Olesnyckyj, Marta

7522 Background: Lenalidomide (len), an analog of thalidomide (thal) is a novel, oral immunomodulatory agent that is effective against multiple myeloma (MM). Two randomized, Phase III trials (MM009 and MM010) have recently demonstrated superior responses and overall survival (OS) for patients (pts) treated with len and dexamethasone (dex) in comparison with dex-placebo. This is a prospective subgroup analysis to assess the impact of prior therapy with thal on the sensitivity of MM to subsequent lenalidomide. Methods: We evaluated 692 pts from both trials (MM009 and MM010). The pts had relapsed/refractory MM, were not refractory to dex and were randomized to receive either len (25 mg daily for 3 weeks (wks) every 4 wks) plus dex (40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 every 4 wks for 4 cycles, then 40 mg on days 1–4 every subsequent cycle) or placebo plus dex. Standard criteria were used to evaluate response and TTP. Results: Pooled data from 692 pts showed superior median TTP (48.1 vs 20.1 wks) and OR (59.2% vs 22.5%) in pts treated with len/dex compared to dex-placebo (p <0.001). Although subgroup analysis of pts with prior thal therapy revealed that pts who received len/dex had significantly improved OR, PR CR and median TTP than pts who received dex-placebo, OR, CR and TTP were highest in len/dex pts not previously treated with thal. Multivariate analysis indicates that after controlling for the treatment factor and baseline disease characteristics, whether or not pt had prior exposure to thal is a marginally significant variable to predict TTP. The risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in these subgroups will be updated on further analysis. Conclusions: Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone-placebo regardless of prior thalidomide in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

7517 Background: Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (Thal/Dex) yields superior response rates versus dexamethasone (Dex) but its impact as primary therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible and were randomized in this double-blind trial to Thal/Dex (Arm A) or placebo plus Dex (Arm B). Pts in Arm A received Thal 50 mg PO daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2; Dex 40 mg PO was given on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Pts in Arm B received placebo instead of Thal, and Dex as in Arm A. Cycles were 28 days long, repeated until progression or undue toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) defined using EBMT criteria. All analyses were intent to treat. Planned sample size was 218 eligible pts in each arm. Full information for one-sided log rank test with significance level of 0.025 (allowing for 1interim analysis) to have 80% power to detect a 40% improvement in TTP (16.8 mo in Arm A vs. 12 mo in Arm B) would be achieved when 282 pts have progressed. A pre-planned interim analysis of the primary endpoint and safety was performed by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). P value < 0.0015 at this interim analysis would indicate that Arm A is superior to Arm B based on an alpha-spending function of the O’Brien-Fleming type. The DMC recommended release of results. Results: 470 pts were enrolled: 235 randomized to Thal/Dex and 235 to placebo/Dex. Median follow-up was 25 months. Median age was 65 yrs. TTP was significantly superior with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, median TTP 17.4 months (95% CI: 8.1 months-NE) vs 6.4 months (95% CI: 5.6–7.4 months), respectively, P < 0.000065, crossing the upper boundary for superiority. DVT was higher with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, 15.4% vs 4.3%, respectively. Median survival was not reached in either arm. Conclusions: Thal/Dex is significantly superior to Dex alone as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for about 20% of deaths from hematological cancers and remains incurable despite conventional and high-dose chemotherapy. Two phase III trials in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (MM-009 and MM-010) showed that lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved response rates and significantly prolonged median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) compared with dexamethasone alone. This current sub-analysis of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone therapy assessed whether there was a survival benefit in maintaining patients on therapy after achieving their best response and what the impact of early discontinuation on TTP and OS was. Methods: Of the 353 patients from MM-009 and MM-010 treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, 32 did not respond. Of the remaining 321 responding patients, 214 had a partial response (PR) or better and 107 patients had stable disease (SD). In this post-hoc sub-analysis, we first assessed the outcome of continuing treatment for ≤10 months vs. >10 months in all 321 patients who achieved SD or better, after they achieved their best response. In this landmark analysis, OS was measured from