characteristics according to best response achieved in patients who obtained CR, VGPR or PR were similar. Since response rates vary according to treatment regimens the proportion of patients who received MP, MPT, VMP, and VMPT-VT was different in the different response categories. After a median follow-up of 29 months, PFS was significantly higher in patients who achieved CR compared to those who obtained VGPR (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10–0.24; p

Description: Abstract 3029 Background. In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib–melphalan – prednisone–thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib–thalidomide (VMPT-VT) demonstrated superior efficacy compared with VMP. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was the most important dose limiting toxicity. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions. This post-hoc analysis assessed the impact of bortezomib dose-modification schedule on clinical outcomes and safety. Methods. Patients (N=511) older than 65 years were randomized to receive nine 6-week cycles of VMPT-VT (N=254; induction:V 1.3 mg/m2, d 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1–4, d 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5–9; M 9 mg/m2 d 1–4, P 60 mg/m2, d 1–4, T 50 mg d 1–42; maintenance: V 1.3 mg/m2 every 14 days and T 50 mg/day) or VMP (N=257) alone. In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT-VT and VMP induction schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (1.3 mg/m2 d 1,8,15,22, all cycles). Patients receiving VMPT-VT and VMP were pooled together and stratified according to the once-weekly or twice-weekly infusion modality; analyses were also conducted for patients receiving VMP only, to eliminate the influence of thalidomide and of maintenance on efficacy and safety. Results. Patients were evaluated in intention-to-treat: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib infusion. Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups, median age was 71 years. The efficacy data did not appear to be affected by the bortezomib schedule. Overall response rates were 85% with once weekly and 86% with twice- weekly schedule (P = .78), including CR rates of 30% and 35% (P = .27).Three-year PFS was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P = 1.00), and 3-year OS was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). Similar outcome was seen in the analyses restricted to VMP patients: CR rates were 23% with once-weekly and 27% with twice-weekly schedule (P = .54), 3-years PFS was 46% in once-weekly and 39% (P = .86) in twice-weekly group and 3-years OS was 87% and 89% (P = .47), respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was similar in the two groups (44% vs 45%, P = .83), but severe thrombocytopenia was slightly less common in the once-weekly patients (19% vs 26%, P = .08).The incidence of non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events was significantly reduced in the once-weekly: 35% vs 51% (P = .003). Grade 3/4 gastrointestinal events (6% vs 11%, P = .08), severe systemic events (4% vs 7%, P = .09) and grade 3/4 dermatologic events (2% vs 7%, P = .006) were less frequent in patients receiving once-weekly bortezomib. There was a significantly reduced overall incidence of grade 3/4 PN (8% vs 28%, P 〈 .001) in the once-weekly group. The median time to onset of grade 3/4 sensory PN was 4.3 months in the once-weekly group and 3.2 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .10). The cumulative incidence of sensory PN appeared to plateau after 12 months of therapy in both groups. Rates of discontinuations (5% versus 15%) and dose reductions (15% versus 41%) due to PN were also significantly lower in the once-weekly group (P 〈 .001). These results were reflected in analysis restricted to VMP patients, in which the incidence of grade 3/4 PN (7% vs 29%, P 〈 .001), the discontinuation rate (4% vs 16%, P = 0.002), and the dose reductions rate (15% vs 41% P 〈 0.001) were significantly lower in once-weekly group. Despite the cumulative planned dose being lower in the once-weekly group (46.8 vs 67.6 mg/m2), the delivered cumulative dose of bortezomib was similar in the two groups (39.4 mg/m2 vs 40.1 mg/m2). No association of PN with age or other baseline characteristics was outlined. The only significant factor influencing the incidence of PN was the reduction of bortezomib infusion from twice- to once-weekly (p

