Short, Kristen E. Detweiler

Abstract Abstract 4953 Introduction Primary systemic (AL) amyloidosis occurs as a result of the production a monoclonal protein by a clonal plasma cell or B-cell proliferative disorder. Reduction or complete eradication of the underlying clonal cell disorder is essential for an organ response. Melphalan/ dexamethasone or high dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem transplant is currently considered the standard of care. Bortezomib a proteosome inhibitor is effective in reducing or eradication clonal plasma cells and has been shown to produce high complete hematologic response (CHR) rates in multiple myeloma. We therefore hypothesized that Bortezomib will produce a high CHR rate and hence a higher organ response in patients with AL. Material and Methods Our amyloidosis data base which is prospectively collected was searched for patients with primary amyloidosis (AL) who were treated with Bortezomib containing regimen during their disease course. We identified 20 patients. We then assessed clinical features, hematologic and organ response based on the amyloidosis consensus working group criteria. We also evaluated overall survival and time to next therapy. Results We identified 20 patients who received a Bortezomib containing regimen. The median age at diagnosis was 57 yr (range 43 - 79). There were 12 (60%) males. All patients had clonal plasma cell disorder except one patient with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Median bone marrow plasma cell involvement was 10%. The amyloid protein was Lambda light chain in 12 patients and Kappa in 6 patients. Data was missing in 2 patients. The median serum m-spike was 0.5g/dL (range 0 to 3.5). The median number of organs involved was 1 (range 1 – 4). Nine patients had 2 or more organs involved. The specific organs involved were Kidney (13), Cardiac (12), Nerve (5) and liver (2). Median number of prior regimen was 1(range 0 to 3). Seven patients had received no prior therapy. The remaining 13 patients had received various treatments including oral Melphalan/dexamethasone (9), Lenalidomide/dexamethasone (3), Thalidomide/dexamethasone (1) and one patient who received R-CHOP for underlying lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Four patients had received a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The median time form diagnosis to Bortezomib treatment was 5 months. The Bortezomib regimen was mainly Bortezomib/dexamethasone (17patients), Bortezomib/Thalidomide/dexamethasone (1), Bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (1). The Bortezomib was given mainly in the standard dosing 1.3mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, and 11. Treatment was well tolerated. Hematologic response was seen in 17 patients including CHR (11), VGPR (3), PR (1), and MR (2). Thus resulting in a better than PR response of 75%. Three patients had no response. The median number of cycles to best hematologic response was 4 (range 1 – 9). The median total number of cycles administered was 4 (range 1 – 10). Organ response was seen in 10 patients (50%). These were mainly partial responses was seen primarily in patients with renal amyloidosis. Median time to next treatment was 7.5 months (95% CI: 4-9). Seven patients have received further therapy after their Bortezomib treatment. Three patients received consolidation treatment with Autologous PBSCT although they had all achieved VGPR or CHR. The other four received salvage chemotherapy for disease progression or lack or response, BMT (1), FCR (1), Pomalidomde/dexamethasone (1) and Melphalan/dexamethasone (1). Median follow up of all patients from diagnosis is 12 months (range 2 – 64). The median survival from diagnosis is estimated at 44.7 months (95% CI; 29.1 – 64.8). Median follow up from Bortezomib treatment is 5 months and median survival from Bortezomib treatment has not been reached. Conclusion Bortezomib produced high hematologic response in this population of patients. Organs response was seen in 50% of patients. The durability of these responses is not known, because of the short follow up time. This study suggests that Bortezomib containing regimen may be beneficial in amyloidosis patients. A larger prospective study, looking at single agent Bortezomib or in combination with alkylator agents compared to standard melphalan/dexamethasone or autologous stem cell transplant is needed to help define the role of Bortezomib in primary amyloidosis. Disclosures Lacy: celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.