the time of achieving best response to death from any cause or to last contact. In a second analysis, we assessed the impact of early discontinuation due to adverse events or withdrawn consent on OS and TTP in all patients who achieved SD or better. Therefore, we excluded patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Patients who achieved SD or better and who continued on therapy were compared with those who discontinued. OS and TTP were assessed from time of randomization. Results: In the landmark analysis, of the 321 responding patients (≥PR, n=214; SD, n=107), 223 patients received treatment for ≤10 months after achieving their best response and 98 patients for >10 months after achieving their best response. Patients who continued therapy for >10 months after achieving their first best response had significantly longer OS vs. those who received therapy for ≤10 months (not reached vs. 23.4 months; p<0.0001). At 24 months after achieving their best response, significantly more patients were alive if they continued therapy >10 months vs. ≤10 months (93.8% vs. 48.4%, p<0.0001). In the second analysis, in order to evaluate the impact of discontinuation in patients achieving SD or better, we excluded 134 patients due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 187 responding patients, 72 discontinued treatment for AE (n=42) or withdrew consent (n=30), while the remaining 115 patients continued treatment. Median OS and TTP were significantly longer for patients who continued vs. those who discontinued treatment (median OS: not reached vs. 29.5 months, p<0.0001; median TTP: not reached vs. 13.6 months, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In patients achieving SD or better, prolonged duration of treatment was associated with significantly longer OS and TTP. In contrast, early discontinuation of treatment led to reduced OS and TTP. Therefore, efforts should be made to manage adverse events while maintaining patients on therapy. Furthermore, maintaining treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone after achieving the optimal response ensures a significant improvement in OS for patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Abstract Background: The use of low-dose dexamethasone (Dex) in combination with lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory compound, improves overall survival (OS) compared with high-dose Dex plus Len in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al. 2007). Two phase III randomised trials of pts with relapsed/refractory MM showed that Len/Dex had significantly better overall response (OR), complete response (CR), OS and time to progression (TTP) than Dex alone. Dex dose reductions were permitted in relation to severity of adverse events (AEs). We investigated the effect of Dex dose reductions on efficacy and tolerability of Len/Dex in relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Data were pooled from the MM-009/010 studies for pts treated in the Len/Dex group who had an unchanged Len dose (n=233). Pts were treated with Len (25mg/day on day 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) and Dex 40mg on day 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (for the first four cycles). After four cycles, Dex 40mg/day was administered only on day 1–4. Dex dose reductions were: 40mg day 1–4 every 2 weeks (level -1), 40mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -2), and 20mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -3). Response to therapy, TTP, OS, and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as AEs were assessed. Response rate and TTP were based on data obtained before unblinding (June/August 2005 [MM-009/010]. Results: Of 233 pts in this post-hoc analysis, 177 pts were treated with Dex 40 mg/day throughout the study and 46 received Dex dose reductions. Forty-one pts received a dose reduction due to AEs. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Pts who received Dex dose reductions had a significantly higher OR rate, including a higher CR, compared with those who received standard Dex dose (Table). Pts in the Dex reductions group had significantly longer median TTP, median OS, and median PFS, compared with those who received Dex at the assigned dose. At the end of the study, rates of serious AEs, grade 3–4 AEs, treatment-related AEs and withdrawals because of AEs were comparable between pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who received an unchanged Dex dose. Although most Dex dose reductions were made for an AE, by reducing the dose pts were able to maintain a similar safety profile to those who did not require dose reductions. Grade 3–4 haematological AEs in pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who did not were neutropenia (23.7% and 32.6%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (8.5% and 6.8%, respectively) and anaemia (6.8% and 6.2%, respectively). No febrile neutropenia was reported in these pts. Conclusion: Dex dose reductions improved the efficacy of Len/Dex without affecting tolerability in pts with relapsed/refractory MM. Len/Dex Dex unchanged (n=177) Dex reduced (n=46) P *Most conservative median estimate obtained assuming all censored patients die right right after the censor date Response, % OR 50.8 69.6 <0.05 CR 13.0 23.9 <0.01 nCR 19.8 37.0 <0.01 PR 18.1 8.7 <0.01 Median TTP, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.002 Median OS, weeks* >109.7 >121.9 0.19 Median PFS, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.001