Description: Abstract 1940 The combination of Melphalan-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (MPR) has shown promising results in elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients. In the transplant setting, low-dose chemotherapy (induction) precedes high-dose chemotherapy (autologous transplantation consolidation). This approach reduces tumor mass, with few side effects, before achieving the maximum cyto-reduction with autologous transplantation. The same approach has been designed for the elderly patients. Accordingly induction with lenalidomide plus corticosteroids precedes consolidation with MPR. A two-stage phase II clinical trial was planned to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Lenalidomide-Prednisone (RP) as induction, followed by Melphalan-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (MPR) as consolidation and Lenalidomide as maintenance in elderly myeloma patients. Unfit patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma older than 65 years were enrolled. No exclusion criteria were included in the protocol, to avoid the selection of fit elderly subjects only. Patients with low blood count, abnormal performance status, hepatic, renal, cardiac or pulmonary functions were enrolled. Patients received 4 RP courses (Lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks, plus Prednisone 50 mg three times/week for 4 weeks) followed by 6 MPR cycles (Melphalan 2 mg and Prednisone 50 mg three times/week, for 4 weeks plus Lenalidomide 10–15 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks) and maintenance with Lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days every 4 weeks). Two different dose-levels of Lenalidomide were tested in combination with MP: 15 mg (dose-level 1) and 10 mg (dose-level 2). Each cohort included 12 patients, with additional 22 patients enrolled at dose-level 2. Patients were evaluated for efficacy and toxicity after completion of at least 2 MPR cycles. Forty-six patients (median age 75, range 65–88) were enrolled. Thirty-six patients were evaluable after a median of 7 cycles and a median follow-up of 8.5 months. During RP induction, the most frequent grade 3–4 hematological adverse events were neutropenia (19%), anemia (11 %), thrombocytopenia (6%). During MPR consolidation, grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (45%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Neutropenia was increased by the addition of melphalan, but both thrombocytopenia and anemia were reduced. Non-hematological toxicities were more frequent during RP cycles and reduced during MPR cycles (cutaneous rash and infections). After RP induction, at least partial response (PR) rate was 67%, at least very good partial response (VGPR) was 17%. After 2 MPR cycles, PR rate increase to 72%, including 22% of patients who achieved at least a VGPR. Conclusions. Induction with RP followed by consolidation with MPR showed a manageable safety profile and reduced the risk of anemia, thrombocytopenia and non-hematological toxicity in unfit elderly myeloma patients. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Celgene Srl: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in combination with melphalan for multiple myeloma patients at diagnosis. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Description: Introduction Several trials have shown that maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, eligible and ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); conflicting data exist about its impact on overall survival (OS). The role of maintenance in patients with a sensitive disease is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis to clarify the impact of continuous treatment in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Methods Data from newly diagnosed MM patientsenrolled in 4 phase III trials were analysed. Two trials included ASCT-eligible patients: RV-MM-209 [melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) vs melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), followed by lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance), RV-MM-EMN-441 (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs Mel200, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). Two studies enrolled elderly, ASCT-ineligible patients: GIMEMA-MM0305 (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) and EMN01 (MPR vs cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of maintenance on PFS and OS in patients who achieved CR. Univariate analyses of OS and PFS were performed. Response was considered as a time-dependent variable with a landmark point at 12 months. Lastly, a multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of maintenance and ASCT as independent variables. Results A total of 1964 patients were retrospectively analysed. Of 1503 patients who received maintenance therapy, 254 achieved a CR and 931 a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR). After a median follow-up of 41 months, a significant 5-year OS (80% vs 54%; HR 0.55, p=0.02; Figure 1) and 5-year PFS (52% vs 19%; HR 0.47, p

