Citations

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. 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; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. 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. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.

Abstract Abstract 956 Background: Autologous SCT has been an integral part of myeloma therapy since randomized trials demonstrated improved survival for SCT compared to conventional therapy. However, the conventional treatment of MM has changed with the introduction of novel therapies such as IMiDs and there is an increasing trend towards delaying SCT. While trials in the pre-novel agent area have shown equivalent outcomes with early or delayed SCT, it is not clear if this holds true with novel agent induction. Patients and methods: We reviewed the outcome of patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received initial therapy with thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) or lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LD) (n=410). All patients in whom a stem cell harvest was attempted (started on growth factor irrespective of collection success; n=292, 71%) were included as a method to identify transplant eligible patients. Patients undergoing SCT within 12 months of diagnosis and in whom the SCT was performed within 2 months of stem cell harvest were considered in the early SCT group vs. delayed SCT for the remaining patients irrespective of whether an SCT was actually done (immediate vs. collect and store approach). Variables were compared between the groups using a chi-square or t-test as appropriate. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan Meier method and compared using log rank test. Results: Among the 292 transplant eligible patients, 125 (43%) received TD and 167 (57%) received LD as initial therapy. An early SCT approach was undertaken in 174 patients 60%, with the remaining 118 in the delayed group, 46 of whom have been transplanted to date. The median estimated follow up for the entire group was 54 months from diagnosis, 52 and 61 months respectively for the early and delayed groups. The median estimated time to SCT was 5.3 months among the early group compared to 39 months in the delayed group COMMENTS/* MERGEFORMAT . 83 (66%) patients receiving TD had an early SCT compared to 91 (55%) patients in the LD group; p =0.04. At baseline, the groups were comparable for age and gender. The median overall survival from diagnosis was 86 months for the early SCT compared to NR for the late SCT; P=0.3. The median OS was similar between the Early and Delayed group in the TD group (86 vs. 64 months respectively) as well as in the LD group (NR for either group; 82% vs. 86% at 4 years respectively). Conclusion: In this group of newly diagnosed patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide as initial therapy, an approach of continued initial therapy and delayed transplant at the time of first relapse appears comparable to upfront transplant. This is consistent with the findings of randomized trials in the setting of alkylator based initial therapies. The timing of transplant in the era of novel agents remains the top question on the mind of physicians and patients, and this is the first study to examine this very important question. The rationale governing the decision to go forward with an early SCT or delayed transplant is difficult to ascertain for any particular patient in this retrospective study. These findings should be confirmed in prospective randomized trials. Disclosures: Kumar: celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractThe objective of this case-control study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (len/dex) versus thalidomide plus dexamethasone (thal/dex) as initial therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma. We retrospectively studied 411 newly diagnosed patients treated with len/dex (228) or thal/dex (183) at the Mayo Clinic. The differences were similar in a matched-pair analysis that adjusted for age, sex, transplantation status, and dexamethasone dose. The proportions of patients achieving at least a partial response to len/dex and thal/dex were 80.3% versus 61.2%, respectively (P < .001); very good partial response rates were 34.2% and 12.0%, respectively (P < .001). Patients receiving len/dex had longer time to progression (median, 27.4 vs 17.2 months; P = .019), progression-free survival (median, 26.7 vs 17.1 months; P = .036), and overall survival (median not reached vs 57.2 months; P = .018). A similar proportion of patients in the 2 groups experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6%, P = .568). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities of len/dex were hematologic, mainly neutropenia (14.6% vs 0.6%, P < .001); the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, P = .058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, P < .001). Len/dex appears well-tolerated and more effective than thal/dex. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.