Abstract Purpose: Updated results, including response rate data, from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing thalidomide plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone alone as primary therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts were randomized to Thal/Dex (Arm A) or placebo plus Dex (Arm B). Pts in Arm A received Thal 50 mg PO daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2; Dex 40 mg PO was given on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Pts in Arm B received placebo instead of Thal, and Dex as in Arm A. Each cycles was 28 days long. Treatment was continued until progression or undue toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) defined using EBMT criteria. All analyses were conducted on an intent to treat basis. An independent data monitoring committee recommended release of results. Results: 470 pts were enrolled: 235 were randomized to Thal/Dex and 235 to placebo/Dex. Median follow up is 18 months. Median age was 65 yrs. The response rate (CR+PR) was significantly higher with Thal/Dex compared to placebo/Dex, 59% vs 42%, respectively, P<0.001. Eighty-two percent of patients have gone off-study. TTP was significantly superior with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, median TTP not reached with Thal/Dex versus 8.1 months (95% CI: 6.5–12.8 months) with placebo/Dex, P<0.001. Major grade 3–4 events are summarized in the Table below. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was higher with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, 15.4% vs 4.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Thal/Dex yields superior response rates and TTP compared to Dex alone when used as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. Major Grade 3–4 adverse events Adverse Event Thal/Dex (n=234) Placebo/Dex (n=232) Venous thromboembolism (Grade >=3) 17.9% 4.3% Cerebral ischemia (Grade >=3) 3.0% 1.3% Myocardial ischemia (Grade >=3) 3.8% 2.2% Neuropathy (Grade >=3) 3.0% 0% Any toxicity (Grade >=4) 30.3% 22.8%

Abstract Lenalidomide (Len), an analog of thalidomide (thal) is a novel, oral, immunomodulatory agent that is effective against multiple myeloma (MM). In 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trials. Len with dexamethasone (Dex) induced a significantly higher overall response rate (OR) and complete remission rate (CR), as well as longer time-to-progression (TTP) in comparison with Dex alone. This prospective analysis assessed whether prior thalidomide exposure might induce subsequent resistance to Len/Dex. We evaluated 704 patients (pts) from both trials (MM009, MM010) who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, had not been resistant to Dex and were randomized to receive either oral Len (25 mg daily for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) plus Dex (40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 every 4 weeks for 4 cycles) or placebo plus Dex. Two hundred seventy four pts (39%) received prior thal, while 430 (61%) had not. The prior thal exposed pts and thal-naive pts were similar in regard to age, Beta-2-microglobulin, hemoglobin, serum M protein, albumin and history of previous transplantation. The frequency of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE) with prior thal exposure was higher at 14% with Len/Dex than 4% with Dex alone (p < 0.01). However, the frequency of DVT/PE with no prior thal exposure was similar at 8% with Len/Dex to 6% with Dex alone (p = 0.49). In the prior thal pts, severe neuropathy occurred in 4% with Len/Dex, not significantly different from the 1% with Dex alone (p=0.2). The pooled data from all 704 pts showed that pts treated with Len/Dex, compared with those treated with Dex alone, had superior median Time-To-Progression (TTP) (48 vs 20 weeks) and OR (60% vs 22%, p <0.001). Similarly, among the subgroups exposed or not exposed to thal, Len/Dex was superior to Dex alone in OR and TTP. For the 126 patients who received prior thal, the OR with Len/Dex was significantly less (43%) among 54 Pts resistant to thal than that observed for 72 Pts who had been sensitive to thal (63%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis using Cox proportion hazards model indicated that after controlling for treatment (Len/Dex vs Dex) and baseline disease characteristics, independent and significant predictors of shorter TTP included prior thal exposure, duration of myeloma and number of prior therapies. Len in combination with Dex was more effective than Dex in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma despite prior thal exposure. Results with Len/Dex were superior for those not exposed to thal, suggesting some, but not complete, cross resistance between Len and thal. Len/Dex vs Dex with or without Prior Thal Thal (N=274) No Thal (N=430) LD D p LD D p Intent-to-Treat (n) 126 148 227 203 TTP (med. weeks) 36.9 19.9 <.001 61.3 20.4 <.001 OR (%) 54.0 14.9 <.001 63.4 27.6 <.001 PR (%) 42.1 12.8 <.001 32.2 23.2 <.05 NCR (%) 4.0 0.7 <.001 13.2 2.0 <.001 CR (%) 7.9 1.4 <.01 18.1 2.5 <.001

