Miceli, Teresa

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation is an effective therapy for patients with multiple myeloma. We and others have previously reported the influence of lenalidomide based regimens on the ability to harvest adequate number of stem cells for successful transplantation. In order to identify factors predicting for poor mobilization we studied a large group of patients who underwent an attempt at stem cell mobilization after receiving lenalidomide and dexamethasone as primary therapy for myeloma. Methods: We identified sequential patients who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone as initial therapy for their myeloma and then underwent stem cell mobilization for immediate or future stem cell transplantation. Patients who received any other regimen prior to the stem cell mobilization were excluded. Between July 2004 and May 2008, 106 patients, satisfying the above criteria were identified from the Mayo Clinic transplant database. Medical records and collection sheets were examined for the data. Results: The median (range) age at mobilization was 60 yrs (29–75); 34 (32%) were over 65 yrs and 59 (55%) were males. The median duration of lenalidomide therapy was 4 months (range; 1–13). The strategy for stem cell mobilization was GCSF alone in 92 patients (87%), cyclophosphamide (CTX) and GCSF in 11 pts and 3 pts received AMD3100 and GCSF. Among the GCSF mobilized patients, 10 pts (11%) failed to collect at least 2.5 million cells required for one transplant, including 8 patients who never achieved the minimum peripheral count threshold to initiate the collection. Two of the 11 pts undergoing primary mobilization with CTX/GCSF failed to collect any cells, while all of the 3 pts mobilized with AMD3100 were successful. Five of these pts subsequently underwent successful salvage mobilization with CTX/GCSF, 1 with AMD3100, one failed to mobilize with CTX and the rest did not repeat mobilization. Given that the total CD34 collection and the number of days of collection are influenced by the CD34 goal, we examined patient characteristics that correlated with the CD34 collections over the first 2 days. Increasing patient age and the duration of lenalidomide therapy, both correlated with decreasing 2-day CD34 collection, while the time between last dose of lenalidomide and the start of GCSF had no effect. We then performed ROC analysis to find best cut-off points that predicted the inability to collect adequate (2.5 million) CD34 cells in 3 days. Lenalidomide therapy of more than 4 months (P =0.03) and age > 63 yrs (P = 0.04) best predicted inability to achieve this endpoint. In addition, a peripheral blood CD34 count < 5/uL on day 5 after start of GCSF was highly predictive of failure to reach this endpoint. Conclusions: Inability to collect adequate stem cells with lenalidomide appears to be related to patient age and the duration of lenalidomide therapy. We recommend early stem cell collection and storage, if a delayed transplantation approach is taken. Patients receiving more than 4 cycles of therapy and those over 65 years should undergo mobilization with CTX+G-CSF, rather than G-CSF alone. Majority of the patients who fail G-CSF based collection can be mobilized using CTX and G-CSF. Early identification of failures after G-CSF administration using the peripheral CD34 counts can potentially allow salvage using strategies such as AMD3100.