Description: Bortezomib (Velcade) is currently approved in USA and EU for the treatment of resistant/relapsed multiple mieloma (MM). Some reports have suggested that bortezomib is particularly effective for the treatment of extramedullary MM. However, there are very few data about the efficacy of this drug in plasma cell leukemia (PCL), a MM variant usually characterized by very poor prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 9 patients with PCL diagnosed between October, 2002, and May, 2006, who had received bortezomib for the treatment of their disease (6 males, 3 females; median age 63 years, range 55–74). Six patients had primary and 3 secondary PCL. Eight patients had previously received 1 to 4 lines of chemotherapy, including autologous transplantation (5) and thalidomide (4). One patient was treated at diagnosis. Circulating plasma cells ranged from 2 to 71 x 10e9/L. Median WBC count was 23 x 10e9/L (range 8.1–113). Two patients had a moderate degree of renal failure, 3 had extramedullary disease (jaw, liver, soft tissues). Del 13 was observed in 4 out of 5 patients with available karyotype. Bortezomib was given using the standard schedule of 1.3 mg/sqm days 1, 4, 8, 11, with an interval of 10 days between cycles. Two patients received dexamethasone and thalidomide, 1 thalidomide alone and 3 doxorubicin and dexamethasone in combination with bortezomib. A median of 4 cycles was administered (range 2–6). Grade 3–4 hematological toxicity occurred in 7 patients, while neurological grade 3 toxicity was observed in a single patient. Infections (grade 3) occurred in 4 patients. Other toxicities (diarrhoea, nausea, skin rash) never reached grade 3. Three patients required red cell and/or platelet support. In 3 subjects a reduction of bortezomib dose was required due to hematological or neurological toxicity. Four partial remissions (reduction of M-component 〉 50%), 3 near-complete remissions (disappearance of M-component at electrophoresis, but positive immunofixation) and 2 complete remissions (negative immunofixation) were achieved (100% overall response), whose duration ranged from 2 to 14 months. In 4 patients autologous transplant procedures were started after response induced by bortezomib. Eight patients are currently alive 7–45 months after diagnosis of PCL. One patient, who had interrupted the treatment after 2 cycles due to herpes zoster, died of progressive disease 7 months later. Our data indicate that bortezomib is very effective in inducing significant responses in patients with primary or secondary PCL and that this drug should be considered for the initial treatment of this disease. Curiously, during the review work, we recorded 3 cases of PCL developed in MM patients under salvage therapies including bortezomib. This intriguing finding, which strongly contrasts with the very good results obtained in patients with previously established PCL, would warrant to be further investigated with “ad hoc” studies.

Description: Abstract 2888 Poster Board II-864 Introduction. Lenalidomide is a thalidomide derivative with improved efficacy. Lenalidomide remains active in multiple myeloma (MM) patients despite previous thalidomide treatment. At present, no data are available on the efficacy of thalidomide in patients previously exposed to lenalidomide. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the sequential use of these two drugs in relapsed-refractory MM patients. Methods. A total of 118 MM patients received lenalidomide treatment and were categorized as follows: 1) patients with no previous thalidomide exposure (T0) (n=24); 2) thalidomide sensitive patients (TS) (n=20) (at least a PR during thalidomide exposure); 3) thalidomide resistant patients (TR) (n=71) (progressive disease during thalidomide treatment). Ten patients in T0 group received MPR at diagnosis while all other patients received lenalidomide-dexametasone as salvage therapy. Median prior lines of therapy in T0, TS and TR groups was 1 (range 0-3), 2 (range 1-5) and 3 (range 1-6), respectively. Fifteen patients received thalidomide-dexametasone treatment after lenalidomide exposure (12 patients received MPR at diagnosis and 3 patients lenalidomide-dexametasone at relapse). All patients had progressive disease during lenalidomide treatment. Response to treatment was assessed according to IMWG uniform response criteria with the addition of MR. Results. No statistical difference was found in the overall response rate (more than PR) between T0 and TS patients (83.3% vs 65%, p=0.18) and between TS and TR patients (65% vs 61.9%, p=0.8). Treatment with lenalidomide-dexametasone led to a significant improved overall response when compared T0 vs TR patients (83.3% vs 61.9%, p=0.04). Lenalidomide was significantly more effective in prolonging TTP in T0 with respect to TS and TR groups (median TTP not reached, P=0.0001) and also prolonged TTP in TS vs TR patients (median, 11 vs 7,5 months P=0.03). Median OS was not reached in T0 group after 48 months (P=0.09) and was similar in TS and TR groups (median 15 months, P=0.5). In the 15 patients treated with lenalidomide first and then with thalidomide-dexametasone as salvage therapy, response rate was: 27% at least PR, 40% MR, 27% NR, 13% PD. Median TTP was 7 months (range 2-30) and median OS was not reached at 40 months. Conclusion. Lenalidomide is highly effective in MM patients thalidomide resistance. Thalidomide is already effective in MM patients pure resistance to lenalidomide. TTP was similar in both groups (7 months). Clinical efficacy of lenalidomide in relapsed-refractory myeloma patients already exposed to thalidomide is similar to the efficacy of thalidomide in patients already exposed to lenalidomide. Disclosures: Guglielmelli: Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Bringhen:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Caravita:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Offidani:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Corradini:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Saglio:Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Honoraria. Palumbo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria.

Description: Key Points Bortezomib-induction/Mel100-ASCT/lenalidomide consolidation-maintenance is effective in elderly patients with excellent performance status. Deaths related to AEs were higher in patients ≥70 years, suggesting the need of a more careful patient selection.

Description: In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib-thalidomide demonstrated superior efficacy compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of the schedule change on clinical outcomes and safety. Long-term outcomes appeared similar: 3-year progression-free survival rate was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P 〉 .999), and 3-year overall survival rate was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). The complete response rate was 30% in the once-weekly and 35% in the twice-weekly group (P = .27). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 35% of once-weekly patients and 51% of twice-weekly patients (P = .003). The incidence of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was 8% in the once-weekly and 28% in the twice-weekly group (P 〈 .001); 5% of patients in the once-weekly and 15% in the twice-weekly group discontinued therapy because of peripheral neuropathy (P 〈 .001). This improvement in safety did not appear to affect efficacy. This study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01063179.

Description: Key Points Triplet lenalidomide-based regimens did not induce any advantage over doublet lenalidomide-based regimens in elderly myeloma patients.

Description: Abstract 827 Background and aims: We have recently shown that a consolidation therapy with bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTD) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients responding to autologous transplantation (ASCT) induces major tumor shrinking assessed by real time-quantitative (RQ)-PCR. Moreover we found that low levels of minimal residual disease (MRD) associated to a better progression-free survival (PFS) [GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial, EudraCT Number 2004-000531-28: Ladetto et al, J Clin Oncol 2010]. We here present the updated results of this study at a median follow-up of 65 months. In the present analysis the following additional issues have been addressed: a) impact of MRD on PFS over time, with special interest to the role of MRD kinetics on outcome; b) impact of MRD on overall survival (OS). Patients and methods: Inclusion criteria and treatment schedule for this study have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010] and included: 1) a documented complete or very good partial remission following ASCT delivered as first line treatment; 2) no previous therapy with thalidomide or bortezomib; 3) presence of a molecular marker based on the immunoglobulin heavy chain rearrangement (IGH). MRD was assessed on bone marrow samples at diagnosis, study entry, after two VTD courses, at the end of treatment and then at six months intervals, up to clinical relapse. Patients underwent MRD detection using either qualitative nested PCR and RQ-PCR, employing IGH-derived patient specific primers as already described [Voena et al., Leukemia 1997; Ladetto et al., Biol Bone Marrow Transpl 2000]. For outcome analysis patients were grouped according to following definitions: a) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by the most sensitive PCR method (nested PCR): full molecular remission (FMR); b) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by RQ-PCR (less sensitive but currently better standardized, according to European Study Group on MRD detection guidelines [van der Vendel et al., Leukemia 2007]): standard molecular remission (SMR); c) post-treatment tumor load above the median by RQ-PCR: high tumor burden (HTB); d) post-treatment tumor load below the median by RQ-PCR: low tumor burden (LTB); e) recurrence of detectable MRD after FMR/SMR: molecular relapse (M-rel); f) increase of MRD levels of at least one log: active disease (AD). Results: Feasibility, toxicity and clinical outcome of the trial have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010]. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled and median clinical follow-up from start of first line treatment is 65 months. 270 of the planned samples for MRD monitoring (86%) were actually received by the centralized lab. So far 17 relapses and six deaths have been reported. Following VTD consolidation, 7/38 evaluable patients achieved FMR (18%) and 15/38 achieved SMR (39%). Three M-rel were observed, two of them followed by clinical relapse within six months. Achievement of SMR proved highly predictive for PFS (5-years (y) PFS 82% vs 44%, p=0.009, figure 1A), as well as the presence of HTB and AD (5-y PFS 35% vs 87%, p