Abstract This analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with thalidomide. Of 704 patients, 39% were thalidomide exposed. Thalidomide-exposed patients had more prior lines of therapy and longer duration of myeloma than thalidomide-naive patients. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone led to higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + dexamethasone despite prior thalidomide exposure. Among lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients, ORR was higher in thalidomide-naive versus thalidomide-exposed patients (P = .04), with longer median TTP (P = .04) and PFS (P = .02). Likewise for dexamethasone alone-treated patients (P = .03 for ORR, P = .03 for TTP, P = .06 for PFS). Prior thalidomide did not affect survival in lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients (36.1 vs 33.3 months, P > .05). Thalidomide-naive and thalidomide-exposed patients had similar toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone resulted in higher rates of venous thromboembolism, myelosuppression, and infections versus placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Lenalido-mide + dexamethasone was superior to placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Although prior thalidomide may have contributed to inferior TTP and PFS compared with thalidomide-naive patients, these parameters remained superior compared with placebo + dexamethasone; similar benefits compared with placebo + dexamethasone were not evident for thalidomide-exposed patients in terms of overall survival. Studies were registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00056160 and NCT00424047.

Purpose The long-term impact of thalidomide plus dexamethasone (thal/dex) as primary therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown. The goal of this study was to compare thalidomide plus dexamethasone versus placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo/dex)as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with untreated symptomatic MM were randomized to thal/dex (arm A) or to placebo plus dexamethasone (dex) (arm B). Patients in arm A received oral thalidomide 50 mg daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2 (28-day cycles). Oral dex 40 mg was administered on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 during cycles 1 through 4 and on days 1 through 4 only from cycle 5 onwards. Patients in arm B received placebo and dex, administered as in arm A. The primary end point of the study was time to progression. This study is registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00057564 ). Results A total of 470 patients were enrolled (235 randomly assigned to thal/dex and 235 to placebo/dex). The overall response rate was significantly higher with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (63% v 46%), P < .001. Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with thal/dex compared with placebo/dex (median, 22.6 v 6.5 months, P < .001). Grade 4 adverse events were more frequent with thal/dex than with placebo/dex (30.3% v 22.8%). Conclusion Thal/dex results in significantly higher response rates and significantly prolongs TTP compared with dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Abstract This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study evaluated 2 dose regimens of lenalidomide for relapsed, refractory myeloma. Seventy patients were randomized to receive either 30 mg once-daily or 15 mg twice-daily oral lenalidomide for 21 days of every 28-day cycle. Patients with progressive or stable disease after 2 cycles received dexamethasone. Analysis of the first 70 patients showed increased grade 3/4 myelo-suppression in patients receiving 15 mg twice daily (41% versus 13%, P = .03). An additional 32 patients received 30 mg once daily. Responses were evaluated according to European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria. Overall response rate (complete, partial, or minor) to lenalidomide alone was 25% (24% for once-daily and 29% for twice-daily lenalidomide). Median overall survival in 30-mg once-daily and twice-daily groups was 28 and 27 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.7 months on once-daily versus 3.9 months on twice-daily lenalidomide (P = .2). Dexamethasone was added in 68 patients and 29% responded. Time to first occurrence of clinically significant grade 3/4 myelosuppression was shorter in the twice-daily group (1.8 vs 5.5 months, P = .05). Significant peripheral neuropathy and deep vein thrombosis each occurred in only 3%. Lenalidomide is active and well tolerated in relapsed, refractory myeloma, with the 30-mg once-daily regimen providing the basis for future studies as monotherapy and with dexamethasone.