Abstract Abstract 2992 Background: Patients with myeloma receiving initial therapy with lenalidomide-based regimens can have difficulty collecting adequate stem cells for an autologous transplant. Stem cell collection in these patients can be significantly enhanced by addition of the CXCR-4 antagonist plerixafor to the mobilization regimen. Plerixafor is typically given subcutaneously (SQ), with collection approximately 11 hours after injection to obtain maximum yield. Intravenous administration can potentially allow more rapid and predictable mobilization compared to the SQ route. We designed this trial to prospectively assess the efficacy of intravenous plerixafor administration in patients undergoing lenalidomide therapy. Patients and methods: Patients who were receiving initial therapy with a lenalidomide-based regimen and were undergoing stem cell collection within 12 months of their myeloma diagnosis were enrolled. Patients received GCSF at 10 μg/kg/day for 4 days followed by addition of plerixafor at 0.24 mg/kg/dose starting on day 5. Plerixafor was administered intravenously early morning (6–7 am) followed by apheresis beginning 4–5 hours later. Plerixafor was administered for a maximum of 4 days; but patients could continue apheresis beyond the 4th day at treating physician discretion. The aims of the study were to determine the proportion of patients reaching a stem cell yield of at least 3 million CD34 cells/kg by second day of apheresis, the safety and tolerability of intravenously administered plerixafor, and the overall rate of failure to mobilize (defined as less than 2.5 million CD34 cells/kg in 4 collections). Results: Thirty-seven patients were accrued between December 2009 – April 2011, and 36 were eligible for analysis. The median age was 61 years (range; 28–73); 61% were male. The median time from start of initial therapy to enrollment was 4.6 months (range; 2.6 to 11.1) and the median cycles of lenalidomide were 4 (range; 3–11). Thirty-four (94%) of the patients achieved at least 3 million CD34 cells/kg within 2 days of apheresis. The median CD34 cells/kg after 1 day of collection was 3.9 million (range; 0.7 to 9.2) and after two days of collection was 7.02 million (range: 1.1–16.5). Two patients failed the mobilization (<2.5 million CD34 cells/kg). There were no grade 3 or 4 non-hematological adverse events and one patient experienced grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The most common grade 1 or 2 adverse events seen were gastrointestinal, namely nausea, diarrhea and abdominal pain or bloating. Grade 1 dizziness was reported in 8 patients. Overall, the infusion was well tolerated. Conclusion: Intravenously administered plerixafor is an effective strategy for mobilization in this patient group with low rate of failure to mobilize. It is well tolerated with toxicity comparable to the SQ administration. It also offers flexibility in patient scheduling with a convenient schedule for early morning infusion followed by apheresis later in the day. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Use of the investigational agent MLN9708 for the treatment of previously untreated multiple myeloma. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3211 Poster Board III-148 Although autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has become standard of care for many patients with hematologic malignancies, many patients fail to collect a minimum number of CD34 + stem cells to support high dose chemotherapy and ASCT. Recently, plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, was FDA approved for use in combination with G-CSF for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with NHL or Multiple Myeloma. In February 2009, we commenced a risk adapted approach to the utilization of plerixafor. The study was restricted to patients mobilized with GCSF alone and patients undergoing chemotherapy primed PBSC mobilization were excluded. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization was commenced with G-CSF at 10 mcg/kg/day. On day 4, a peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count was measured. For patients whose PB CD34 was ≥10/μL, apheresis was commenced the following morning. For patients whose PB CD34 was <10/μL, it was measured again on day 5; if ≥10/μL then apheresis was commenced the following morning. If PB CD34 was <10/μL on day 5, plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg sc) was administered on the evening of day 5 and apheresis was commenced the following day (Group A). In addition, during apheresis, for patients whose collection yield was < 0.5 × 106 CD34/kg, in the absence of instrument failure or problems with the collection procedure, plerixafor was added (Group B). Morning administration of G-CSF and evening dosing of plerixafor continued daily until apheresis was complete. From February to July 2009, 174 mobilization attempts occurred; 27 with chemotherapy and 147 with cytokines alone. The 147 pts who underwent mobilization with cytokines alone are presented here. The underlying diagnosis was as follows: Myeloma 61 pts, NHL 54 pts, Amyloid 17 pts, Hodgkin 10 pts, POEMS 4 pts and 1 pt with a solid tumor. For the entire group the median number of CD34 cells collected was 5.5 × 106 CD34/kg (range 0.1-17). The median number of apheresis was 3 (range 1-12). 67 patients (46%) received plerixafor; 37 patients started plerixafor during mobilization (Group A) and 30 patients during collections due to a poor yield (Group B). 12 pts of the 37 received plerixafor on day 4 because of prior mobilization failure or high risk of mobilization failure and are included in Group A. Table 1 outlines the details of mobilization and collection by groups. By disease category, of the 61 patients with MM, 28 (46%) received plerixafor (8 Group A and 20 Group B). Median apheresis in all the MM pts was 2 (range 1-12) with a total of 6.8 × 106 CD34/kg (2.2-16.7). In the 54 NHL pts, 32 (59%) received plerixafor (24 Group A and 8 Group B). Median apheresis for all pts with NHL was 3 (range 1-7) with a total of 4.6 × 106 CD34/kg (range 0-11.4). Overall, only 7 of 147 (5%) mobilization attempts failed to achieve a minimum of 2 × 106 CD34/kg. This compares to a 22% failure rate prior to institution of this risk adapted approach. In conclusion, implementing this risk adapted approach allows poor mobilizers to be identified promptly and for plerixafor to be initiated during mobilization and collection, thereby reducing the number of mobilization failures. In patients who predictably would not have successful collection based on a PB CD34 <10/μL, addition of plerixafor results in a majority of patients achieving an adequate collection. This risk adapted approach may be more cost effective than reattempting mobilization after a prior failure or utilizing combination G-CSF and plerixafor for upfront mobilization. Table 1. Mobilization and Collection data. All patients N=147 Group A1 N=37 Group B2 N=30 No Plerixafor N=80 PB CD34 day 4 Median 11 0 7 19 Range 0-331 0-7 0-32 0-331 PB CD34 day 5 Median 10 4.5 12 15 Range 0-51 2-9 11-23 9-51 Apheresis Yield Median 5.5 4.4 6.0 6.2 Range 0.1-17 3.1-12.7 3.0-12.2 2-17 Number of Apheresis Median 3 3 5 2 Range 1-12 1-7 4-12 1-8 Days of Plerixafor Median n/a 3 2 n/a Rang 1-7 1-8 1 Group A – Plerixafor initiated prior to apheresis 2 Group B – Plerixafor initiated during apheresis Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation is an integral part of myeloma therapy for patients who are able to undergo the treatment. While high dose melphalan has remained the typical conditioning regimen for ASCT in MM, recently there have been efforts to enhance the conditioning therapy by adding newer drugs to melphalan. Addition of bortezomib as well as carfilzomib have been attempted in phase 2 trials. Previous studies have shown that the combination of melphalan and total body irradiation (TBI) is an effective conditioning regimen. Pre-clinical studies have shown that bortezomib can sensitize MM cells to radiation, and based on this finding, we designed a clinical trial to examine the feasibility of combining low dose TBI with a combination of melphalan and bortezomib. Patients and Methods: The primary goal of the phase 1 study was to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of bortezomib that can be added to high dose melphalan and low dose TBI as part of conditioning chemotherapy in patients undergoing an ASCT for MM. The secondary goals were to examine the toxicities associated with addition of bortezomib to high dose melphalan and TBI in patients with MM and to determine the progression free rate at 1 and 2 years. Patients eligible to receive full dose melphalan conditioning regimen for ASCT were included as long as they had no more than 2 prior regimens and had not received a prior transplant. An accelerated design that was later converted to a standard 3+3 cohort design was used for dose escalation. Three patients were treated at a given dose level combination and observed for at least 36 days to assess toxicity. Melphalan 80 mg/m2 was given days -4, -3, with bortezomib at increasing doses given on day -5, -2 along with TBI of 200 cGY given on the same days of bortezomib, timed after bortezomib administration. Stem cells were infused day 0. Results: Eleven patients were enrolled; 6 were males, and the median age was 60 years. Median time from diagnosis was 5.4 months (range 3.4-7.0). Four dose levels were explored with increasing doses of bortezomib (0.7 mg/m2 to 1.6 mg/m2). No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The dose levels and the best response after ASCT are as shown in the Table. The overall response rate was 100%, including 7/11 with a CR or sCR. With a median follow-up of 12.5 months, two patients have progressed; median OS was not reached. Toxicity was mostly hematologic, with other AEs being grade 3 or less and attributable to the conditioning therapy. All patients engrafted their counts adequately. Conclusion: The combination of melphalan, bortezomib, and low dose TBI is a safe conditioning regimen in patients with MM with good efficacy. The regimen should be further examined in the phase 2 setting. Table Table. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria.